Christian theology thread for Christians - Deus homo factus est naturam erante, mundus renovatus est a Christo regnante

[Derrick]

People can't even agree as to whether Papias meant Aramaic or Hebrew (not there was a huge written difference between the two). In either case, it was taken up by the later father under the assumption that Matthew, as the most 'Jewish' of the gospels, would not have been written in Greek.

False. The "originally written in Greek" argument started in the 16th century. If we look at contemporary writings from the early days of the Church they do not support those claims at all.

Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, wrote:

If I can weigh in on this matter, Papias was writing in about 110 AD. There can be no doubt he had our Gospel of Matthew in mind when writing, for Ignatius of Antioch makes a very direct reference to the birth narrative only a few years earlier.

Spoiler: Ignatius (107 AD)

Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world, as was also her offspring, and the death of the Lord; three mysteries of renown,which were wrought in silence by God. How, then, was He manifested to the world?A star shone forth in heaven above all the other stars, the light of which was inexpressible, while its novelty struck men with astonishment. And all the rest of the stars, with the sun and moon, formed a chorus to this star, and its light was exceedingly great above them all."

This is a clear reference to the star of Bethlehem from Matthew 2:9-10 and means either, A) there are multiple early independent sources to this star floating around early on, or B) The Gospel of Matthew was in widespread use by the end of the 1st Century and, therefor, was probably the Book Papias was directly referencing. That doesn't prove it outright but it does give good early credence to the idea Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew and did so in Hebrew.

 

[Preacher ✝]

the Aramaic sense that Jesus spoke in from time-to-time, while giving the translation in Greek to make it clear.

As if translation is necessary to give clarity to the words of Christ, or as if someone who is seeking to record the words of Christ would originally do so in a different language than the one he spoke them in. Furthermore Greek was not Matthew's native tongue either. Stop and think about this from a realistic standpoint for moment and you'll see it makes absolutely no sense for the original to be in Greek.

Besides even if the original was in greek (which it wasn't) pointing to petros/petras as if its some kind of smoking gun that disproves apostolic succession is one of the most desperate straw grasping arguments I have ever witnessed.

Christ gave the man born as Simon the name "Cephas" which in Hebrew and Aramaic means "rock." Aramaic and Hebrew are not gendered languages like Greek is. When Christ spoke it would have been more like "You are Cephas, and upon this cephas I shall build my Church."

Furthermore your fixation on the petros/petras element completely ignores the larger context that we have been discussing for the past few pages. The significance of the Keys, the powers to bind and loose, the office of Steward and its role in a Kingdom, the parallel to Isaiah 22:22. How all of it fits together and makes logical sense.

This is a clear reference to the star of Bethlehem from Matthew 2:9-10 and means either, A) there are multiple early independent sources to this star floating around early on, or B) The Gospel of Matthew was in widespread use by the end of the 1st Century and, therefor, was probably the Book Papias was directly referencing. That doesn't prove it outright but it does give good early credence to the idea Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew and did so in Hebrew.

Thank you Derrick, maybe you can get through to him since he can't accuse you of having Catholic bias.

 

[Mad_Dog]

That doesn't prove it outright but it does give good early credence to the idea Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew and did so in Hebrew.

The Gospel according to St. Matthew does read like it was originally written in Hebrew and intended for a Judaic audience.
For instance:
Matthew 6:22-23 “The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!”

That's a Hebrew idiom about being stingy/generous, which makes complete sense given the context of the preceding and following verses. Yet, almost no commentary I've read (including the Church Fathers) pics up on it, because it doesn't make sense to a non-jew to equate "bad eye" with being stingy. So far, I've only found that explanation in the Ignatius Study Bible and the Complete Jewish Bible by David Stern.

Christ gave the man born as Simon the name "Cephas" which in Hebrew and Aramaic means "rock." Aramaic and Hebrew are not gendered languages like Greek is. When Christ spoke it would have been more like "You are Cephas, and upon this cephas I shall build my Church."

God loves wordplay, and puns:

• The word for "man" is ’adam (אָדָם), and the word for "ground" or "earth" is ’adamah(אֲדָמָה).
  • A Bible translation by Chouraqui is hyper-literal, and Adam is called Glebous (or Earthling). It's a bit of a wild read, but well worth it to get close as to the Hebrew experience of reading the Bible as possible. For the NT, his translation philosophy was to translate "the Hebrew behind the Greek"
• The name "Eve" is Chavah (חַוָּה). This sounds very similar to the Hebrew word for "living," which is chai (חַי), and the word for "life" is chayyah (חַיָּה).
• The name of the city is Babel (בָּבֶל). The Hebrew verb for "he confused" is balal (בָּלַל).
• Isaiah 5:7 "He looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold, a cry!"
  • "Justice" is mishpat (מִשְׁפָּט), but God found "bloodshed," mispach (מִשְׂפָּח). "Righteousness" is tsedaqah (צְדָקָה), but God heard "a cry," tse’aqah(צְעָקָה).
    • "He looked for mishpat, but behold, mispach; for tsedaqah, but behold, tse’aqah!"
• Jeremiah 1:11-12 "And the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 'Jeremiah, what do you see?' And I said, 'I see an almond branch.' Then the LORD said to me, 'You have seen well, for I am watching over my word to perform it.'"
  • The word for "almond branch" is shaqed (שָׁקֵד). The word for "watching" is shoqed(שֹׁקֵד).
    • "And the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 'Jeremiah, what do you see?' And I said, 'I see a shaqed.' Then the LORD said to me, 'You have seen well, for I am shoqed over my word to perform it.'"

The Hebrew of the OT is so beautiful, it's a literary marvel, full of

• Parallelism (rhyming ideas, found in Psalms, Proverbs, and the Prophets),
• Chiasm (Isaiah 6:10, the entire book of Leviticus),
• Inclusio (Psalm 8, the entire book of Ecclesiastes),
• Acrostic (Psalm 119, Psalm 111, Psalm 112, Proverbs 31:10-31 ("The Virtuous Wife"), and the book of Lamentations (Chapters 1, 2, and 4 are acrostics),
• Number symbolism,
• Flourishes,
• and so much more.

I highly recommend reading The Hebrew Bible by Robert Alter for the closest approximation to a literary translation of the Hebrew in English, and lots of very deep commentary on the literary aspect of the Bible.

 

[Dagoth AMOGUS]

When Jesus copied and multiplied the fish and bread, did he technically pirate them?

 

[Derrick]

Thank you Derrick, maybe you can get through to him since he can't accuse you of having Catholic bias.

The Gospel according to St. Matthew does read like it was originally written in Hebrew and intended for a Judaic audience.

Ignatius's reference is really quite the dilemma for Atheist scholars. Atheists, hoping to disprove traditional Gospel authorship, have long argued that Papias must be referring to some other lost Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew, separate from the one we have today (as if early Christians would someone lose something as important as a book written by one Jesus's handpicked disciples).

Therefore Ignatius's reference to the Star of Bethlehem in 107 AD puts Atheists in a very uncomfortable position. Either Ignatius was using the Gospel of Matthew we have today, meaning within 50 years people of it's composition people were recognizing it as authoratitve (likely guarenteeing it's Papias's Gospel) or somehow, as early as 107, there was another entirely independent source for the Star of Bethlehem and Virgin Birth story (which would make the Birth in Bethlehem very hard to argue against). It's a no win situation for them all around.


The Truth is all 27 Books of the New Testament (perhaps with the exception of the Gospel of Mark) survive in full today. This is incredibly rare for Ancient History, only half of Tacitus's 30 Books of Roman History and only 3/4th of Livy's History of Rome survive today and shows the dilligence Early Christians took to preserve the writtings they found sacred.

 

[Preacher ✝]

When Jesus copied and multiplied the fish and bread, did he technically pirate them?

No because He owns the copyright.

 

[Cassius Crayfish]

If I can weigh in on this matter, Papias was writing in about 110 AD. There can be no doubt he had our Gospel of Matthew in mind when writing, for Ignatius of Antioch makes a very direct reference to the birth narrative only a few years earlier.

I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. What I'm saying is that we know he's talking about the Gospel of Matthew as have it today, the question is over how to understand what he means about what Matthew was doing.

As if translation is necessary to give clarity to the words of Christ, or as if someone who is seeking to record the words of Christ would originally do so in a different language than the one he spoke them in. Furthermore Greek was not Matthew's native tongue either. Stop and think about this from a realistic standpoint for moment and you'll see it makes absolutely no sense for the original to be in Greek.

You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying as well. There are certain vernacular phrases that aren't going to be clear to a non-Aramaic speaker if you want to give them the Aramaic, so naturally you translate it. All of the Gospels except Luke (I believe) have little moments like this, where the writer will use a phrase directly from Aramaic. Mark 15:34, Jesus cries out in Aramaic, and then the translation is given in Greek. Matthew does the same. John 1:21, Jesus gives Peter the name Cephas, which is followed by the translation into Greek. Given that all three do this, it's a bit strange to say that only in Matthew is it proof that it wasn't written in Greek originally.

Besides even if the original was in greek (which it wasn't) pointing to petros/petras as if its some kind of smoking gun that disproves apostolic succession is one of the most desperate straw grasping arguments I have ever witnessed.

Christ gave the man born as Simon the name "Cephas" which in Hebrew and Aramaic means "rock." Aramaic and Hebrew are not gendered languages like Greek is. When Christ spoke it would have been more like "You are Cephas, and upon this cephas I shall build my Church."

Furthermore your fixation on the petros/petras element completely ignores the larger context that we have been discussing for the past few pages. The significance of the Keys, the powers to bind and loose, the office of Steward and its role in a Kingdom, the parallel to Isaiah 22:22. How all of it fits together and makes logical sense.

I never said it was a smoking gun. I put six statements out that collectively cast doubt on the Roman interpretation, and you only responded to one. That was your choice. To then claim that I'm the one 'grasping at straws' is not a sign that you are arguing in good faith.

That's a Hebrew idiom about being stingy/generous, which makes complete sense given the context of the preceding and following verses. Yet, almost no commentary I've read (including the Church Fathers) pics up on it, because it doesn't make sense to a non-jew to equate "bad eye" with being stingy. So far, I've only found that explanation in the Ignatius Study Bible and the Complete Jewish Bible by David Stern.

How would you feel if I told you that John MacArthur makes this point in his commentary? The Intervarsity Press and Crossway also make the same connection in their commentaries. I'm sure I would find more if I looked further.

 

[CAPTAIN HAPPY]

Nobody even gonna mention the trashbate that happened of Cam's channel?

 

[Venial Sneeds]

When Jesus copied and multiplied the fish and bread, did he technically pirate them?

Thou wouldst not multiply a car.

 

[Preacher ✝]

You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying as well. There are certain vernacular phrases that aren't going to be clear to a non-Aramaic speaker if you want to give them the Aramaic, so naturally you translate it. All of the Gospels except Luke (I believe) have little moments like this, where the writer will use a phrase directly from Aramaic. Mark 15:34, Jesus cries out in Aramaic, and then the translation is given in Greek. Matthew does the same. John 1:21, Jesus gives Peter the name Cephas, which is followed by the translation into Greek. Given that all three do this, it's a bit strange to say that only in Matthew is it proof that it wasn't written in Greek originally.

Oh you seem to have misunderstood. I am skeptical of the claim that any of the Gospels were originally written in Greek. Christ didn't speak in Greek, and all of the Apostles would have had a better grasp of Aramaic or Hebrew.

I never said it was a smoking gun. I put six statements out that collectively cast doubt on the Roman interpretation, and you only responded to one. That was your choice. To then claim that I'm the one 'grasping at straws' is not a sign that you are arguing in good faith.

Okay lets look at your six statements.

1. Jesus uses a different word - a feminine one at that - for 'this rock' than he does for Peter

Christ used Cephas, He did not speak Greek.

2. It is not clear that he refers to Peter as being the rock, as opposed to what Peter has said

Did you not see Mad Dog's post?

'And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”'

Jesus addresses Peter almost 10 times, He was very clearly talking about what He will build upon him, and the authority He will give him.

Is addressing Peter 10 times not clear enough for you? How much clearer does He need to be?

3. Immediately after this he calls Peter Satan in response to what Peter says

He is calling out Satan for tempting Him through Peter, not Peter himself. Christ was explaining that He must go into His passion, and Peter, understandably, lamented this fate and said it shouldn't happen. We know from the Agony in the Garden that His fate was something Christ grappled with, and Satan was the one who repeatedly tempted Him to abandon it. So in Peter's lament He saw the temptations of Satan.

4. As I said on the previous page, the Greek reads better literally as "anything you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose shall have been loosed in heaven," which suggests that God is the binder, and whatever Peter is doing is simply in service of what God has ordained

There you go leaning on Greek again, when Christ did not speak Greek. If His words were meant to be best understood in Greek He would have spoke Greek. Making inferences that rely on a literal interpretation of Greek is dubious at best, especially if the result contradicts the long established views of better scholars.

5. The keys are very clearly connected with binding and loosing - they prevent or permit entry. Therefore the apostles are given the same authority as Peter in ch. 18

It goes beyond preventing and permitting entry. The keys are a symbol of the King's authority being wielded by the Steward. Whatever the Steward proclaims should be treated as if it came from the King. The other Apostles may have similar authority, but they do not have the keys, there may be many administrators, but only one Steward.

6. What does Peter demonstrate here that would be connected with binding or loosing people for the kingdom? His proclamation of Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God. Believing that message is what enables people to enter the kingdom. Rejecting it is what keeps them out. Therefore, proclaiming the gospel is using the keys, which we see Peter doing in Acts alongside and as the unofficial leader of his fellow apostles, who do likewise.

You have things out of order. Peter's proclamation proceeds him being given the keys and powers, it is not demonstrative of their use because he didn't have them yet.

 

[Derrick]

Oh you seem to have misunderstood. I am skeptical of the claim that any of the Gospels were originally written in Greek. Christ didn't speak in Greek, and all of the Apostles would have had a better grasp of Aramaic or Hebrew.

If I can throw my 2 cents in while Matthew probably wrote in Hebrew all three of the other Gospels were almost certainty composed in Greek. Since the time of Alexander the Great Greek had become the lingua franca of basically the whole Mediterranean, and by the last century before Christ the Jews had hellenized to such an extent that educated Jews preferred to write in Greek to appeal to a wider audience (similar to writing in English today).

As a matter of fact the Book of the Macabees (~100 BC) which is a deuterocanonical book found in your Catholic Bible was composed entirely in Greek. Despite being a Jew who lived in Rome Flavius Josephus chose to write his Antiquities of Jews, a book of Jewish history, entirely in Greek (~95 AD) as opposed to Latin or Hebrew. By the time of Jesus Hebrew had been phased out as basically a ceremonial language only for official writings with Aramaic become the language of everyday use, so much so in fact that one of the final books of the Old testament, the Book of Daniel, was written half in Aramaic half in Hebrew. Greek was the language of the Eastern half of the empire, all Roman children who went to school past the age of 12 were required to study Greek, despite how Mel Gibson chose to film his movie the conversation between Pontius Pilate (an educated Roman) and the Sanhedrin (educated Jews) was likely in Greek as opposed to Aramaic or Latin, since it was the one language both sides would have studied. As a matter of fact when Jesus was crucified you may remember the sign above him was written in Hebrew/Aramic, Latin, and Greek (Luke 23:28 ), that was you had the language of the people, the language of the occupiers, and the language that everybody in the Mediterranean could speak.

If Matthew wrote in Hebrew he would have limiting himself to a small Jewish audience, which given his frequent appeals to the old Testament I assume that was his goal. However the other three Gospel writers would have, assuming they wanted to appeal to a wider audience, almost certainly have chosen Greek (I can't imagine Mark or Luke not being able to write in it). Writing in Hebrew for a book meant to inspire the whole world in the 1st century would be like writing your Magnum Opus in Swedish today as opposed to English, it would be extremely limiting to who could read it.

 

[Preacher ✝]

If I can throw my 2 cents in while Matthew probably wrote in Hebrew all three of the other Gospels were almost certainty composed in Greek.

Perhaps, but my point stands that Christ did not speak in Greek, so if you're quoting the words of Christ in Greek it is still a translation from a non-gendered language to a gendered language, and therefore any sweeping presumptions based solely on the nature of the Greek language are dubious.

 

[CAPTAIN HAPPY]

That's a lot of assumption of how what was said when the only copies we have are Greek and they were most surely written IN Greek since all the five Hebrew readers wouldn't make much of an audience when you have almost everybody who is literate be literate in Greek all across the Roman world.
Not to mention the theological implications.

 

[Mad_Dog]

How would you feel if I told you that John MacArthur makes this point in his commentary? The Intervarsity Press and Crossway also make the same connection in their commentaries. I'm sure I would find more if I looked further.

I'm not surprised that protestant scholars have figured things out that have been missed by others. I don't read many protestant commentaries, but I don't doubt there are some high quality orthodox theological commentaries out there.

 

[Preacher ✝]

The Wisdom of Bl. Fulton Sheen

Day 179 - No man can be happy on the outside who is already unhappy on the inside. If a sense of guilt weighs down the soul, no amount of pleasure on the outside can compensate for the loss of joy on the inside.

 

[Slap47]

The Catholic Church isn’t just one option among many, it’s the Church Christ founded, with Peter as its rock and the popes as his successors. Its authority over scripture and doctrine isn’t a later invention but a divine mandate, proven by scripture, tradition, and history.

The issue with this is that its not as clear as Catholics say it is.

The term Catholic was only coined to refer to the church centuries after the religion was founded to distinguish from other groups who considered themselves the Church. The Orthodox Church and Catholic Church also split from one another at the exact same time. Even before all of that the Church had schisms and councils rife with bribery, murder and the thumb of political leaders like the Roman Emperor to decide was was even canon. Even Peter going to Rome and being the Bishop of Rome is debated by scholars... and even the existence of the position of Bishop of Rome existing for the first centuries of the church is debated.

Even the Council of Nicea that gave Christianity its creed was just just the flexing of state power. Constantine (a man who put off Baptism for as long as possible so that he could enjoy sinning for a long as possible) made the position entirely based off of the stability of the empire.

 

[CAPTAIN HAPPY]

The issue with this is that its not as clear as Catholics say it is.

The term Catholic was only coined to refer to the church centuries after the religion was founded to distinguish from other groups who considered themselves the Church. The Orthodox Church and Catholic Church also split from one another at the exact same time. Even before all of that the Church had schisms and councils rife with bribery, murder and the thumb of political leaders like the Roman Emperor to decide was was even canon. Even Peter going to Rome and being the Bishop of Rome is debated by scholars... and even the existence of the position of Bishop of Rome existing for the first centuries of the church is debated.

Even the Council of Nicea that gave Christianity its creed was just just the flexing of state power. Constantine (a man who put off Baptism for as long as possible so that he could enjoy sinning for a long as possible) made the position entirely based off of the stability of the empire.

You can debate each denomination's downturns and flaws all day and the next.
But the fact is that God promised one unified body of the Church, to protect it and that it would never fall, the Bible clearly gives Simon Peter greater attention above other apostles, line of authority is vital for any organization and for all its many flaws and downturns, the Roman Catholic Church is without a doubt the oldest, widespread, most organized one out of all denominations. That is clear, undeniable fact and for Catholics to "claim" that the RCC is that one true church is very reasonable, far more reasonable that any Orthodox to claim that while they're in their own beef about baptism and other things and you don't even need to mention the Protestant circus.

 

[Derrick]

Even Peter going to Rome and being the Bishop of Rome is debated by scholars

You're right in that how long Peter was in Rome is disputed. Catholic apologists will claim he was there 20+ years, St. Jerome for example claimed he was there 25 years which is definitely wrong, evidence suggesting Peter only arrived in Rome after 57 AD, he's absent in the list of 50+ people Paul shouts out in his letter to the Romans, and we know he served as Bishop of Antioch before he was in Rome.

However where I think you're wrong is regarding rather or not Peter went to Rome. I don't know of a single critical New Testament scholar who disputes Peter's death in Rome at the hands of Neronian Persecution, except maybe Bob Price and Richard Carrier, though calling them critical scholars is definitely stretching the term a bit. We have great evidence from the 1st and 2nd Centuries for Peter (and even his wife)'s murder in the city.

 

[Señora Airi]

For my fellow Orthodox, may you have a blessed Feast of Saints Peter and Paul.

For everyone else, may you have a blessed Sunday.

 

[Preacher ✝]

The Wisdom of Bl. Fulton Sheen

Day 180 - If joy be uncommon today, it is because there are timid souls who have not the courage to forget themselves and make sacrifices for their neighbor.