Protestants Versus Catholics forum...

[BlalronResurrected]

The Greek manuscripts of Matthew are in themselves TRANSLATIONS of a no-longer-extant "Aramaic Matthew"

I believe the Greek manuscripts must be just as inspired as any Aramaic manuscript that may have existed, since God saw fit that the Greek would be the language it was preserved in.

and of course Jesus spoke these lines to Peter in Aramaic anyway; no one disputes that.

He probably spoke it in Aramaic. But it's also possible that he spoke it in Greek. You have to take into account that Greek was a common language back then which was commonly used by Jews, and many of them read from the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testmanent.

I'm sure Jesus knew Greek since he is the Son of God, hence very knowledgable. When he spoke to Pontius Pilate, it must have been in Greek, because it's doubtful that Pilate spoke in Aramaic.

 

[Habakkuk3]

_______________________

Peter is indeed the Rock Jesus was speaking of, but this does not preclude other rocks.
_______________________

Now yer cookin' with Crisco, Desmios --

and I kept clickin' til it's all Greek to me now !! Yee-haw!!

Ahh!! NOT goin' blind or crazy -- not just yet anyhoo!!

(It's only my second day with this ISP/browser from home...)

Blalron -- I can see a case for the "inspiration" of the Greek of Matthew on the "preservation" angle;
but now, Jesus and Simon Peter, both Galileeans, conversing in Greek together, nawww - seems a stretch...

then why are there so many straight transliterations from Aramaic

like

talitha cumi

&

eli eli lama sabachthani

etc?

----------

I don't know that Peter was fluent in Greek either.

I personally believe he wrote both Epistles attributed to him.

(Many scholars say 2nd Peter is not by him, some say neither is.)

I think they both are, and the reason 1st Peter is "better Greek" is right there in it -- Peter was helped in the 1st Epistle by Silas (Roman name - Sylvanus)

whose help there is no similar mention of in 2nd Peter.

we know from the jail incident at Phillipi that both Paul and Silas were Roman citizens; and as such may have had more formal education --

it's just a logical thing to me to explain that 2nd Peter is really by Peter but lacks the polished style of 1st Peter - Silas was helping Peter "ghost" the first one; Peter was of urgency to get out the second one before he "departed his earthly tabernacle" as shown...

 

[Habakkuk3]

wow - got disconnected...

anyway, Peter speaking in Greek with Jesus at the time seems different than Peter later on in his life writing epistles to the Church spreading around the empire

side item...

Jesus and Pilate conversed -- was it one to one or thru an interpreter?

What language(s) involved?

 

[The Squalid Wanderer]

I was basically stating the First among equals position on Petrine authority.

 

[BlalronResurrected]

A little later the bystanders came up and said to Peter, "Surely you too are one of them; for even the way you talk gives you away ." Matthew 26:73

This indicates that Peter knew Greek (although he had an accent which gave his identity away).

There's no indication that Jesus was using an interpreter when talking to Pilate. So we have the possibility that the two spoke to each other in Greek (although they probably spoke to each other in their native language, Aramaic).

 

[Habakkuk3]

This indicates that Peter knew Greek (although he had an accent which gave his identity away).

Fraid not.

Peter's "accent" that "gave him away IN JERUSALEM" was the speech of a GALILEEAN -- not "speaking in Koine Greek" -- it was SPEAKING ARAMAIC (the tongue of Galilee which was north of Samaria)

that "gave Peter away" in that scenario -- "You are too His disciple -- you speak the Galileean-talk that your Rabbi does!" is what they were saying.

.
.
.

Yes Desmios, I follow you on the "first among equals" thing.

I seem to remember a case where a bishop of one see other than Rome (Dionysius by name) did not have the support of his people(on some matter); & the people took the issue up with the bishop of Rome, in appeal (oddly, the bishop of Rome's name was also Dionysius).

So from Rome came a letter:

Dionysius,
This is Dionysius,
Yer people are right, yer wrong.

That was before things got too "schizzed out", right?

That was "the way it was always sposed ta werk" so to speak.

Well, ya caint blame it on any Protestants that it didn't hold up, now, kin ye?

Peace.

And the bishop of Rome

 

[The Squalid Wanderer]

About 260 Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria wrote his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor against Sabellianism in which he expressed himself with inexactness as to the Logos and its relation to God the Father. Upon this an accusation against him was laid before Pope Dionysius who called a synod at Rome about 260 for the settlement of the matter. The pope issued, in his own name and that of the council, an important doctrinal letter in which, first, the erroneous doctrine of Sabellius was again condemned and, then, the false opinions of those were rejected who, like the Marcionites, in a similar manner separate the Divine monarchy into three entirely distinct hypostases or who represent the Son of God as a created being, while the Holy Scriptures declare Him to have been begotten passages in the Bible, such as Deut., xxxii, 6, Prov., viii, 22, cannot be cited in support of false doctrines such as these. Along with this doctrinal epistle Pope Dionysius sent a separate letter to the Alexandrian Bishop in which the latter was called on to explain his views. This Dionysius of Alexandria did in his "Apologia". According to the ancient practice of the Roman Church Dionysius also extended his care to the faithful of distant lands. When the Christians of Cappadocia were in great distress from the marauding incursions of the Goths, the pope addressed a consolatory letter to the Church of Caesarea and sent a large sum of money by messengers for the redemption of enslaved Christians. The great synod of Antioch which deposed Paul of Samosata sent a circular letter to Pope Dionysius and Bishop Maximus of Alexandria concerning its proceedings. After death the body of Dionysius was buried in the papal crypt in the catacomb of Callistus.

None of this implies the Supremacy of Jurisdiction. Primacy of Honor, definitely, tremendous respect for the Pope, which at even at that early time was well known as a bastion of orthodoxy, yes, but jurisdiction, no.

 

[Habakkuk3]

Thx fer those extree details, Desimus, on the two Dionysii!

 

[The Squalid Wanderer]