Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

On This Rock
Catholic Exchange ^ | 9/6/2005 | Fr. James Farfaglia

Posted on 03/18/2007 6:29:20 AM PDT by markomalley

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-104 next last

1 posted on 03/18/2007 6:29:21 AM PDT by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NYer; Salvation
Got to get ready for Mass, ping.

5.56mm

2 posted on 03/18/2007 7:02:02 AM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
The name “Peter” had never existed prior to this divine event in Cesarea Philippi.

That is not a true statement !

3 posted on 03/18/2007 12:14:35 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (you shall know that I, YHVH, your Savior, and your Redeemer, am the Elohim of Ya’aqob.”Isaiah 60:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
A much clearer and thorough statement on the meaning of "the Rock" in Scripture is found in this thread...

Religion Forum Research Project:
God is the Rock

4 posted on 03/18/2007 12:44:57 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
That is not a true statement !

Could you share where a person was named Peter (Kipa, Petros, Cephas, Tsuwr) prior to that point?

(Having said that, I do realize that God identifies Himself as "Rock" several points in the OT, but the way I read it, the expression is primarily used as an adjective, with the following exceptions:

And even those do not reflect so much a "Proper Name" as a metaphor (imho).

5 posted on 03/18/2007 2:58:30 PM PDT by markomalley (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus CINO-RINO GRAZIE NO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; ...

Another great article!


6 posted on 03/18/2007 3:13:32 PM PDT by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: markomalley
Matthew. 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this Rock I will build my church,

One method of Hermeneutical understanding of Matthew 16:18
is to do a word study of all the scriptures which were then known
as the Holy Word of G-d when Y'shua spoke these words.
This will allow one to understand that all of the Holy Word of G-d
was inspired by YHvH; the whole counsel of G-d.

The only conclusion that one can come to unless you are
predisposed to believe in man's tradition over the Holy Word of G-d
is that Y'shua was speaking of himself as the "Rock "
e.g.

Genesis 49:24 But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed
[Or archers will attack...will shoot...will remain...will stay] supple,
because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob,
because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel,

Deuteronomy 32:3 I will proclaim the name of the LORD. Oh, praise the greatness of our God!

Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock , his works are perfect, and all his ways are
just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.

Deuteronomy 32:15 ..... He abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Saviour.

Deuteronomy 32:30 How could one man chase a thousand, or two put ten
thousand to flight, unless their Rock had sold them, unless
the LORD had given them up?

Deuteronomy 32:31 For their rock is not like our Rock , as even our enemies concede

Deuteronomy 32:32 Their vine comes from the vine of Sodom and from the fields of Gomorrah.
Their grapes are filled with poison, and their clusters with bitterness.

1 Samuel 2:2 "There is no-one holy [Or no Holy One] like the LORD;
there is no-one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.

2 Samuel 22:2 He said: "The LORD is my Rock , my fortress and my deliverer;

2 Samuel 22:3 my God is my Rock , in whom I take refuge, my shield and the
horn [Horn here symbolises strength.] of my salvation.
He is my stronghold, my refuge and my saviour — from violent men you save me.

2 Samuel 22:32 For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?

2 Samuel 22:47 "The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock ! Exalted be God, the Rock , my Saviour!

2 Samuel 23:3 The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me:
'When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God,

Psalm 18:31 For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?

Psalm 18:46 The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock ! Exalted be God my Saviour!

Psalm 19:14 May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer.

Psalm 42:9 I say to God my Rock , "Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?"

Psalm 78:35 They remembered that God was their Rock , that God Most High was their Redeemer.

Psalm 89:26 He will call out to me, `You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Saviour.'

Psalm 92:15 ..... "YHvH is upright; he is my Rock , and there is no wickedness in him."

Psalm 95:1 Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation.

Psalm 144:1 Praise be to the LORD my Rock , who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.

Habakkuk 1:12 O LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy
One, we will not die. O LORD, you have appointed them to
execute judgment; O Rock , you have ordained them to punish.

b'shem Y'shua
8 posted on 03/18/2007 3:46:58 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (you shall know that I, YHVH, your Savior, and your Redeemer, am the Elohim of Ya’aqob.”Isaiah 60:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; Alamo-Girl

Given you are the Queen Keeper of the knowledge of the Names of God, including THE ROCK CHRIST JESUS on the forum . . . seems fitting to ping you to this.


9 posted on 03/18/2007 4:32:31 PM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS ABLE; LOVE GOD WHOLLY, HIM & HIS KINGDOM 1ST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt

Wonderfully done.


10 posted on 03/18/2007 4:33:39 PM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS ABLE; LOVE GOD WHOLLY, HIM & HIS KINGDOM 1ST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Wonderfully done.

A little bit of research with the help of the Ru'ach HaKodesh.

11 posted on 03/18/2007 4:37:47 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (you shall know that I, YHVH, your Savior, and your Redeemer, am the Elohim of Ya’aqob.”Isaiah 60:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt

AMEN!

I assume you've seen Alamo-Girl's thread on it.

Dr E posted a link upthread.


12 posted on 03/18/2007 4:39:19 PM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS ABLE; LOVE GOD WHOLLY, HIM & HIS KINGDOM 1ST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Quix
I posted this on that thread as well.

Blessings on you and yours !


13 posted on 03/18/2007 4:42:47 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (you shall know that I, YHVH, your Savior, and your Redeemer, am the Elohim of Ya’aqob.”Isaiah 60:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt

this is pretty much what markomalley said...you just reiterated his point.


14 posted on 03/18/2007 6:54:48 PM PDT by Knitting A Conundrum (Act Justly, Love Mercy, and Walk Humbly With God Micah 6:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

#3 and the dissenters are here already.


15 posted on 03/18/2007 7:04:26 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
On This Rock
 
WAS ST. PETER IN ROME?
 
St. Peter and Rome
 
Did the Apostle Peter Ever Visit Rome?
 
Occasionally Naive and Fearful, Yet Honest and Capable of Repentance (Profile of St. Peter)
 
Saint Peter As Seen by His Successor (extraordinary document from B16 on his preaching and papacy)
 
HOMILIES PREACHED BY FATHER ALTIER ON THE FEAST OF SAINTS PETER AND PAUL
 
Peter, Witness of the Resurrection (Papal preparations for Easter 2006)
 
The Fraternal Society of St. Peter on EWTN
 
Saint Peter and the Vatican, the Legacy of the Popes
 
Saint Peter and The Vatican - Legacy of the Popes

16 posted on 03/18/2007 7:34:40 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
FEBRUARY 22, CHAIR OF PETER, APOSTLE

St. Peter's Chair at Rome

Harry Potter and the Chair of Peter (Lead us not into temptation has meaning to Benedict XVI)

Today's the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter

Chairman of the Barque - Feast of the Chair of St. Peter

17 posted on 03/18/2007 7:36:00 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt; Dr. Eckleburg
If you actually read my response, you'd note what I said, precisely:
Could you share where a person was named Peter (Kipa, Petros, Cephas, Tsuwr) prior to that point?

(Having said that, I do realize that God identifies Himself as "Rock" several points in the OT, but the way I read it, the expression is primarily used as an adjective, with the following exceptions:

  • 2Sa 23:3 (Rock of Israel)
  • Isa 30:29 (Rock of Israel [RSV])
  • Isa 44:8 (There is no Rock[RSV])
  • Hab 1:12 (and thou, O Rock[RSV])

And even those do not reflect so much a "Proper Name" as a metaphor (imho).

Bottom line, you didn't need to repeat a superset of those citations I already referenced. To do so insults the work that I already cited. Further, you missed several of the citations where Tsuwr was translated as some other word than "rock" in the KJV. I have a feeling that you must be using a Young's Concordance (that is a weakness of that particular tome).

BTW, as a point of interest, petros is the Greek, kipa is the Aramaic, cephas is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic, and Tsuwr is an English transliteration of the Hebrew.

First point of clarification, I do not contest (nor would I ever be so presumptuous to do so) that God identifies Himself as "the Rock" throughout the OT. If you would be so good as to read my post #4, you would see that I clearly make that statement.

Second point of clarification, the question I asked in post #4 was,

Could you share where a person was named Peter (Kipa, Petros, Cephas, Tsuwr) prior to that point?

That question was prompted due to XeniaSt's comment, That is not a true statement !

This comment was made in response to the following in the original article:

Even as He conferred the authority, Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter; i.e., “rock.” The name “Peter” had never existed prior to this divine event in Cesarea Philippi.

So if you could attempt to answer the question I posed in post #4 or, again, above, I would appreciate it.

Please to note, I, again, am not questioning that God calls Himself 'the Rock' at many points throughout the OT. I am also not trying to get into a petros vs petra argument here. Although we might disagree about the interpretation of petros and petra, I am not arguing that 'petra' is a much larger scale than 'petros.' So I would appreciate you answering my question...not answering some other question that you may attempt to read into my words. Thank you.

18 posted on 03/18/2007 7:57:59 PM PDT by markomalley (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus CINO-RINO GRAZIE NO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Quix; Dr. Eckleburg; XeniaSt; markomalley; Salvation; kosta50
Thank you so much for the ping! And thank you, Dr. Eckleburg, for linking to the research thread!

Indeed, the Name of God, the Rock, was specially announced in Deut 32:4 which is part of the Song of Moses which will be sung in heaven (Revelation).

The Name was lost in the Septuagint and the Vulgate. But the apostles knew:

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. – 1 Cor 10:1-4

All of the Names of God are vital to me because:

And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place.

Ye shall not do so unto the LORD your God. - Deu 12:3-4

For that reason, I pray that whenever any Christian hears any of the questions below, (s)he will respond exactly the same:

Who is I AM?
Who is The Lord?
Who is YHWH?
Who is HaShem?
Who is El Shaddai?
Who is Immanuel?
Who is Adonai?
Who is the Lily of the Valley?
Who is the Rose of Sharon?
Who is Alpha and Omega?
Who is King of Kings and Lord of Lords?
Who is The Word?
Who is the Holy Ghost?
Who is Jesus Christ?
Who is The Rock?

19 posted on 03/18/2007 9:58:59 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
INDEED. Wonderful post.

Thanks.

And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place.

I just finished the last several days several DVD's from last year's UFO conference by a Biblical set of Christians. Some great things. Will try and get you some copies or some such. One was an extensive discussion of THE BOOK OF ENOCH re THE WATCHERS etc.

I suspect the names of those gods to be pulled down would be congruent with the evil watchers who polluted mankind etc. What do you think?

LUB

20 posted on 03/18/2007 10:07:10 PM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS ABLE; LOVE GOD WHOLLY, HIM & HIS KINGDOM 1ST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Quix
I suspect the names of those gods to be pulled down would be congruent with the evil watchers who polluted mankind etc. What do you think?

They would have been out of the picture from about 2100 BC forward, so I doubt it. The watchers were imprisoned (Jude) with the Noah flood. (Enoch) Their children (Gen 6) however were to be destroyed in the flood (Enoch).

21 posted on 03/18/2007 10:32:41 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NYer

please remove me from the catholic ping list. Thank you


22 posted on 03/19/2007 1:58:46 AM PDT by TheStickman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; Dr. Eckleburg; XeniaSt; markomalley; Salvation
Indeed, the Name of God, the Rock, was specially announced in Deut 32:4...The Name was lost in the Septuagint and the Vulgate. But the apostles knew...(1 Cor 10:1-4)

It wasn't lost. It wasn't in all Hebrew scriptures. Apparently, the Jewish scribes who transalted their version of the Hebrew scripture into Greek did so because that version dind't have the word "rock" but the word Lord instead.

We could just as easily say the Jerusalem version added it by substituing the word Lord with the word tzuwr (for emphasis, for example), which by the way can mean cliff, rock, pagan gods, etc. and is used for God in the OT twice, as rock 64 times! So there's nothing special or holy about that word.

23 posted on 03/19/2007 6:22:42 AM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

There are only two proper names by which God refers to Himself - I AM and Jesus. The others are colorful appellations but not proper names. Jesus commanded unto Simon bar-Jonah a new proper name - PETER - just as God commanded unto Himself a new proper name - JESUS.


24 posted on 03/19/2007 6:33:17 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

What seems to be lost on the non-Catholic posters to this thread (and a host of others like it!) is the obvious significance of Simon bar Jonah's name change by Jesus. To wit: Jesus is endowing Simon with a name which heretofore had been descriptive of God Himself to signify the authority that Simon, now Peter, would have as the Vicar of Christ on earth. Not that Peter was now "equal" to God, of course, but that he was vested with authority that could be likened to Godlike in its scope.

Jesus left His Church in the custodianship of mere mortal men; He doesn't physically manifest Himself in our day-to-day running of the Church, settling our squabbles or blowing our noses. He left us, guided by the Spirit, to sort these things out in the tangles of our human minds, by grace founded in faith. Human nature being what it is (and God knows it perfectly!), *someone* has to be ultimately in charge. That was Peter's job, the Rock likened in authority to the very God who installed him in the office. He was given the name which means "Rock" to highlight that authority for a culture that would understand the significance of such a name change.

Yet, Peter is dead, and he has been for over 1900 years. God certainly knew that the Church would continue down to our present day and beyond; so, human nature not having ridded itself of a need for a final arbiter in even voluntary associations like the Church, there would be every reason to suppose that Peter's office would be transmitted through time down to the present. It has been...


25 posted on 03/19/2007 6:58:00 AM PDT by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever; Alamo-Girl

There are only two proper names by which God refers to Himself - I AM and Jesus. The others are colorful appellations but not proper names. Jesus commanded unto Simon bar-Jonah a new proper name - PETER - just as God commanded unto Himself a new proper name - JESUS.

24 posted on 03/19/2007 7:33:17 AM MDT by Rutles4Ever

The true names are :

b'shem Yah'shua
26 posted on 03/19/2007 7:34:37 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (you shall know that I, YHVH, your Savior, and your Redeemer, am the Elohim of Ya’aqob.”Isaiah 60:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Dr. Eckleburg; Quix; magisterium; markomalley; Rutles4Ever; XeniaSt; Salvation
That Jesus gave Peter the name “rock” is not in dispute on the research project. But Peter was not unique in being a mortal called “rock” – the term was also applied to Abraham. I have emphasized the similarity:

Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock [whence] ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit [whence] ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah [that] bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him. – Isaiah 51:1-2

However - a big however - the proper name “The Rock” was specially announced in the Song of Moses which was to be sung by the generations of Israel and will be sung in heaven (emphasis mine):

Now therefore write ye this song for you, and teach it the children of Israel: put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the children of Israel. – Deu 31:19

Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass: Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. [He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he. – Deu 32:1-4

And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous [are] thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true [are] thy ways, thou King of saints. – Rev 15:3

I assert that when one binds himself with the Lord’s Prayer and turns around and discredits a Name of God – he is asking for trouble because here also He has put this "song" in our Christian mouths and our own words will witness against us just as much as "forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors":

Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name….

The Rock in Judaism is a common name for God. But the Jews are particularly careful to never erase a Name of God even in casual correspondence, that is why they often use “G-d” when writing in English: The Name of God (Jewish Virtual Library)

Jews do not casually write any Name of God. This practice does not come from the commandment not to take the Lord's Name in vain, as many suppose. In Jewish thought, that commandment refers solely to oath-taking, and is a prohibition against swearing by God's Name falsely or frivolously (the word normally translated as "in vain" literally means "for falsehood").

Judaism does not prohibit writing the Name of God per se; it prohibits only erasing or defacing a Name of God. However, observant Jews avoid writing any Name of God casually because of the risk that the written Name might later be defaced, obliterated or destroyed accidentally or by one who does not know better.

The commandment not to erase or deface the name of God comes from Deut. 12:3. In that passage, the people are commanded that when they take over the promised land, they should destroy all things related to the idolatrous religions of that region, and should utterly destroy the names of the local deities. Immediately afterwards, we are commanded not to do the same to our God. From this, the rabbis inferred that we are commanded not to destroy any holy thing, and not to erase or deface a Name of God.

Jesus Christ affirms the holiness of the Torah (emphasis mine):

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. – Matt 5:18

Now for those who question whether “The Rock” (tzur) was in the original Hebrew from which the Septuagint was translated – from the research project thread:

Background on the Masoretic Text:

IBSS :

The basic Hebrew text is called the Masoretic Text (MT), which is named after a group of scribes in the ninth century that preserved the text and added vowels and punctuation marks. The original Hebrew just had consonants, but a few consonants functioned as vowels. No one would know how to pronounce the Hebrew words unless vowels marks were added. This is a great help in understanding the text. (Hebrew Bible)

There were three different tasks of copying the OT. The Sopherim wrote the consonantal text. The Nakdanim added the vowel points and accents. The Masoretes added the marginal notes. An example is the Kethib (what is written) and Qere (what should be read). There are over 1,300 of these. The vowels of the Qere were written in the text of the Kethib. There are three different systems of vowel pointing, the Babylonian, Palestinian and Tiberian which the Masoretes created. The marginal notes called Masora were mainly written in Aramaic and were like a concordance.

Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls the Nash Papyrus was the oldest known witness to the OT which dated to the first or second century AD. It contained the decalogue. The second oldest were the Cairo Geniza fragments (about 200,000) which date to the fifth century AD (See Princeton Geniza Project). Most of these are in the Cambridge University Library and the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Today the oldest known text of the OT was discovered in 1979 in tombs across the Hinnom valley from Jerusalem. The text is the benediction of Aaron (Numbers 6:24-26) written on a silver amulet from the 7th century BC (Hoerth 1998, 386).

The oldest surviving manuscript of the complete Bible is the Codex Leningradensis which dates to 1008 AD. A Facsimile edition of this great codex is now available (Leningrad Codex 1998, Eerdmans for $225). The BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) follows this codex. The most comprehensive collection of old Hebrew manuscripts is in the Russian Public Library in St. Petersburg formerly called Leningrad. Another important text is the Aleppo Codex which is now in Jerusalem. The HUB (Hebrew University Bible) follows the Aleppo Codex. The Isaiah and Jeremiah editions are now available. For a more detailed study see The Text of the Old Testament by Ernst Wurthwein and Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible by P. Kyle McCarter, Jr.

The Nash Papyrus dating has been pushed back to approximately 200 BC (Hebrew manuscript collection - University of Cambridge Cambridge University Library) Like the Dead Sea Scrolls it contains fragments of Deuteronomy, but not the one we are seeking here.

As to antiquity, Deuteronomy is the second most copied book at Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) – 33 copies, second only to Psalms. Some are copied in fragments like literature, poems or hymns. However, generally speaking, carbon dating of manuscripts at Qumran establish true antiquity of copies at several centuries B.C.

The Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies does not mention any change to the Masoretic Text needed with reference to Deuteronomy 32:1-4. However, although we do have a non-MT Hebrew version of Deutoronomy 32 from cave 4, 4QDt(q) – it only contains lines 37-43. So we cannot read anything into an omission here in comparing the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Septuagint (LXX.)

To see the history of the Hebrew Alphabet, the signs and the care in forming letters in Holy Scriptures: Hebrew Alphabet

To understand the methods of translating Ancient Hebrew - poetic v mechanical v literal.

Extra-Biblical ancient manuscripts in the pseudepigraphra have a few things to say as well.

1 Enoch 96:2 refers to the righteous rising into the cleft of the rock. Fragments of this book were found at Qumran and carbon date to about 200 BC. The scholars suggest these passages were added though in about 100 B.C. The scholars believe the original language was Hebrew and/or Aramaic.

Testament of Moses which is supposed to be a summary of Deutoronomy, but is very fragmented and the parts which would address the name, the Rock, may be missing. The scholars dispute the age of the manuscript but put it somewhere between 168 BC and 135 AD. The bearing it may have (if any) to this discussion is that Moses instructs and assures Joshua to protect the Scriptures (last part of chapter 1) in a manner that suggests there will be another find like the Dead Sea Scrolls as we get closer to Christ’s coming again:

… I am going to sleep with my fathers. But (you) take this writing so that later you will remember how to preserve the books which I shall entrust to you. You shall arrange them, anoint them with cedar, and deposit them in earthenware jars in the place which (God) has chosen from the beginning of the creation of the world, (a place) where his name may be called upon until the day of recompense when the Lord will surely have regard for his people.


27 posted on 03/19/2007 8:50:36 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
The difference is, the word "rock" as applied to God is being supplied by the authors of Scripture. In the case of Peter, it is being directly and vocally supplied by God, Himself. When God "speaks", Creation occurs. The Word is God's utterance of His own Divinity, incarnated in Jesus, so named by the Word, Himself. When Christ speaks the name "Peter", Simon Bar-Jonah became a new creation in Jesus' name.

The gravity of this Divine utterance of "Peter" is commensurate with the Divine utterance unto Jacob of his new name, "Israel". Therefore, to assert that Jesus' re-naming of Simon bar-Jonah to "Peter" is somehow lessened in significance to the applied name of "the Rock" to God Himself the authors of Scripture, ignores the power of God's utterance in Creation. By His utterance unto Jacob, Israel was created. By His utterance unto Simon bar-Jonah, the New Israel has been created.

28 posted on 03/19/2007 9:01:16 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

Re-write for grammar:

Therefore, to assert that Jesus' actual re-naming of Simon bar-Jonah to "Peter" is somehow less unique because the authors of Scripture ascribed it to God Himself in various parts of the Old Testament ignores the creative power of God's Word.


29 posted on 03/19/2007 9:04:46 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Good article. Thanks!


30 posted on 03/19/2007 9:10:22 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
That is an impressive piece of research.

Your notation, 1 Enoch 96:2 refers to the righteous rising into the cleft of the rock, is particularly interesting to me in light of Thayer's discrimination between the Greek words petra and petros.

1 Enoch 95:2 In the day of the sufferings of sinners your offspring shall be elevated, and lifted up like eagles. Your nest shall be more exalted than that of the avest; you shall ascend, and enter into the cavities of the earth, and into the clefts of the rocks for ever, like conies, from the sight of the ungodly;

Having said that, I do not believe that the quote from Isaiah refers to Abraham as "rock," rather, I believe that it refers to God as being that Rock:

Isa 51:1 "Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you who seek the LORD; look to the rock from which you were hewn, and to the quarry from which you were digged. Isa 51:2 Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you; for when he was but one I called him, and I blessed him and made him many. Isa 51:3 For the LORD will comfort Zion; he will comfort all her waste places, and will make her wilderness like Eden, her desert like the garden of the LORD; joy and gladness will be found in her, thanksgiving and the voice of song. Isa 51:4 "Listen to me, my people, and give ear to me, my nation; for a law will go forth from me, and my justice for a light to the peoples.

It's pretty clear that this section is a call for His people to return to Him and cast their gaze upon Him.

Having said that, it DOES appear that there is an allusion to Abraham being hewn out of the Rock; but it is but an allusion, not an actual renaming of Abraham.

31 posted on 03/19/2007 10:03:48 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus CINO-RINO GRAZIE NO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Again, thank you for you exhaustive post and the effort that went into it.

This is not a doctoral dissertation forum but a public opinion forum. We could monopolize the entire bandwidth with available data and still disagree.

You seem to imply that LXX somehow insults God. The LXX verse 4 in Deu 32 is nothing short of absolute praise for God.

When you say "Jesus Christ affirms the holiness of the Torah" you are neglecting the fact that the Gospels attribute Christ's quotes from LXX Torah and not the Palestinian version, as you are neglecting the fact that it is now firmly established that at the time of Jesus walking on earth there were very distinct (four, possibly more) versions of Judaism and Jewish scriptures, the single surviving sect being the Pharisaical/rabbinical one which the Protestants maintain is the only version.

Again, I am reminding you without overwhelming these pages with endless references which can be found by anyone interested enough even on the Internet and certainly in well-equipped libraries, that the Septuagint was a translation by the Jews for the Jews who, escaping Babylonian occupation, found themselves in Greek-speaking lands and acquired languages other than Hebrew (the way American Jews, at least most of them, speak English and very little if any Hebrew), virtually forgetting it.

It would be much more realistic to assume that their version of Deut 32:4 is simply a true translation of the version of Torah they had (obviously different from the palestinian version) in Hebrew then to assume it was deliberately mistranslated or even decptively altered to demean God's name.

If, on the other hand, you are one of those LXX-deniers a la the 19th century Lutheran charlatan Paul Kahle, then of course Deu 32:4 would be a "Christian" alteration. However, it does not explain why would any Christian scribe try to diminish any of God's names.

The Rock in Judaism is a common name for God

One more time, the Rock is used 2 times in the MT as applied to God. It is used 65 times to mean just the rock. It it obvious it is used a lot more commonly to mean rock than than to represent God.

I assert that when one binds himself with the Lord’s Prayer and turns around and discredits a Name of God – he is asking for trouble because here also He has put this "song" in our Christian mouths and our own words will witness against us just as much as "forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors"

How is this connected to the Rock? How is this discrediting the name of God? Where are you pulling this stuff from?

Now for those who question whether “The Rock” (tzur) was in the original Hebrew from which the Septuagint was translated – from the research project thread

You have no proof whatsoever that the LXX was translated from the "original" MT! In fact, given the differences, it is highly unlikely unless the translator was drunk or on some kind of mushroom diet.

Asserting that LXX is a translation of MT is a highly misleading statement lacking any proof. It is an assumption on your part without any evidence whatsoever.

32 posted on 03/19/2007 10:37:33 AM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever
The difference is, the word "rock" as applied to God is being supplied by the authors of Scripture. Er, if you think the Torah was authored by mortals then you seem to have missed the point made by Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. – Matt 5:18

You also might want to reread the Torah and the entire Tanakh for that matter. God spoke to Moses. The Jewish tradition is that the Torah existed before the world, and because God spoke in Hebrew, the Hebrew language is sacred.

Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. – John 4:22

Oh and Jesus Christ is the living Word of God from the beginning (John 1:1). Everything that was made was made by Him and for Him (John 1, Col 1, Rev) He didn’t only begin speaking to man when He was enfleshed.

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. – 1 Cor 10:1-4


33 posted on 03/19/2007 10:56:24 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Actually, Abraham had already been renamed by God:

Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. - Gen 17:5

I can see how you interpreted the passage in Isa 51 to refer to God as the Rock from which Abraham first and then all the Israelites are hewn. But that is a Christian interpretation, not a Jewish one I suspect. The lineage from Abraham is quite significant in Judaism.

And in that respect your interpretation of Isa 51 parallels the non-Catholic Christian interpretation of Matthew 16 - i.e. that Peter is the first to be hewn from God (The Rock) having been the first to receive the revelation from the Father that Jesus Christ is Lord.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Interesting...

34 posted on 03/19/2007 11:11:34 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Er, if you think the Torah was authored by mortals then you seem to have missed the point made by Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount:

But it was authored by mortals. Divinely inspired, yes, but properly speaking, authorship of the Torah belongs to Moses (or the sources of those traditions), inspired by God. It is still the voice of the author conveying Truth, but in a setting dictated by the milieu of the temporal author. Hence, there are two different creation stories at the beginning of Genesis, coming from two different sources, from two different eras, the priestly and the Yahwist. God wasn't being schizophrenic, He inspired two authors of differing backgrounds to present an entire picture.

Still, the reference of "the Rock" in the O.T. does not pertain to a direct quote from God, whereas "I AM", "thou art Peter", "Israel shall be thy name" and "thou shalt be called Abraham" are indeed directly attributed to the utterance of God. The authors of the O.T., who describe God as "the Rock" are conveying, in terms understandable to their audience, the everlasting, ever-powerful nature of God. It's a description, not a proper naming. This doesn't mean it's a false description - by no means, it's most definitely true! But the action of Jesus naming Simon bar-Jonah "Rock" is indeed a unique, creative event BECAUSE it came from the mouth of the Word made flesh, not the inspired reflections of the author.

Oh and Jesus Christ is the living Word of God from the beginning (John 1:1). Everything that was made was made by Him and for Him (John 1, Col 1, Rev) He didn’t only begin speaking to man when He was enfleshed.

How does this relate to the fact that nowhere does God directly state, "I am the Rock", but He does directly say, "Thou art Peter"? The whole of Creation is "And God said..." over and over again. When He speaks, there is Wisdom and Love, and through this Love, Creation. It's also no small detail that God gave to man the job of naming everything around him. To give name to something is to exercise dominion over it. When, instead of man, God gives name to something, that "something" directly and explicitly becomes the cherished possession of God - be it Abraham (father of nations), Israel (the Chosen), Jesus (the Savior), or Peter (the Church). God didn't hand out new names unless something extraordinary and new was being created at His own utterance. Since we cannot find anywhere in Scripture that God the Father names Himself (but to say 'I AM'), it stands that the naming of Simon bar-Jonah as "Rock" is a moment of Creation which cannot be paralleled by the words used by O.T. authors to describe God (not name Him, since God cannot be named by mere mortals who can never have dominion over Him).

You also might want to reread the Torah and the entire Tanakh for that matter. God spoke to Moses.

Yes. And He told Him his name - "I AM". He didn't say, "My name is up to you to decide." Thus, not being empowered to "name" God, the O.T. authors used descriptive appellation instead. (In similar fashion, man was not entitled to see the Lord God face-to-face because we can neither withstand nor contemplate the essence of God in our fallen natures. As such, the Lord condescended to be visible as a pillar of cloud, or as an "angel of the Lord". Yet no one would suppose that God's essence is properly just a cloud or angelic.) God, on the other hand, does have the authority to take possession of anything He chooses, be it a tribal leader (Abraham), a leader of tribes (Jacob), the His own Word made flesh (Jesus), or the preeminent shepherd of His flock, upon whom He promised to build His Church (Peter).

35 posted on 03/19/2007 12:08:57 PM PDT by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
Thank you so much for your encouragements!

You seem to imply that LXX somehow insults God. The LXX verse 4 in Deu 32 is nothing short of absolute praise for God.

Oh no, the LXX does not insult God. And the passage is certainly praising God – but the Septugaint and therefore the Vulgate omit the Name (The Rock) which was being published there. That is the point.

Nevertheless, Greek is not superior to Hebrew. And the Jews would be quick to point out that if God wanted to speak the Torah to Moses in Greek or any other language spoken in Egypt or elsewhere, that is what He would have done. Even in the case of Ezra, the Sanhedrin deferred to the Hebrew:

Sanhedrin 21b

Mar Zutra or, as some say, Mar 'Ukba said: Originally the Torah was given to Israel in Hebrew characters and in the sacred [Hebrew] language; later, in the times of Ezra, the Torah was given in Ashshurith script and Aramaic language. [Finally], they selected for Israel the Ashshurith script and Hebrew language, leaving the Hebrew characters and Aramaic language for the hedyototh. Who are meant by the 'hedyototh'? — R. Hisda answers: The Cutheans. And what is meant by Hebrew characters? — R. Hisda said: The libuna'ah script.

You and I end a lot of otherwise fascinating sidebars on the point of which language contains the word concepts necessary to further Spiritual understanding. I say Hebrew, you say Greek. Emphasis on one or the other causes differences between us.

Again, I am reminding you without overwhelming these pages with endless references which can be found by anyone interested enough even on the Internet and certainly in well-equipped libraries, that the Septuagint was a translation by the Jews for the Jews who, escaping Babylonian occupation, found themselves in Greek-speaking lands and acquired languages other than Hebrew (the way American Jews, at least most of them, speak English and very little if any Hebrew), virtually forgetting it.

And again I am reminding you that despite whatever language the Jewish people learn or speak in the diaspora or as a result of their being Hellenized, on matter of Jewish law – the Torah – the Hebrew language alone is considered sacred.

Qualifications for a Jewish Judge and the Operation of the Sanhedrin

The Sanhedrin was required to hear all testimony directly, and not through an interpreter. It is therefore preferable that its members be familiar with all the languages spoken by Jews around the world.

When a foreign language is used in testimony, the Sanhedrin must have at least two members who speak that language to examine the witnesses. There must also be a third member who understands the language. These three members then constitute a minor court (beit din) of three, who can report the testimony to the entire body. Once testimony has been accepted by a minor court, it is no longer considered second-hand testimony.

The Conversion of Texts

For Frisch, therein lies the weakness. He asserts that the only real way to ensure eternal viability is through preserving the original language of the Jewish people: Hebrew. Translations should be no more than tools to aide in the acquisition of language skills.

"Since the history of sacred literature, if something was not in lashon kodesh ["holy tongue"], it didn't survive," he explains. "Hebrew is the one language that takes any text and transcends it into eternity."

BTW, that is why the Dead Sea Scrolls are so very important. The Essenes withdrew to avoid the rampant Hellenization of the Jews!

It would be much more realistic to assume that their version of Deut 32:4 is simply a true translation of the version of Torah they had (obviously different from the palestinian version) in Hebrew then to assume it was deliberately mistranslated or even decptively altered to demean God's name.

I don’t believe it was deliberately or deceptively mistranslated to the LXX or omitted altogether in the Vulgate. I do believe the translators in both cases didn’t do the Spiritual meditation and physical research necessary to understand the Hebrew word concepts. That is a problem with every single translation from Hebrew as you can see in the above link and is the reason for the efforts of the Ancient Hebrew Translation Project – which explores the ancient text on three bases: poetic, mechanical and literal. It is amazing to see the difference between the poetic translation of Genesis 1 and the others. Most all modern translations of Genesis 1 are poetic.

me: I assert that when one binds himself with the Lord’s Prayer and turns around and discredits a Name of God – he is asking for trouble because here also He has put this "song" in our Christian mouths and our own words will witness against us just as much as "forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors"

You: How is this connected to the Rock? How is this discrediting the name of God? Where are you pulling this stuff from?

The point is simply this: once we have uncovered a specially announced Name of God we are wise and prudent to hallow that Name, because that is what we are praying God to do when we begin an “Our Father, Hallowed be thy Name.” If we pray to God that He hallow His own Name – and we, upon discovering a Name do not hallow it ourselves, indeed if we discredit the Name – we have put an unbearable weight onto the Spiritual scales of justice whereby we will be judged.

You have no proof whatsoever that the LXX was translated from the "original" MT! In fact, given the differences, it is highly unlikely unless the translator was drunk or on some kind of mushroom diet.

Moreover, you have no proof that the LXX is a faithful translation from the non-MT Hebrew!!!

The DSS could have resolved this for us, but although Deut is the most copied of all manuscripts there except for Psalms – the fragments of the non-MT Hebrew version of Deutoronomy 32 from cave 4, 4QDt(q) does not happen to include verses 1-4. In comparing what it has, the IBSS has few differences at all between the non-MT DSS fragments and the MT!

More importantly, the proper name “the Rock” is used by Paul to describe Jesus. And he was trained in the sacred Hebrew language at the feet of Gamaleil who himself was the grandson of Hillel – in the lineage of the authority – sitting in the Sanhedrin, quoted in the Tamud and in Scripture having prophesied about Christianity (paraphrased) “leave them alone, because if it is of God, you cannot stop it and might even find yourself working against God Himself!”

But none of that evidence can illuminate you because you have said on other threads that you consider Paul to be Gnostic and somehow discredit him because he was taught the Gospel of Jesus Christ by direct revelation (Gal 1:11-20) rather than by flesh and blood when the working of God's direct revelation is the very reason Jesus named Peter "rock":

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


36 posted on 03/19/2007 12:14:14 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
And in that respect your interpretation of Isa 51 parallels the non-Catholic Christian interpretation of Matthew 16 - i.e. that Peter is the first to be hewn from God (The Rock) having been the first to receive the revelation from the Father that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Yes...my view may be a little different that is the norm. I can see the petra-petros difference, but not attempting to look at it in the "pebble" versus "rock" terms that so many Proddies use to be intentionally disrespectful of St. Peter. However, I also can appreciate the Aramaic form, where "kipa" is used in both instances. If you take a look at the traditional history of the Gospel of St. Matthew (as captured in Eusebius' Church History), you will note that this work was originally written in Hebrew and then later translated into Greek. Of course, no Hebrew version of Matthew exists; but the Aramaic DOES exist...in what became the Peshitta. Bottom line is that either way of looking at it doesn't destroy my theology one way or the other.

More critical is my view of the keys (Mt 16:19). That is rather unambiguous and the view is formed via Isa 22:22 and other OT texts relating to Eliakim (son of Hilkiah). I do not state that Peter is the King. Jesus is the King. I see Peter's role is that of the King's steward...his "prime minister," if you will.

That's why (for me), the issue of petra vs petros or kipa vs kipa really doesn't matter all that much. In both instances, we know who the King is and who the minister is.

And, btw, you are spot on about Abraham. That's why the use of the word 'rock' may be simply an allusion.

37 posted on 03/19/2007 1:04:36 PM PDT by markomalley (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus CINO-RINO GRAZIE NO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever; Dr. Eckleburg; Quix; XeniaSt
Sigh, your assertion that the Scriptures are merely inspired except when God is being quoted says mountains about your theology, traditions, magisterium, etc. For many of us, the Scriptures cannot be cherry picked.

Nevertheless, to play the game by your rules of engagement, Moses was given the utterance of the song - Ha'azinu (Deuteronomy 32) - in this command spoken by God:

Now therefore write ye this song for you, and teach it the children of Israel: put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the children of Israel. – Deut 31:19

Such songs are divine in origin --- witness the many songs of David, especially Psalms 22 --- even when uttered by a heathen such as Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4 when he had received a vision. And note what happened to Herod when he tried to take credit for his oration:

And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them. And the people gave a shout, [saying, It is] the voice of a god, and not of a man. And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost. – Acts 12:21-23

Now Moses was facing physical death at the very moment he sang the song because he struck the Rock twice to extract the water for the people of Israel.:

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water, and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock: so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink. And Moses took the rod from before the LORD, as he commanded him.

And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock? And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts [also].

And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them. – Numbers 20:7-12

As with the Temple, the Ark, the Garden of Eden/Paradise, the serpent being lifted up – and here with the Rock and the Water – the physical is a "type" of the spiritual.

Note the "types" here. God is the Rock. Jesus is God with us (Immanuel). The Holy Spirit is the living water.

Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel. And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the LORD, saying, Is the LORD among us, or not?– Exodus 17:6-7

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. – 1 Cor 10:1-4

For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, [and] hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water. – Jer 2:13

Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. – John 4:10

He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. – John 7:38

These are Spiritual Truths hidden in plain sight. Thus Moses calls all of Creation to witness the song God gave to him as follows:

Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass: Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. [He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he. – Deu 32:1-4

We ought to pray and meditate over every word of this. It will be sung in heaven. (Rev)

38 posted on 03/19/2007 1:50:48 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Thank you so much for sharing your testimony and for your encouragements!

I also do not engage in the dispute over pebble v rock. My interest is only that God is glorified above all else.

39 posted on 03/19/2007 1:58:01 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

Am so blessed by your many proofs of my convictions.

Thanks tons.


40 posted on 03/19/2007 2:18:02 PM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS ABLE; LOVE GOD WHOLLY, HIM & HIS KINGDOM 1ST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
AG, I love your posts, but I fear that this will lead to sour grapes, and that's the last thing I desire. So, if you wish to continue, I will gladly oblige, hoping that our agreeing to disagree will prevent any negative feelings.

You make two strong statements in your post. (1) The Rock is a special sacred name of God, which is omitted for one reason or another from the Greek Septuagint, (2) Hebrew is a sacred language.

First, the word rock (whether the Rock or the rock) is most commonly used as just a 'rock.' The same word (tzuwr), the very same word except with a definite article (indicating a proper name, not a noun) is used for God — in two instances in the MT."

The observant Jews go out of their way to not spell out the name God and when not using the substitute "Lord" they use a dash G-d so as not to mention God's name in vain!

Can you imagine what would happen if the word tzuwr (rock) were truly considered a holy name for God (holier than Lord)? Why the Jews would be 'blaspheming' left and right and the name would have to be spelled as tz-wr so as to avoid using His name in vain.

Second, you write Nevertheless, Greek is not superior to Hebrew. And the Jews would be quick to point out that if God wanted to speak the Torah to Moses in Greek or any other language spoken in Egypt or elsewhere, that is what He would have done.

It doesn't surprise me that the Jews consider their Hebrew language 'holy.' But there is no biblical reference to support that claim. In fact, many ancient nations considered themselves 'holy' believing they were on the side of their deity and so would their language also be 'holy.'

You are right that the Jews would point out that if God wanted to speak Greek to Moses He would have, but the plain fact is that people claim God speaks in whatever the language is of the person who claims to receive messages from God. I am sure Pat Roberts 'receives' his messages from God in American English! And God spoke Hebrew to Moses and to Paul because they were Jewish! Plain and simple, and not because hebrew is 'holy.'

We could just as easily say that God realized that some of His people forgot their language in Alexandria and Asia Minor and wanted to speak to them in Greek! Hence, the LXX was born by the will of God!

And again I am reminding you that despite whatever language the Jewish people learn or speak in the diaspora or as a result of their being Hellenized, on matter of Jewish law – the Torah – the Hebrew language alone is considered sacred.

The Apostles apparently considered the LXX was Scripture, since they quoted from it so extensively, and never once made a comment that LXX was somehow 'inferior.' Would Christ be quoted as using 'inferior' sources or, God forbid, anything less than Scripture?

The Essenes withdrew to avoid the rampant Hellenization of the Jews!

The Essenes withdrew because of their disagreement with the Jerusalem Temple authorities. Judaism was split into various sects. In fact, the Sadducees, who controlled the Temple, considered only the Torah as 'canon.' If the Essenes were trying to escape Hellenization, why are there Greek texts in Qumran, and why do some of the Hebrew texts agree with Greek Septuagint texts?

I do believe the translators in both cases didn’t do the Spiritual meditation and physical research necessary to understand the Hebrew word concepts.

The Gospels suggest otherwise. The Apostles never write "according to LXX, which is a profane source, this is what Isaiah says...but the correct Hebrew version says this." No, they quote straight from the Septuagint.

Just as someone will remark that not everything Christ taught is in the Bible, what's in the Bible is sufficient and represents what God waned us to know.

We could equally say the same thing about the OT: if God wanted us to read the MT He would have quoted from it, and not from the LXX, therefore we must presume that the LXX provides everything we need to understand the NT that relates to it.

That is a problem with every single translation from Hebrew

We could use the same argument then for translating the NT from Greek into various 'profane' languages.

The point is simply this: once we have uncovered a specially announced Name of God we are wise and prudent to hallow that Name

The you are running into a possibility that someone down the line will begin to worship rocks.

Moreover, you have no proof that the LXX is a faithful translation from the non-MT Hebrew!!!

Except that it is the OT preferred by the Apostles. More importantly, the proper name “the Rock” is used by Paul to describe Jesus.

Okay. So is God referred to in the Hebrew OT twice. In fact it is Paul who asserts that God spoke in the Hebrew tongue/dialect. What other language/dialect would He have addressed Paul?

But none of that evidence can illuminate you because you have said on other threads that you consider Paul to be Gnostic and somehow discredit him because he was taught the Gospel of Jesus Christ by direct revelation (Gal 1:11-20) rather than by flesh and blood when the working of God's direct revelation is the very reason Jesus named Peter "rock":

Rather I find those who close their eyes and pretend not to see what is glaringly obvious to be the ones who are not illuminated by the evidence in front of them.

Peter may have realized that Jesus is the Messiah at that point but he was not ready to teach the Gospel yet. There is a difference between a grain of revelation, and everything being revealed as Paul claimed, in an instant.

There is evidence that despite this narrative, Peter did not shout "I told you so!" when the women told him that the tomb is empty. No, he and John ran like mad to make sure it was true! And St. Thomas, the conscience and the courage of all, admitted to his doubts.

And in Acts 1:6, the Apostles ask "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel" indicating that their idea of the 'messiah' was still very much Jewish. [there is also a varying account on Judas' death, but that's another thread].

As for Jesus calling Peter 'the rock,' Peter was hardly the rock. The revealed truth about Christ was the type of rock of faith on which the Church would be built, and that kind of faith will be empowered with the keys to loosen and bind on earth as it is in heaven. We all know that Peter was not the most dependable 'rock solid' among them. But that's why Christ said that the last shall be the first and the first last. Empowerment works.

41 posted on 03/19/2007 4:04:15 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
My interest is only that God is glorified above all else.

Amen!

42 posted on 03/19/2007 4:08:04 PM PDT by markomalley (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus CINO-RINO GRAZIE NO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
a petros vs petra

Any chance they meant Pteros?

43 posted on 03/19/2007 4:08:18 PM PDT by RightWhale (300 miles north of Big Wild Life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Any chance they meant Pteros?

LOL

44 posted on 03/19/2007 4:40:29 PM PDT by markomalley (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus CINO-RINO GRAZIE NO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
I also very much enjoy your insights, dear kosta50. And I agree that you and I can part ways agreeing to disagree.

But before we do, there are a few points I’d like to get into the record.

The observant Jews go out of their way to not spell out the name God and when not using the substitute "Lord" they use a dash G-d so as not to mention God's name in vain!

Actually, they say this is a misunderstanding. They do to avoid the Name of God being erased.

The Name of God (Jewish Virtual Library)

Jews do not casually write any Name of God. This practice does not come from the commandment not to take the Lord's Name in vain, as many suppose. In Jewish thought, that commandment refers solely to oath-taking, and is a prohibition against swearing by God's Name falsely or frivolously (the word normally translated as "in vain" literally means "for falsehood").

Judaism does not prohibit writing the Name of God per se; it prohibits only erasing or defacing a Name of God. However, observant Jews avoid writing any Name of God casually because of the risk that the written Name might later be defaced, obliterated or destroyed accidentally or by one who does not know better.

The commandment not to erase or deface the name of God comes from Deut. 12:3. In that passage, the people are commanded that when they take over the promised land, they should destroy all things related to the idolatrous religions of that region, and should utterly destroy the names of the local deities. Immediately afterwards, we are commanded not to do the same to our God. From this, the rabbis inferred that we are commanded not to destroy any holy thing, and not to erase or deface a Name of God.

It is worth noting that this prohibition against erasing or defacing Names of God applies only to Names that are written in some kind of permanent form, and recent rabbinical decisions have held that writing on a computer is not a permanent form, thus it is not a violation to type God's Name into a computer and then backspace over it or cut and paste it, or copy and delete files with God's Name in them. However, once you print the document out, it becomes a permanent form. That is why observant Jews avoid writing a Name of God on web sites like this one or in BBS messages: because there is a risk that someone else will print it out and deface it.

Normally, we avoid writing the Name by substituting letters or syllables, for example, writing "G-d" instead of "God." In addition, the number 15, which would ordinarily be written in Hebrew as Yod-Heh (10-5), is normally written as Tet-Vav (9-6), because Yod-Heh is a Name. See Hebrew Alphabet for more information about using letters as numerals.

Also, on the amount of time which elapsed during which Paul received the Gospel of Jesus Christ – you said an instant:

Peter may have realized that Jesus is the Messiah at that point but he was not ready to teach the Gospel yet. There is a difference between a grain of revelation, and everything being revealed as Paul claimed, in an instant.

But here is Paul’s claim – 3 years (emphasis mine):

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. - Galatians 1:11-20

You objected to my claim that the Essenes withdrew to avoid the rampant Hellenization of the Jews.

The Essenes withdrew because of their disagreement with the Jerusalem Temple authorities. Judaism was split into various sects. In fact, the Sadducees, who controlled the Temple, considered only the Torah as 'canon.' If the Essenes were trying to escape Hellenization, why are there Greek texts in Qumran, and why do some of the Hebrew texts agree with Greek Septuagint texts?

I should have been more precise and provided this source reference:

Dead Sea Scrolls (Jewish Virtual Library)

The Essenes

The Qumran sect's origins are postulated by some scholars to be in the communities of the Hasidim, the pious anti-Hellenistic circles formed in the early daysof the Maccabees. The Hasidim may have been the precursors of the Essenes, who were concerned about growing Hellenization and strove to abide by the Torah.

Archeological and historical evidence indicates that Qumran was founded in the second half of the second century B.C.E., during the time of the Maccabean dynasty. A hiatus in the occupation of the site is linked to evidence of a huge earthquake. Qumran was abandoned about the time of the Roman incursion of 68 C.E., two years before the collapse of Jewish self-government in Judea and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 C.E.

The chief sources of information for the history of this fateful time span are the Qumran scrolls and the excavations, but earlier information on the Essenes was provided by their contemporaries: Josephus Flavius, Philo of Alexandria, and Pliny the Elder. Their accounts arc continuously being borne out by the site excavations and study of the writings.

The historian Josephus relates the division of the Jews of the Second Temple period into three orders: the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Essenes. The Sadducees included mainly the priestly and aristocratic families; the Pharisees constituted the Jay circles; and the Essenes were a separatist group, part of which formed an ascetic monastic community that retreated to the wilderness. The exact political and religious affinities of each of these groups, as well as their development and interrelationships, are still relatively obscure and arc the source of widely disparate scholarly views.

The crisis that brought about the secession of the Essenes from mainstream Judaism is thought to have occurred when the Maccabean ruling princes Jonathan (160-142 B.C.E.) and Simeon (142-134 B.C.E.) usurped the office of high priest (which included secular duties), much to the consternation of conservative Jews; some of them could not tolerate the situation and denounced the new rulers. The persecution of the Essenes and their leader, the teacher of righteousness probably elicited the sect's apocalyptic visions. These included the overthrow of "the wicked priest" of Jerusalem and of the evil people and, in the dawn of the Messianic Age, the recognition of their community as the true Israel. The retreat of these Jews into the desert would enable them "to separate themselves from the congregation of perverse men (IQ Serekh 5:2).

A significant feature of the Essene sect is its calendar, which was based on a solar system Of 364 days, unlike the common Jewish calendar, which was lunar and consisted Of 354-days. It is not clear how the sectarian calendar was reconciled, as was the normative Jewish calendar, with the astronomical time system.

The sectarian calendar was always reckoned from a Wednesday, the day on which God created the luminaries. The year consisted of fifty-two weeks, divided into four seasons of thirteen weeks each, and the festivals consistently fell on the same days of the week. A similar solar system was long familiar from pseudepigraphic works. The sectarian calendar played a weighty, role in the schism of the community from the rest of Judaism, as the festivals and fast days of the sect were ordinary work days for the mainstream community and vice versa. The author of the Book of Jubilees accuses the followers of the lunar calendar of turning secular "days of impurity" into "festivals and holy days" (Jubilees 6:36-37).

The Essenes persisted in a separatist existence through two centuries, occupying themselves with study and a communal way of life that included worship, prayer, and work. It is clear, however, that large groups of adherents also lived in towns and villages outside the Qumran area.

The word Essene isnever distinctly mentioned in the scrolls. How then can we attribute either the writings or the sites of the Judean Desert to the Essenes?

The argument in favor of this ascription is supported by the tripartite division of Judaism referred to in Qumran writings (for example, in the Nahum Commentary) into Ephraim, Menasseh, and Judah, corresponding to the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. As the Essenes refer to themselves in the scrolls as Judah, it is quite clear whom they regarded themselves to be. Moreover, their religious concepts and beliefs as attested in the scrolls conform to those recorded by contemporary writers and stand in sharp contrast to those of the other known Jewish groups.

In most cases the principles of the Essene way of life and beliefs are described by contemporaneous writers in language similar to the self-descriptions found in the scrolls. Customs described in ancient sources as Essene-such as the probationary period for new members, the strict hierarchy practiced in the organization of the sect, their frequent ablutions, and communal meals-are all echoed in the scrolls. From the Community Rule: "Communally they shall cat and communally they shall bless and communally they shall take counsel" (IQ Serekh 6:1). Finally, the location of the sect is assigned to the Dead Sea area by the Roman historian Pliny the Elder.

Although this evidence is accepted by the majority of scholars as conclusive in identifying the Essenes with the Qumran settlement and the manuscripts found in the surrounding caves, a number of scholars remain vehemently opposed. Some propose that the site was a military garrison or even a winter villa. The scrolls are viewed as an eclectic collection, neither necessarily inscribed in the Dead Sea area nor sectarian in nature, perhaps even remains of the library of the Temple in Jerusalem. Other scholars view the texts as the writings of forerunners or even followers of Jesus--Jewish Christians--who still observed Jewish law.

As for the rest of it, we can part with the usual respectful disagreements about Greek/Hebrew, Paul, the Holy Spirit, Revelation, etc. See you around on the most interesting threads, kosta50!

45 posted on 03/19/2007 10:01:38 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Thank you for your encouragements, dear brother in Christ!
46 posted on 03/19/2007 10:07:45 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Praise God!
47 posted on 03/19/2007 10:08:18 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Good article

Well, there are now over 30,000+ Protestant denominations each teaching differently. Perhaps if each of these denominations could each self appoint themselves as a President of the US, that would certainly clear things up and bring more order to this country.

Perhaps employees could appoint themselves General Managers and several could be running around teaching a different process to the other employees. I imagine that would be quite profitable?

One would have to be extremely liberal in theology to think God's intention was disordered when the OT and NT teaches us quite the contrary. I find it quite sad that some cannot see this simple connection.

I'd hate to see a discussion of the Lord's Prayer on this site or "Do this in Memory of Me."

The first Protester, Luther wanted to throw out the book of Revelations because he didn't see it as "revealing" and so the sad unrevealing "mysteries" to some continues.

Time to get out the Rosary. Happy Lent!!


48 posted on 03/19/2007 10:29:50 PM PDT by ArchA27 (Catholicism - Est. 33 AD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
I also very much enjoy your insights, dear kosta50. And I agree that you and I can part ways agreeing to disagree

Thank you, AG. Thank you also for the post on the Essenes. Most informative, yet don't miss the opening line "they are postulated to be..." As for Paul's 3 years, he doesn't say what he was doing for those 3 years. the book of Acts contradicts his claim that he went to Arabia before going to Jerusalem.

I stand corrected on the reasons the Jews don't write God but G-d. Thank you.

Thanks for everything. May God bless you.

49 posted on 03/20/2007 12:57:37 AM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
The name “Peter” had never existed prior to this divine event in Cesarea Philippi.

Perhaps not the name, but the word "peter" does originate in the Hebrew Scriptures.

50 posted on 03/20/2007 5:47:34 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-104 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson