What are the "keys" in Matthew 16:19?

Ok so if Matthew initially wrote his book in Aramaic and later it was translated into Greek that would men the extant copies translated from the Greek are not inspired and therefore the Use of Petros and/or Kepha could be important. As far as baptist go there are many types I find that for instants people who graduated from Gordon Conwell hold more to covenant theology have a slightly different take than those graduating from Liberty with regard to scripture.

 

This is all speculation. The gospel of Matthew was written in Greek not Aramaic. We have only your assertion that it was written in Aramaic. Your "IF" Matthew initially wrote his book in in Aramaic." But he didn't, and you have no evidence that he did. There exists about as much evidence that he wrote in Aramaic as there is that he wrote it in English. None! There is no MSS available, none. It is all speculation, mostly put forth by the RCC to boost their claim that Peter was pope. That is where it all started.

 

Furthermore, your denial of the inspiration of the Scripture is appalling! God has preserved his word. For you to deny that Matthew was not inspired in the Greek language is to deny preservation, which is in fact to deny inspiration.

 

What would your response be if they found (not unlike the Qumran find) an Aramaic text of Matthew predating the greek text? And I still don't see how in either case it supports Peter as Pope. You can infer it but it still inferrence. I think the Catholics rely more on their tradition for validation than this passage of scripture though they use it in conjunction with their tradition. The early church had many Papas (Fathers) or Popes. I just don't think that use of Kepha or Petros supports or denies the Monoepiscopate in Rome.

 

It is still speculation. If I go along with your speculation, God did not inspire the Aramaic. God inspired the Greek. It is like saying the Aramaic is garbage compared to the Greek. The Greek copy are the very words of God coming from the heart of God. That is what God wants us to use. That is what God inspired. That ought to be the end of the conversation.

 

I don't understand this statement.

I know the Aramaic is speculation but is this what you really mean?

Because it sounds like original autographs not withstanding only the Greek translation is the inspired word of God. And I could expand it further and think you mean to say that unless the autographs support your view they cannot be the word of God. Maybe in heaven we all speak Greek? I'm not sure this is what you mean.

 

You don't need to be in heaven for this to be true.

After a couple of posts in most any thread, everyone seems to start speaking Greek (as in not understanding one another) :tongue3: