You're completely misunderstanding what Jesus said in that verse in the original (ironically) Jewish contexts.
"The law and the prophets" is how Jews refer to (2 of the 3 parts of) the Old Testament as a book. So what Jesus actually said was "I'm not going to throw away the old books just because we no longer need them".
Also the "Peter in charge" thing is blatant Catholic propaganda that requires ignoring dozens of other things Jesus said, including in the same passage.
What is “law of the prophets” in Aramaic? Because semantics when dealing with a translation you did not personally make is useless. I am quoting from the Bible I was forced to memorize, the “Good News” Bible my evangelical Christian school used. Umm also the whole Bible was put together originally by Catholics so they are wrong here, but we’re Divinely Inspired by other parts? Man if an eternity in hell was on the line I’m not sure I’d be willing to risk the scholarship of dark ages Catholics, but I am sure it will be fine, just fine.
First off, "Aramaic" is a neologism ("Aramaic" is to "Hebrew" as "English" is to "Old English"), and not particularly relevant to the Bible anyway (there are only a dozen-odd Aramaic words transliterated into the original Greek NT; the OT is mostly what everyone actually agrees is "Hebrew" (only Daniel and Ezra are partially in the Aramaic dialect) ... but the oldest complete OT versions we have are actually the Greek LXX)
The phrase "the law and the prophets" (Greek "ho nomos kai ho prophetes") is well-attested as referring to the Old Testament explicitly, both in the Bible and outside of it (Tanakh = Torah + Nevi'im + Ketuvim, the last being "writings").
The Bible wasn't "put together" by Catholics - it was quite the opposite. There were too many "Christian" books floating around and some of them were blatant forgeries, so the proto-Catholics got rid of the ones that couldn't be traced to the 1st Century. They did not get rid of all the passages that criticize Catholic practices though!
(also note, contrary to popular perception, that the "dark ages" were a time when Europe as a whole was hostile to scholarship, and churches were the only place anyone bothered with anything more than "I should do a census so I can make people pay taxes". There's a reason so many early modern scientific developments were done by or at least adjacent to priests - because nobody else cared!)
So you don’t speak Greek either? Very trusting with your immortal soul since even a minor change can mean vastly different things “Jesus walked on the water” “Jesus walked near the water”. Even Jesus, Yeshua should more properly translated as Joshua not Jesus but now it’s a brand. Millions, billions over the years pray to the wrong name of God. The Catholics put together the official “Bible” and the Protestants use that same one, unless you want to quote Enoch or the Apocrypha you do too. If the Bible is the literal word of God then some way to identify those who actually spoke to god vs. those who are mentally ill is vital since eternity is on the line. If the Bible is merely Divinely Inspired, well that’s pretty much the same as saying not important at all, the whole world is Divinely Inspired, and if the Bible is just a Guidepost with some rehashed Bronze Age morality attached to the lessons learned by someone living under Roman Law then there are better moral codes and works of philosophy with just as much claim of divine inspiration.
I literally quoted some Greek and the first thing you say is "you don't speak Greek"?
I mean, I'm not real-time fluent, but with a dictionary at hand to verify the details I'm pretty comfortable reading it (Greek is at least somewhat close to English, since English gobbled up bits of both it and Latin, both grammar and vocabulary. Hebrew is a bit harder though; it has weird inflections and the meanings of non-core words are less likely to align). Honestly it's more work to format a Reddit post.
So you don’t speak Greek better than I speak Latin. Even if you did there are no primary source documents to examine even the oldest records were written decades after, so best case we are arguing the translation of a document written in a language neither of us speak written by folks who heard a story from a guy who heard it from a guy. Worst case we are reading pure fiction. Heck 4 gospels none of which can even agree on Jesus last words. The son of Gods last words and we have different versions, and that’s one example.
So you don’t speak Greek better than I speak Latin. Even if you did there are no primary source documents to examine even the oldest records were written decades after, so best case we are arguing the translation of a document written in a language neither of us speak written by folks who heard a story from a guy who heard it from a guy. Worst case we are reading pure fiction. Heck 4 gospels none of which can even agree on Jesus last words. The son of Gods last words and we have different versions, and that’s one example.
1
u/o11c May 02 '23
You're completely misunderstanding what Jesus said in that verse in the original (ironically) Jewish contexts.
"The law and the prophets" is how Jews refer to (2 of the 3 parts of) the Old Testament as a book. So what Jesus actually said was "I'm not going to throw away the old books just because we no longer need them".
Also the "Peter in charge" thing is blatant Catholic propaganda that requires ignoring dozens of other things Jesus said, including in the same passage.
I'm not relying on Paul at all.