Bible or Bible+Apostolic Oral Tradition MOOT

[jmgainor]

Catholic4aReasn:

Originally Posted by Catholic4aReasn
The wording and title of this passage are a little different than what I have:

---

***I checked the footnotes but didn’t find the place where it indicates that it had been altered. Help me understand how your edition is “better”.

---

---

Here are the footnotes. I’ll paste a few of them here as well.

10 [On the falsifying of the text by Romish editors, see Elucidation II.] I will paste Elucidation II below, following footnote 16.

12 John xxi. 15. [Here is interpolated]: “Upon him, being one, He builds His Church, and commits His sheep to be fed.”

14 [Here is interpolated]: “And the primacy is given to Peter, that there might be shown one Church of Christ and one See; and they are all shepherds, and the Rock is one, which is fed by all the apostles with unanimous consent.” This passage, as well as the one a few lines before, is beyond all question spurious.

16 [Here is interpolated]; “Who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded.” This passage also is undoubtedly spurious.

Elucidation II

Falsifying of the text, p. 422.

Cyprian

Interpolated

(The Latin of the interpolations deleted here to shorten the post. It can be accessed here.)

Cyprian is often innocently quoted by Romanist controvertists against the very principles of Cyprian himself, of his life and his writings. This is due to the fact that they have in their hands vitiated and interpolated copies. Thus, take a famous passage as follows:-
This is but a specimen of the way in which Cyprian has been “doctored,” in order to bring him into a shape capable of being misinterpreted. But you will say where is the proof of such interpolations? The greatly celebrated Benedictine edition reads as the interpolated column does, and who would not credit Baluzius? Now note, Baluzius rejected these interpolations and others; but, dying (a.d. 1718) with his work unfinished, the completion of the task was assigned to a nameless monk, who confesses that he corrupted the work of Baluzius, or rather glories in the exploit.829 “Nay, further,” he says, “it was necessary to alter not a few things in the notes of Baluzius; and more would have been altered if it could have been done conveniently.” Yet the edition came forth, and passes as the genuine work of the erudite Baluzius himself.

An edition of this treatise, with valuable annotations, appeared (a.d. 1852) from the press of Burlington, N.J., under the very creditable editorship of Professor Hyde, who was soon after called to depart this life. It exhibits the interpolations, and gives a useful catalogue of codices and of editions. Though its typographical execution is imperfect, I know not where so much condensed information on the subject is to be had at so little cost.830 I am grateful for the real advantage I derived from it on its first appearance.

Catholic4aReasn:

Originally Posted by Catholic4aReasn
Who do you believe is misleading me? What would be their motive?

The papal hierarchy and its followers. Their motive is self-exaltation; and not your eternal well-being.

 

[SteveG]

jmgainor:

Steve, regarding your first link: I am aware of the claims made there, and anticipated them when I put together the Papacy Uncovered website. Rather than load up the thread with the material, I will post the link to the specific page that refutes your material.

Hebrew of Matthew

Read especially the two sublinks in the petros/petra, kepa/shua section.

First, the argument is NOT based on Matthew Gospel being written in Hebrew/Aramaic. It is based on the fact that Christ spoke Aramaic, which we certainly can determine from the new testamtent itself as many of His original sayings in Aramaic are preserved for us. So to refute the writing of the gospel in Aramaic or Hebrew refutes a straw man. The entire first link you provide is irrelavent. Regardless of what the gospel of Matthew was originally written in, Christ would have spoken the phrases in MT 16:18 in Aramaic. That is not much in doubt.

Second, The refutaion of the Kepha naming is from my understanding poor indeed. First, Aramaic is not syriac nor peshitti. The article on Catholic answers and it’s understanding Kepha have been attested to by some of the leading Aramaic sholars in the world. What are the writer of your refutations credentials? It’s amusing also that the one of the sublinks you provide mentions…
*** Classic Greek authors (before the New Testament was written) treat the words PETROS and PETRA as two different words
*** …which in fact was addressed by the Catholic Answers article which admitted this existed in prior to NT classic Attic Greek, but the point was that it is known that the NT was written in Koine Greek in which (most Protestant biblical scholars even aknowledge-I will supply these references in my next post) the difference didn’t exist. Yet despite this, the author continues to build his ‘refutation’ on this mistaken fact, and brushes aside the almost universally accepted understanding the the change in forms was due to needing to render the name in a masculine form. Really shoddy indeed. It’s rather laughable.

The fact is that Aramaic scholars know that indeed Kepha was the Aramaic word for massive stone and a separate word Evna was used for small stone.

The true analysis of this breaks down as follows…

** Jesus would likely have spoken this in Aramaic not Greek**

1. Evna means little stone in Aramaic
2. Kepha means massive stone
3. Simon was given the name Kepha by Christ (rendered Cephas in English) . We know this because that name for Peter is preserved for us in two of Paul’s letters (Galatians and 1 Corinthians).
4. So we know now that in the Aramaic, Jesus would have said ‘You are Kepha (massive stone), and on this Kepha (massive stone) I will build my Church’.
5. It is now clear that Kepha 2 refers to Kepha 1. Peter is the Rock.

** IF the Greek was a translation from the original Aramaic.**

1. If the Greek is a translation, then the change in the first rock reference would have been necessary only because Petros is in the feminine form in Greek, and would have been inappropriate for a male name (see below). The switch to Petra is NOT to indicate a small rock, but to make the name fitting for a male.
2. Kepha 2 refers to Kepha 1. Peter is the Rock (as shown above).

…Continued…

 

[SteveG]

If Christ spoke Greek

1. Petros and Petra were synonyms in Koine Greek (the dialect of the NT) and no real distinction existed with reference to size at the time Matthew was rendered.
   a. We already know that the word for massive stone in Aramaic is Cephas (as distinguished from Evna - small stone).
   b. In John 1:42, he is saying ‘You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)’
   c. John is equating Cephas (massive stone) with Peter/(Petros).
   John uses Petros as an equivalent of Petra in linking it to Cephas in John 1:42
2. Further, lithos would have been the more appropriate Koine Greek word to use if He wanted to refer to a small stone. So it is likely Petros is not in reference to small stone, but again is interchangeable with Petra in first century Greek.
3. Petra has a feminine ending and could not be applied to Peter as a name. Thus, the first reference is transformed to Petros to give it a masculine ending suitable for a man’s name.
4. The evidence of an earlier rename again shows that it is not in association with the confession (see above).
5. Petra refers to Petros in the verse. Peter is the Rock.

jmgainor:

Regarding your second link: I have seen that papists have a propensity for selectively quoting passages out of context, and for quoting dis-reputable (fraudulent) material. I will address a few of your quotes:

Tatian The Diatessaron was a harmony of the Gospels that was in use among the Syriac churches in the early centuries. It was replaced by the Peshitta in the late 4th/early 5th century. To quote this passage from it means virtually nothing, as most/all of the Gospels were contained in it. It is but a disingenuous attempt to give an appearance of antiquity to the papacy, which it does not have in truth.

Tertullian These are but selective quotes, and say nothing that supports a papacy. Tertullian is the first on record that makes a Peter = rock connection, in the early third century. But he was no papist, and had no views of a primacy for Rome, as other quotes from him make clear. Some of them are found here.

Clement Both of your ‘Clement’ quotes are phony. They are found in the Pseudo-Clementine literature here.

(continued…)

I also find this amusing as you original article linked on this was prooftexting of the fathers to the extreme. I am not going to dispute the validity or phoniness of these quotes for you. I have studied the items you call phony in some depth (especially the ‘psuedo-Clementine’ literature) and the experts I have say otherwise. So it’s a case of my authorities vs. your authorities. I am not sure of any way to resolve this.

 

[SteveG]

A small sample of Protestant biblical scholars who admit Peter was the rock (plenty more if you need them)…
Oscar Cullman…
The Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between p tra [petra] and P tros; P tros = p tra. . . . The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable . . . for there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of “thou art Rock” and “on this rock I will build” shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first . It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.(Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968), 6:98, 108.)

D.A. Carson…
Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name. . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been lithos (“stone” of almost any size).( D.A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.)

W. F. Albright,
“Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter.” In other words, Professor Albright is admitting as a Protestant that there is a bias in Protestant anti-Catholic interpreters who try to make Jesus’ reference to the rock point only to Peter’s faith or confession. “To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter,” Albright says, “among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre- eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles.” (W. F. Albright, in his Anchor Bible Commentary on Matthew.
…Continued…

 

[SteveG]

Marvin R. Vincent
The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter’s confession, but to Peter himself, . . . The reference of petra to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic ‘THIS’ naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: “On this rock will I build.” Again, Christ is the great foundation, the chief cornerstone, but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ’s church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Peter 2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and in ver. 5, addresses the church as living stones.( Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946 (orig. 1887)), 4 vols., vol. 1, 91-92)

…If you are honest, and know anything about bibilical scholarship, you know that these names are not lightweight, obscure names in the Protestant world. Cullman, Carson, Albright. Peter being the rock is actually gaining quite the consensus among both Protestants and Catholics. Now, this does not necessarily lead to the claims of the Papacy, but one is fighting the inevitable if one continues to fight Peter as the rock. If you want to reject the papacy, fine, but it’s foolishness to fight it on these grounds.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

SteveG:

I also find this amusing as you original article linked on this was prooftexting of the fathers to the extreme. I am not going to dispute the validity or phoniness of these quotes for you. I have studied the items you call phony in some depth (especially the ‘psuedo-Clementine’ literature) and the experts I have say otherwise. So it’s a case of my authorities vs. your authorities. I am not sure of any way to resolve this.

Well Steve, there is always the teaching authority of the Magisterium of the Church, since it is protected by God the Holy Spirit from teaching error. :clapping:

I know you know that :yup: . It’s just that sometimes, when one gets embroiled with people who don’t (or won’t :tsktsk: ), one can slip into trying to work inside the box they build.

It’s a bit like prime numbers. You can have a rule that all prime numbers are odd, as long as you never count past eight.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[SteveG]

jmgainor:

Origen Another selective quote that says nothing for or about a papacy, or Rome. What do you think of this quote of Origen:

But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, “The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,” hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, “Upon this rock I will build My church”? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?
Origin’s Second Book of the Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew, Book XII, § 11
.

You sure you want to use this? Really? First, it addresses not AT ALL the issue of Peter being the rock, but rather the keys. If you would have read my earlier ‘steamroll’ posts you would know that Catholics admit that their is some ambiguity whether the keys were something other than the authority also given via the binding and loosing. Nonetheless, whether keys or binding and loosing indicate the same thing, the authority to teach was given only to the apostles, and the above quote supports this. It fits very nicely with Catholic understanding that it is the Pope in union with the Magesterium (the college of bishops) who are all successors to the apostles and all wield authoritative and teaching power in the church. How do you think Origen’s quote says anythign other? His last statement The statement addressed to Peter, common to them. Yes, them, the apostles. No problem here. No problem in Catholic understanding. I am actually stunned that you would even attempt to use this to ‘balance’ out Catholic understanding as it clearly supports it. Yeesh!

jmgainor:

Frankly, it is shameful for people to misrepresent history in this way

Yes, it is shameful. you should be ashamed of yourself. You do all that you accuse of. You selectively quote the fathers, you put your own interpretation on them and make them appear to support your position when they do nothing of the sort.

 

[jmgainor]

SteveG:

First, the argument is NOT based on Matthew Gospel being written in Hebrew/Aramaic. It is based on the fact that Christ spoke Aramaic, which we certainly can determine from the new testamtent itself as many of His original sayings in Aramaic are preserved for us. So to refute the writing of the gospel in Aramaic or Hebrew refutes a straw man. The entire first link you provide is irrelavent. Regardless of what the gospel of Matthew was originally written in, Christ would have spoken the phrases in MT 16:18 in Aramaic. That is not much in doubt.

Steve, I specifically referred you to the two sublinks within the page where your argument is refuted. If you have a response after you read them, post it then.

SteveG:

Second, The refutaion of the Kepha naming is from my understanding poor indeed. First, Aramaic is not syriac nor peshitti.

Steve, do you have any idea what you’re talking about? Syriac is most certainly Aramaic, and the Peshitta is the old Aramaic/Syriac New Testament. Please learn what you are talking about before posting.

 

[jmgainor]

SteveG:

You sure you want to use this? Really? First, it addresses not AT ALL the issue of Peter being the rock, but rather the keys.

Steve, if you’ll pardon my saying it, at this time of night, you are getting plain wearisome. I shortened this passage in order to get the gist of my message into one post. But I posted a link to the rest of the text, which you evidently didn’t look at. So that you don’t have to do any of your own research or study, here is more of the passage:

For in this place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,"74 etc; but in the Gospel of John the Saviour having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them said, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit,"75 etc. Many then will say to the Saviour, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God; "but not all who say this will say it to Him, as not at all having learned it by the revelation of flesh and blood but by the Father in heaven Himself taking away the veil that lay upon their heart, in order that after this "with unveiled face reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord"76 they may speak through the Spirit of God saying concerning Him, “Lord Jesus,” and to Him, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."77 And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname of “rock” who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved,78 that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters. And taking occasion from these things you will say that the righteous bear the surname of Christ who is Righteousness, and the wise of Christ who is Wisdom.79 And so in regard to all His other names, you will apply them by way of surname to the saints; and to all such the saying of the Saviour might be spoken, “Thou art Peter,” etc., down to the words, “prevail against it.” But what is the “it”? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the church, or is it the church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds the church, nor against the church will the gates of Hades prevail; just as the way of a serpent upon a rock, according to what is written in the Proverbs,80 cannot be found.
(continued…)

 

[jmgainor]

and here’s more…

Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which Christ builds the church, nor the church built by Jesus upon the rock; for the rock is inaccessible to the serpent, and it is stronger than the gates of Hades which are opposing it, so that because of its strength the gates of Hades do not prevail against it; but the church, as a building of Christ who built His own house wisely upon the rock,81 is incapable of admitting the gates of Hades which prevail against every man who is outside the rock and the church, but have no power against it.

I’m out for the night.

 

[SteveG]

jmgainor:

Steve, do you have any idea what you’re talking about? Syriac is most certainly Aramaic, and the Peshitta is the old Aramaic/Syriac New Testament. Please learn what you are talking about before posting.

I said…

Aramaic is not syriac nor peshitti.

…Obviously in haste, I mispoke in referring to Peshitta. This makes no sense since peshitta is not a language whatsoever. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Nonetheless, what I meant is that they are not Syriac and Aramaic are not necessarily equivalent. They are related of course, but not equivalent. Syriac is a branch of Aramaic and you can’t blindly substitute one for the other to make a linguistic argument. Since it is you who are actually confused here. Let me shed some light for you…

Aramaic has two branches
Western Branch - this group is extinct as a spoken language and included Nabataean (extinct, spoken in parts of Arabia), Palmyrenean (extinct, spoken in Palmyra, Syria and adjoining regions), and Palestinian-Christian and Judeo-Aramean**. A Western Aramaic dialect was the spoken language in Roman Judea in Jesus’s time, as quotes given in the Greek Gospels** show[2] (aramaicnt.org/index.php?PAGE=RutgersProject&controlpanel=greekscript).

**Eastern Branch **- this group includes Syriac, Mandean, and Neo-Assyrian (not Akkadian Assyrian) dialects/languages. Some of these are still spoken in a few villages in Syria, notably Ma’loula, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Georgia and Armenia.

…Since it was the Western branch spoken by Christ and his disciples, it seems very shakey indeed to base your Aramaic word studies on a branch not spoken by them without recognizing and addressing this fact.

 

[jmgainor]

One last point Steve,

Your ‘protestant scholars’ carry no weight in my view. They have learned to parrot the status quo and one another and not make any waves. Not one of them addresses the fact that petra is the equivalent of Aramaic shua, while petros is that of kepa. The two Greek words are generally translated by the two Aramaic words. Kepa is also lithos. There are a few exceptions, but this is the general rule.

Final out for now.

 

[SteveG]

TobyLue:

This is off the subject but just to give you an insight on JMGainor, which you may already have. Look at these sites.

jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/MDPC/LA/LA.htm

jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/MDPC/CH/CH.htm

jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/Inq/Inq.htm

jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/Cru/fincrth.htm

As you can see from these links they are all “Hate Catholic” sites. It seems from other forums that I have run into that this gentleman, Mr. Gainor, really has nothing but hatred for the Catholic Church and the Holy Father and trying to debate with him will be fruitless and frustrating. I can only pray for him and ask him;
Mr. Gainor, why is there so much hatred in your heart? But then maybe that question should be on a separate thread. Would someone like to start it?

Yes Mr. Gainor, wearisome is a good word. I can’t believe I bothered wasting the time I did on this thread and on your nonsense. I wish I had seen these links at the outset. A conspiracist troll who is here to enlighten all us blind Catholics. Good Lord! I am not wasting another moment on such idiocy. I’ll pray for you nonetheless as I am required to do for such as you. I am out of here for the night, and out of this thread for good.

 

[Pax]

jmgainor,

I will implore you as a brother in Christ to lose your hatred for the Catholic Church. Your references such as “papists” and “liars” as well as your website materials betray just how deep your prejudice runs. You believe yourself to be thoughtful, scholarly, and truthful. I believe it better to be humble, loving, and respectful.

Your hatred blinds you. Anytime hatred rules our motives, objectivity is not even remotely possible. All of the accusations you’ve made against the Church, Catholic teachers, and apologists could be made against you. You may be sincere, but you are simply wrong to indicate that those that disagree with you have been duped. You assume a position of superiority that no man has the capacity to command. This is a huge error that can only emerge from hatred and prejudice.

You believe yourself to be Christian, but your attitude and remarks are anything but Christian. Your methodology and quotations are, from my own reading, selective and misleading. SteveG should not have called you a “troll,” and I am sorry that the conversation has taken this kind of turn. Unfortunately, your hatred and bigotry will only bring out the worst in us. I have found myself ready to do a little name calling myself. It is all I can do to control the urge to belittle you and your remarks.

You will not accept reasonable refutations. It is wrong to be so willing to accept the Boettner approach of embracing every accusation against Catholics without reservation. Again, I could argue against your claims, but that is not my purpose. I am arguing for your heart. Your claims and your work are not of God. If they were, they would not contain the hate and bigotry that you exude. You and I both can agree that Islam is a false religion, but neither of us should hate Islam. We can disagree with Buddhists, but we should never hate them or their faith.

You have a serious problem, and it needs a remedy that is completely separate from your differences with us on doctrine. Again, I say these things because you are my brother in Christ. You have an enthusiasm for your beliefs which admirable. It is your heart, mind, and soul that concerns me.

 

[joelmichael]

Steve,

Some insight from a bystander…I quit reading Gainor’s tripe after I saw the links. However, I did read all of your stuff. Your defense of the faith is admirable. I’m amazed at all the stuff you referenced. I will never know all those things, but I’m glad to know there are people out there defending our faith who do!!!

Joel

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Originally Posted by Catholic4aReasn
Who do you believe is misleading me? What would be their motive?

jmgainor:

The papal hierarchy and its followers. Their motive is self-exaltation; and not your eternal well-being.

Just to clarify…by papal hierarchy you are referring to the pope and his bishops? Who, specifically, are “its followers”?

---

It is your assertion that the aforementioned people actually know the truth, as you understand truth, but are purposely misleading me to exalt themselves? If so, on what do you base this assertion and how can you be sure it is correct? If not, what IS your assertion? How have I misunderstood your position?

---

Thanks!

 

[SteveG]

joelmichael:

Steve,

Some insight from a bystander…I quit reading Gainor’s tripe after I saw the links. However, I did read all of your stuff. Your defense of the faith is admirable. I’m amazed at all the stuff you referenced. I will never know all those things, but I’m glad to know there are people out there defending our faith who do!!!

   Joel

Joel,

Thank you much for the kind words; However, I will admit that I am actually quite ashamed that I seem to be unable to control my temper and charity in this thread. This fellow seems to bring out the worst in me. The references have been gathered during many discussions with very knowledgeable, thoughtful protestants on some of these issue, and which I am attempting to compile in an essay on some of these topics. I am very unused to such blatent hatred for Catholicism in someone when in a discussion of this nature. I guess I have been lucky up until now.

 Pax,

You are a better disciple than I in the self-control you exhibit. But I do want to clarify one thing. I called Mr. Gainor a troll rightly. This was not in reference to a monster, but rather to a type of poster in a forum. A troll in forum terms is a poster who has no intent on real dialogue, but rather is ‘trolling’ around a board looking to insult, pick fights and try to score points. To my understanding, Mr. Gainor’s MO fits within that definition of being a troll. And he certainly is a conspiricist. One only need to read a few of the links provided and that much is clear. Hope that helps clarify.

Out for real and for good this time.

 

[Michael_Howard]

jmgainor:

Maria, I hope you will continue to seek and search and study and grow in your faith. Always remember that truth matters; and liars are not to be followed. Blessings in Christ.

Buddy…I think you need to stop for a bit, go jump into your prayer closet and ask God to humble your heart. Your pride is becoming a stench. If you want people to care about what you are saying and treat you with respect, stop the hate rhetoric…sound good?

These are good people here at the forum who love God. The world does not need another “self proclaimed hellfire prophet” spitting fuel in everyone’s face and then throwing matches at them!
Be humble man and God will lift you up

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

jmgainor:

One last point Steve,

Your ‘protestant scholars’ carry no weight in my view. They have learned to parrot the status quo and one another and not make any waves. Not one of them addresses the fact that petra is the equivalent of Aramaic shua, while petros is that of kepa. The two Greek words are generally translated by the two Aramaic words. Kepa is also lithos. There are a few exceptions, but this is the general rule.

Final out for now.

Jesus used “kepa” for both rocks. Where does the word “shua” come into play?

---

---

 

[jmgainor]

Jesus used “kepa” for both rocks. Where does the word “shua” come into play?

---

---

C4aR,

That is only speculation. Greek petros is always Aramaic kepa in the scriptures, as is lithos is generally. Greek petra is generally Aramaic shua in the Scriptures. See here and here.

I’ve just learned that, not surprisingly, my website has been banned from this board, and I’ve been informed that I am about to be banned as well. The papacy banned the Bible while it could. (Yeah, I know, you think you know otherwise). I guess that the standard solution for your faith is “when you cannot face the truth, close the door on it, before you get any of it on you.” If you knew what I know about the papacy, you would oppose it with all your heart as well. May God open your eyes to see.