Bible or Bible+Apostolic Oral Tradition MOOT

  • Thread starter Thread starter LetsObeyChrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
jmgainor:
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.
Don’t know about you personally, but your web site defies description.
40.png
jmgainor:
The papacy banned the Bible while it could. (Yeah, I know, you think you know otherwise).
Hmmm … Sounds like you’ve been reading too much Lorainne Boettner.
40.png
jmgainor:
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.”
The truth was squarely faced with respect to your website, and appropriate action taken. What we would “get on us” from the website wouldn’t be truth, but it would be very much like something we would not want to get on us.
40.png
jmgainor:
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.
On the off chance that you are, in some way “sincere”, may you receive much grace to give good effect to your sincerity.

May it lead you to look upon whatever you choose to inspect with a pure heart.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
jmGainor,

May God have mercy on your soul for your misinformation. If you are banned its not because you have opposing views. You are not being banned. Your hatred is what is being banned. Your replies are full of “my”, “me”, “I”, etc. and that is exactly what it is. Your *opinions *only, not that of 2,000 years of history that prove you wrong. Your hatred is so deep that you fail to see any good in anything Catholic. Show me a “Hate Protestant” by Catholics, link like your “hate Catholic” links of which were are many. You may see some that appear Catholic, but are actually schismatic. Can you not see at all the hatred you have? BTW what you think as bible banning was actually gross translations that were leading people astray. What was the very first bible ever printed? The KJV?
I ask all here to please pray, offer mass, pray the Rosary, a Novena for Mr. Gainor. This hatred is not good for the soul.
 
The very existance of the CA forums show that it is not Catholics that are closed-minded. How much opposing viewpoint is expressed on J. M. Gainor’s website?

When you talk in circle’s enough all you do is make bigger holes.
 
40.png
jmgainor:
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.
Oh…you’re so persecuted…hurl!
 
40.png
jmgainor:
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.
I can truly see the passion that you have for the Lord and for truth in your posts. That is very admirable. However, another thing that you exude, certainly unintentionally, is an air of spiritual superiority and pridefulness. I think as Christians we are called to preach the truth in love and with humility. I tell you, in love, that I haven’t noticed either in your posts. It seems a common method sometimes, that some Christians seem to be trying to “shame” Catholics into seeing their position. As Christians others should want what we have. I’m sure in person your a great guy (gal???) but in this forum what you appear to have isn’t particularly appealing.

I know that you believe, in your heart of hearts, that it’s not YOU that is undesirable on this board, but rather your message. Remember, it’s not our job, as Christians, to convince anyone of anything. All we need to do is plant seeds. You’ve certainly planted a lot of seeds here and if it’s God’s will those seeds WILL take root and blossom.

***I, for one, wouldn’t mind continuing a dialogue with you (if you can can the offensive terminology). Please feel free to e-mail me (Catholic4aReason@aol.com). Hope to hear from you!! 😃 ***

In Christ,
***Nancy 🙂 ***
 
OK, after calming down. I am back. Since the two articles refuting the understanding of Peter as the rock have been repeatedly cited. I am going to (sans the personal commentary) attempt to address each point in them in turn. This may take a few posts, so apologies in advance. His comments in bold/italic. These first set from the first article linked graceway.com/articles/article_017.html

*** 1. The Greek text is the inspired original of the New Testament. No Aramaic underlying text is extant. Though there are Syriac/Aramaic translations of these original Greek texts they cannot be relied upon to accurately represent any supposed original Aramaic usage. They are merely uninspired translations of the original Greek text and may or may not represent any Aramaic/Syriac original.***
I have already mentioned this, but it’s worth repeating. The argument is NOT based on the original gospel being written in Aramaic/Syriac/Hebrew. It is based on the fact that Jesus and the apostles would have SPOKEN Aramaic, regardless of what language the NT was written in. Do we have any evidence that Jesus did indeed speak Aramaic? For this we need look no further than scripture itself. There exist preserved Aramaic sayings of the Lord in the New Testament.
  • Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, la’ma sabach-tha’ni?”

    Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “E’lo-i, E’lo-i, la’ma sabach-tha’ni?” which means, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

    Mark 5:41 Taking her by the hand he said to her, “Tal’itha cu’mi”; which means, “Little girl, I say to you, arise.”

    Mark 7:34… and looking up to heaven, he sighed, and said to him, “Eph’phatha,” that is, “Be opened.”

    Mark 14:36: And he said, "Abba, Father,
  • Code:
     Additionally, the Aramaic name given to Peter is preserved for us as well.  When Jesus renames Simon in John 1:42, it reads…
  • 42: He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).
Finally, the Aramaic name Jesus gave to Peter is preserved for us multiple times in two of Saint Paul’s letters as well (Galatians and 1 Corinthians).

…Jesus SPEAKING Aramaic is the foudation of the argument, NOT that the gospel was written in Aramaic.

** John A. Broadus** - Baptist author
  • Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.

    But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho.” The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha.” . . . Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355-356.)*
…CONTINUED…
 
***2. The Greek text of Matthew 16:18 uses two separate (different) Greek words in the passage.
Petros, the name given to the Apostle
Petra, the word used for rock
Rome says that “Peter” (PETROS) is merely the masculine form of the feminine noun PETRA, and therefore means the same thing. But…
  1. Classic Greek authors (before the New Testament was written) treat the words PETROS and PETRA as two different words.
    According to Liddell and Scott:

    NOTE: Petros, a stone, a smaller movable stone (Heracletes uses it in the phrase “leave no stone unturned.”) So, a “PETROS” is a stone which can by turned over, hence, a movable stone.
    Petra, a large massive rock, a large boulder, a foundation stone.
    The word “Petros” is only used in the Greek New Testament as a proper name for Simon bar Jona.
    Petros is not merely a masculine form of the word petra, but is a different word with a different meaning, though both words are derived from a common root.
    ***This issue is not in debate. It is freely admitted that in CLASSICAL Greek (Attic), the difference existed. But his confuses the Attic Greek with the Greek of the NT (Koine) in which there was no real difference in usage by NT times. A Koine Greek lexicon (studylight.org/lex/grk/) defines the two words as…

    Petros - a rock or a stone (no reference to small or movable, just a stone)
    Petra - a rock, cliff or ledge
    1. a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground
    2. a rock, a large stone
    3. metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul
…Particularly note defintion 3 as it can easily apply to the rename of peter in the verse in question. The definitions in the Koine Greek show that the words are easily interchangeable and do not imply any little rock, big rock substitution.

Donald A. Carson III - Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary
*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. (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.)
…CONT…
*
 
Catholic4aReasn said:
I can truly see the passion that you have for the Lord and for truth in your posts. That is very admirable. However, another thing that you exude, certainly unintentionally, is an air of spiritual superiority and pridefulness. I think as Christians we are called to preach the truth in love and with humility. I tell you, in love, that I haven’t noticed either in your posts. It seems a common method sometimes, that some Christians seem to be trying to “shame” Catholics into seeing their position. As Christians others should want what we have. I’m sure in person your a great guy (gal???) but in this forum what you appear to have isn’t particularly appealing.

I know that you believe, in your heart of hearts, that it’s not YOU that is undesirable on this board, but rather your message. Remember, it’s not our job, as Christians, to convince anyone of anything. All we need to do is plant seeds. You’ve certainly planted a lot of seeds here and if it’s God’s will those seeds WILL take root and blossom.

***I, for one, wouldn’t mind continuing a dialogue with you (if you can can the offensive terminology). Please feel free to e-mail me (Catholic4aReason@aol.com). Hope to hear from you!! 😃 ***

In Christ,
***Nancy 🙂 ***

Awesome…just awesome!! This is why I am a Catholic, because of beautiful HUMBLE statements like these:D Thank you Nancy for being a humble servant of God and caring for this individual as Christ would. Makes me want to go jump into prayer and spend some time praising my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!!! Keep encouraging the body sister!
Mary concieved without sin pray for us
 
4. The wording of Matt. 16:18 uses two different Greek words. If Jesus was referring the second word to Simon Peter he could have said “epi tauto to petro” (using the masculine gender in the dative case) the same word as “Petros.” But what he said was “Epi taute te petra” using Petra, a different Greek word.
I am not a Greek scholar and can’t address this directly. I will give the opinions of those more knowledgeable.

J. Knox Chamblin - Presbyterian and New Testament Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary
By the words “this rock” Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church.” As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus. (“Matthew,” Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), 742.)

**Gerhard Maier **- Leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian
*Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which – in accordance with the words of the text – applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis. (“The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate,” Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context, (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), 58.)
*
Donald A. Hagner - Fuller Theological Seminary
*The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built. . . . The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy. (“Matthew 14-28,” Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b, (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 470.)
*
Craig L. Blomberg - Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary
*Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter,” parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ,” as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification. (The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22, (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 251-252.)
*
…CONT…
 
…Plus the quotes from Cullman, and Wright from an earlier post. These are all Protestant biblical scholars. I realize they don’t carry any weight with you (since they disagree with you), but certainly they are not in the papal conspiracy are they? On whose authority do you accept the interpretationion in this point, in the face of scholarly agreement that Peter was the rock being referenced?

5. The usage of two different words in the inspired Greek original, if representing an Aramaic original (which is in no case certain) would seem to point to the usage of two separate Aramaic words in this passage.
This is a total non-point. When dealing with two wholey unrelated languages, it is total conjecture to apply the syntax structure from one (Greek) to the other (Aramaic).

6. The Peshitta Syriac translation of the New Testament in Matthew 16:18 uses kepha’ for both Greek words petros and petra. Is this accurate, or could it be a mistranslation of the original Greek Text?
This is also not an evidence but a question.

7. The proper translation of Petros is Ke’pha’. On this we have the authority of the Word of God itself in the Greek original of the New Testament, where the name “Ke’pha” (in the English Bible “Cephas”) is six times given as the Aramaic equivalent to Petros for the name of Simon bar Jonas. (John 1:42; 1Corinthians1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Galatians 2:9) So, we can say, based upon the authority of the original Greek of the New Testament that Petros, the name given to Simon bar Jona by the Lord Jesus (John 1:42) is the correct translation of the Aramaic/Syriac word Ke’pha’. Greek: Petros = Aramaic: Ke’pha’ (“Cephas”)
False. First, the translation is backwards. Since it was spoken in Aramaic first, then you would really be looking at whether Petros was the translation of Kephas, not the other way round as above. Second, we can only say from this that the translation of the name Kepha is the name Petros. Using only NT sources (which all involve the issue being discussed-namely the rename of Peter) can not be used to conclude that Kepha = Petros. It only shows that in this case Petros was used to transliterate Kepha. to prove any kind of 1 to 1 correspondance or equivalence between the words Kepha and Petros, one would need to look outside the NT to see if other sources bear that out. Regardless, even if the above were a correct analysis, the conclusion is faulty. We could only say that Petros is a subset of Kepha (meaning Kepha might be used for more than one word), not that they are fully equivalent.
…CONT…
 
***But what of the Greek word Petra? Is it correctly translated as Ke’pha’?
There is nowhere in the Greek New Testament where the word Ke’pha’ is given as the correct translation of the Greek word Petra. In order to determine the Syriac/Aramaic word which best translates the Greek word Petra we will have to look at the translations of the Greek New Testament which were made in the first five centuries of the Christian Church to determine how the Greek word Petra was understood.
Greek: Petra = Aramaic: ?

OK folks. buckle up. We are about to see some serious verbal gymnastics here but we’ll try to make sense of it…

***8. In the Peshitta Syriac New Testament the Greek word “PETRA” is translated by the Aramaic word SHUA' as in Matthew 7:24-25 meaning a massive rock or a boulder. PETRA is used 16 times in the Greek New Testament: Of those times it is translated in the Peshitta Syriac 9 times by the word SHUA’ ,
6 times by the word KE’PHA’ and

Let’s stop here for a moment and see the admission here that at least six times the word Petra is translated into Kepha in the Peshitta

1 time by the Hebrew root word ‘ABENA’
Of the ten times PETRA is used in the Gospels it is translated:
7 times by the word SHU`A’
(Mt.7:24, 25; Mk.15:46; Lk 6:48[2x];8:6, 13)
3 times by the word KE’PHA’
(Mt.16:18; 27:51; 27:60)

Again let’s stop and note that in the gospels it is being admitted that Kepha is used for Petra multiple times.

Of the three times KE’PHA’ is used to translate PETRA in the Gospels:
[1] in Mt. 27:60 the parallel passage in Mark’s gospel (Mark 15:46) more correctly uses SHUA' to translate PETRA. [2] in Mt. 27:51 the word KE'PHA' is used to describe the rocks (plural) which were broken at the earthquake when Christ died (and hence, these rocks became movable) [3] the other passage is Mt. 16:18 where KE'PHA' is used to translate both PETROS and PETRA. In all other places in the Gospels the Greek word PETRA is translated by the Syriac word SHUA’, meaning “a massive rock.”***
Note here that it is being stated that Kepha is being used in reference to ‘movalble’ rocks. But in one of the SHUA references above, the rock referred to is the stone in front of the lord’s tomb which was rolled in front of the opening (Mark 15:46) which was movable and thus breaks the faulty distinction that SHUA is the massive unmovable rock and Kepha are movable rock. Rather they seem to be interchangeable as the writers of the Peshitta have used them.

…CONT…
 
KE’PHA’ is used in the Syriac N.T. as the translation of both the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS.
Here is the first misdirection. Above, it is admitted twice that Kepha was ALSO used in the Syriac NT to translate Petra as well. But that is ignored.

The Greek word LITHOS, which means “a stone” (generally of a size which could be picked up or moved) is ALWAYS translated by the Syriac word KE’PHA’.
As LITHOS in classical Greek is the common prose word for “a stone” (see the quote from Liddle and Scott’s Lexicon, above) and PETROS is more common in poetry, this shows that the definition of KE’PHA’ as “a stone” is correct. The Syriac KE’PHA’ is equivalent to the Greek LITHOS, a movable stone.

Yet, the NT itself as argued above and explicitely in John 1:42 equates Petros with KEPHA. The fact that Kepha may also have been used for Lithos does not negate that it was ALSO used for Petros in reference to the name given Peter.

  1. The fact that the Greek text of the New Testament uses two separate Greek words in the passage [Matthew 16:18] indicates that any underlying Aramaic/Syriac original (if there was one, AND THIS IS FAR FROM PROVEN) also must have used two separate words.***
    This is again, simply incorrect. To say that since the Greek has two separate words the underlying spoken Aramaic (it would NOT be underlying Syriac as that was not spoken by 1st century Jews) is false. this is proven by the fact that the Syriac translation being referenced throught point 8 and in the conclustion (below) in fact did use the same word Kepha. Mistranslation or not. The writers (who were immenently more familiar with their own language) apparently didn’t seem to have a problem using the same word in both instances. It is false to claim (as this point does) that the Greek use of two words REQUIRES the Aramaic and or the Syriac to do the same.
…Continued (later)
 
Conclusion
a. A reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac of the passage would properly be:
“You are KE’PHA’ (a movable stone) and upon this SHU`A’ (a large massive rock) I will build my church.”
This is in exact correspondence to the original inspired Greek text:
"You are PETROS (a movable stone) and upon this PETRA (a large massive rock) I will build my church."


***b. The Peshitta Syriac New Testament text, at leaast in its extant MSS, mistranslated the passage in Matthew 16:18, incorrectly using the Syriac word KE’PHA’ for both Greek words PETROS and PETRA.

So, based on a series of faulty premises, in the face of what the syriac text actually says, in the face of what NT scholarship says, we must trust that the people writing the Syriac NT (imminently more familiar with the language then our friend) mistranslated the words, and we are now given what they REALLY should have been translated as on our friends word alone. Does that sound even remotely reasonable?

c. The Church of Rome bases its doctrine of Peter being the Rock upon which the Church is built on this mistranslation and/or a falsely reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac original, ignoring the distinctions in the Aramaic language.***

No, No, NO! The Syriac translation rarely is involved as it is of such late writing. While it MAY be evidentiary and support the claim, it is not the foundation of it. The foundation, again is that Christ SPOKE Aramaic, and with what is known of the western branch of Aramaic He spoke (as diffentiated from the Easter Syriac branch), we are fairly certain (and there IS consensus on this amongst even Protestants) that the rendering was Kepha, Kepha as it was spoken and that the second Rock refers to the first.

d. The Greek text does not teach that Peter is the rock. The rock is either Peter’s confession of Christ, or Christ Himself, in Peter’s answer to Jesus’ earlier question "Who do men say that I the Son of man am?"

You are increasingly alone in you understanding of it in this manner.

Regards and God Bless to all on this thread. I have been praying for you Mr. Gainor. I hope you’d do the same as I surel need it (as do we all).
 
Nice work Steve1 I am spending some time this morning trying to get caught up on what you are saying, but I amenjoying it so far:)
 
40.png
SteveG:
Regards and God Bless to all on this thread. I have been praying for you Mr. Gainor. I hope you’d do the same as I surel need it (as do we all).
Steve, Thanks! I appreciate that you took time to read through the material. Of course I don’t agree with some of your conclusions. But the fact that you spent the time to go over it shows sincerity, which is what matters. We could learn nothing without it. Believe me, I do pray that God open blinded eyes. I grew up RC, and it has been the greatest blessing to be free of it for the past 25+ years. Jesus really is better, and to know the truth in Him is true freedom. Best regards,

Mike
 
40.png
SteveG:
Note here that it is being stated that Kepha is being used in reference to ‘movalble’ rocks. But in one of the SHUA references above, the rock referred to is the stone in front of the lord’s tomb which was rolled in front of the opening (Mark 15:46) which was movable and thus breaks the faulty distinction that SHUA is the massive unmovable rock and Kepha are movable rock. Rather they seem to be interchangeable as the writers of the Peshitta have used them.
Steve, you are incorrect here. Here is the quote you refer to. Shua refers to the rock out of which the tomb was hewn. While Kepa refers to the stone rolled to the door.

And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock (Aram. shua, Gr. petras), and rolled a stone (Aram. kepa, Gr. lithos) to the door of the sepulchre. Mark 15.46

However, Matthew uses kepa for both:

And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (Aram. kepa; Gr. petra): and he rolled a great stone (Aram. kepa; Gr. lithon) to the door of the sepulchre, and departed. Matthew 27:60

I think you are highlighting the exception to the rule. It is safer to hold to what is generally true, and only side with the exceptions when there is good reason to. That shua and *petra *generally mean large, unmovable rock or bedrock, while kepa, petros, lithos, generally indicate smaller, movable stones is made clear here. There is too much hanging in the balance to accept the petros/petra = kepa/kepa theory as a foundation for the papacy. The earliest recorded testimony of the Church is that Christ is the Rock on which the Church is being built, as recorded in the Shepherd of Hermas. This was the view before the Petrine theory was ever mentioned in history. And that is the view I will abide in. That view also has absolute scriptural support; while the Petrine view has none.
 
Catholic4aReasn said:
I can truly see the passion that you have for the Lord and for truth in your posts. That is very admirable. However, another thing that you exude, certainly unintentionally, is an air of spiritual superiority and pridefulness. I think as Christians we are called to preach the truth in love and with humility. I tell you, in love, that I haven’t noticed either in your posts. It seems a common method sometimes, that some Christians seem to be trying to “shame” Catholics into seeing their position. As Christians others should want what we have. I’m sure in person your a great guy (gal???) but in this forum what you appear to have isn’t particularly appealing.

I know that you believe, in your heart of hearts, that it’s not YOU that is undesirable on this board, but rather your message. Remember, it’s not our job, as Christians, to convince anyone of anything. All we need to do is plant seeds. You’ve certainly planted a lot of seeds here and if it’s God’s will those seeds WILL take root and blossom.

***I, for one, wouldn’t mind continuing a dialogue with you (if you can can the offensive terminology). Please feel free to e-mail me (Catholic4aReason@aol.com). Hope to hear from you!! 😃 ***

In Christ,
***Nancy 🙂 ***

Nancy, thanks for your thoughts. All God’s best to you. Please understand that popish (I prefer the term to ‘catholic’, as popish doctrine is not ‘catholic’ in the true sense of the word. If you find the term offensive, then forsake it, and it will cease to be an offense. Otherwise, glory in your ‘pope’) theology is offensive and arrogant by its nature. It claims to be the one true Church established by Christ, while it exalts itself and its ‘traditions’ at the expense of all truth and all the honor of Christ—who is the true and only Head of his Church—and of the Holy Spirit, who is the true and only Vicar of Christ.

It isn’t easy to come into this environment and make such a case without raising a few hackles. Truth will stand on its own merit, and those who love it will yield to it with joy. I’m still in the learning process; and expect I will always be. But I know enough to know that I will NEVER yield assent to the false claims of popery again. I won’t try to hide the fact that my only purpose in being here is to try to help you to escape from them as well.

Christ is the Saviour and Redeemer and our Great High Priest; and there is no other. So, if you find my terminology offensive, please know that I find your theology offensive. If there is some common ground of the love of the truth, then we should be able to meet there; and, if we are gathered together in His name, then we can expect Him to be present in our midst.

all the best,

Mike
 
I will NEVER yield assent to the false claims of popery again
That’s fine dude…I think if you move on peacefully, it might be the best thing for everyone. There are folks here praying for you just as you are praying for them. But, I think that when it come’s to the point where everything we say falls on deaf ears, it begins to be wearisome. :banghead:

This forum is about humble discussion regarding apologetics, not demolishing your opponent or simply ‘overwhelming’ someone with your interpetation of what you think is right. There are many brilliant scholars (Protestant I may add) who have after years of research come to different conclusions than yours, are they any less brilliant?

Part of having “faith” is understanding that the scriptures are not meant to be worked out like scientific equations. When apologetics are discussed, folks are simply trying to show that they have reasonable answers for what we believe. One can *ALWAYS *find a hole in any given arguement, I don’t care what it is. Splitting hairs over Greek and Aramaic tends to grind on the nerves after awhile.

I think Steve and others have brought forth some very good material and you have as well…cool, now what? Do you think that everyone’s going to start dropping to their knees and renounce their Catholic faith resulting in a massive reformation revival brought on by jm the great? C’mon dude, be real! Be at peace and know that things are not always going to go your way. Get to know some of these folks on a personal level, you might like them. Get to know them as human beings and see that they love Jesus Christ just as much as you do. I know you will more than likely ignore this post, but I wish you the best in Christ.

Michael
 
40.png
SteveG:
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.
SteveG,

Thanks for the compliment on self-control, but it may be somewhat misplaced. I really get steamed with this kind of thing, and I do understand the term “troll” and your use of it. Gainor’s links are truly bizarre and his animosity toward the Catholic church is obviously off the scale.

Your presentation was one of the best I have seen anywhere, and I have done a lot of reading on the biblical basis of the papacy. Naturally, I get very agitated when our presentations are dismissed in the way yours was by Mr. Gainor. It is particularly troublesome when non-Catholic “attack types” concede “nothing” even when they have no refutation. I have wrangled with a number of people that have fallen into this category, and have taken some uncalled for abuse in the process. I have one acquaintance that will not even read scripture verses if he knows that I’m the source of the material. An open mind is not part of their repetoire.

In this thread I tried only to have Mr. Gainor take a look inside himself. I believe that any motivation from hatred is self destructive. The person that operates from this position does not realize that they are ingesting a poisoned pill and hoping that their opponents will die. I suggest that we all pray for Mr. Gainor so that he will shed the hatred and rancor toward our beautiful faith.

I don’t know if it will help, but it may be important to always point out to those of Mr. Gainor’s demeanor that bigotry and hatred are self-destructive and that we can only carry on a dialogue when we treat one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. I do realize that Mr. Gainor probably doesn’t consider Catholics to be Christians. This is part of the hatred that we need to overcome.

I would like to see us figure out ways to engage and conquer this kind of problem with anti-Catholics. Our apologetics need to be polished and laser sharp. At the same time, we need additional tools to break through the hatred. Perhaps, a thread along these lines might be productive.

SteveG…your presentation and delivery were great. The troll remark is completely understandable and much tamer than what I wanted to say. We need to disarm the venom from the other side, and to somehow smother them in Christ’s kindness. Our Catholic radio apologists seem at times to display extraordinary gifts in this regard.
 
40.png
jmgainor:
Steve, Thanks! I appreciate that you took time to read through the material. Of course I don’t agree with some of your conclusions. But the fact that you spent the time to go over it shows sincerity, which is what matters. We could learn nothing without it. Believe me, I do pray that God open blinded eyes. I grew up RC, and it has been the greatest blessing to be free of it for the past 25+ years. Jesus really is better, and to know the truth in Him is true freedom. Best regards,
I am truly edified to see that everyone has begun to turn down the volume. I want to apologize again for any lack of charity I showed. Hopefully we can continue on with humility and charity in all our hearts. I realize you think us blind, and we feel in many ways the same towards you, so I won’t take offense, and hope you won’t either. Well make our arguments, and hopefully with charity. We all know it’s tough because we all passionately believe what we do. I’ll do my best-through the Grace of Jesus Christ-in that regards.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top