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:
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.
Click to expand...
So everything in your argument really hinges at bottom on this understanding of Shua vs. Petra as the large massive stone. Fair enough. I was planning to address the second article linked, or rather the issue of shua vs. petra in general. But, you seem to have put some thought, and time into this, so I don’t want to brush it off, or give any trivial or flip responses to it. I have heard of this argument before, and seen it refuted, but I have to dig into my library to find where, as I don’t recall off hand. I believe what I am recalling is that Karl Keating (the founder of Catholic Answers) has addressed this exact issue, so I may simply find where I saw him do so and let him make the argument (as he is actually a student of Aramaic and I am not).

Interestingly, I kid you not, I was at a prayer meeting this evening and met a guy who is a professor at Franciscan University who has a PHD in OT scripture studies and is fluent in Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek. His specialty was actually in classical languages of the Judeao Christian ancient near east (man would I call that meeting providence). I asked him about this argument, and he chuckled and said it is such nonsense that most scholars won’t even bother addressing it (I am not at all trying to be insulting, I am simply relating the exchange). He referred me to Dale Allisons’ Commentary on Matthew (Dale Allison is another Protestant scholar by the way), in which he said Allison totally demolishes this argument. Now, since Allison’s commentary costs about $300, and is only available through interlibrary loan at my local library, it may take me some time to get my hands on it. My only point is that I wanted it to be clear that this argument has been heard and refuted by scholars. It may take me some time to compile the refutation, but I’ll work on it. At the least, I hope to have located Karl Keating’s addressing of the issue in the next day or so. Also, I am friends with another OT scripture scholar who is a professor at Duquesne Universtity. She graduated from Notre Dame and is also fluent in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. I am going to send her the link above to get her thoughts on it as well.

I just didn’t want silence to imply consent.
 
It seems that in the midst of my last two posts, Mr. Gainor was banned (I guess the popish and popery comments pushed the moderator over the edge):D.

In any event I will still plan on posting my findings on his claims in the second link regarding Shua vs. Petra as the massive stone if anyone is interest. If not, I’ll hold on to them for some later date if/when this argument ever comes up again. Let me know.
 
You did the best you could with him Steve, but the Whore of Babylon idea has been seered into Gainor’s consciousness like a branding iron on butter. Virtually a clone of the infamous Jack T. Chick, though he may or may not be his protege. His only purpose in coming to these forums is to attack the Catholic faith, and maybe bring a few souls out of her in the process. And Karl Keating’s latest e-letter is about people like him catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040810.asp

I can provide innumerable links for sites where Fundamentalists aim to debunk Catholicism, and to evangelize Catholics into their brand of Christianity, which is generally Sola Scriptura based. Though their intention to save our soul’s is noble, their goals from our Catholic viewpoint are not. And I must say there are a considerable number of them out there. Yes, I think we need a thread to discuss this, and about anti-Catholicism from non-Catholic Christians in general.

One thing I can take from this exchange is to not believe every conspiracy theory that comes down the pike, or my own interpretation of scripture, much less Gainor’s.
 
Hello:)

It’s very difficult to ignore a discussion board terrorist. In my opinion, they suffer from a kind of spiritual sadomasochism. They take some sort of satisfaction on inflicting psychological/spiritual pain on others, as well as deriving pleasure from setting everyone up to receive it back on themselves. One sick puppy.

They like to dominate the board by illiciting an emotional reaction. Many of you have done an excellent job in dealing with jmgainor. I have seen many like him, and they are attracted to a fear based toxic type of paranoid fundamentalism. Basically, they are afraid.

If you read the “Interpretation of the Bible to the Church” presented by the Pontifial Bible Commission to the Pope, you will gain some insights as to the nature of the kind of “intellectual suicide” of the fundamentalist interpretation. It’s long, so just scroll to the bottom and back up till you see “Fundamentalist Interpretation” heading.

http://www.geocities.com/francischinchoy/PBC_Interp1.htm

kepha1
 
So far, this post does exactly what he wants me to do. Persecute. But this post is not intended to feed his illness, but to inform the rest of you, and I really don’t care at this point what he thinks.

Here is a link listing 7 organizations/experts on cults. Each has its own characteristics of what a cult is. It is my view that certain “Bible-Christians”, who belong to paranoid anti-Catholic hateful circles (of the extreme bigot variety) manifest common behaviors found in those who are in the bondage of such cults.

http://www.sspx-cult.com/CultCharacteristics.htm

I am aware that this link addressed the sspx problem, but the information supplied there is done by secular human scientists and can be applied to any cult.

Now before anyone decides to accuse the Catholic Church of being a cult, (yes, I am ready for that one) , see

http://www.sspx-cult.com/ChurchCult.htm

No mention of the sspx is found on that link.

Meanwhile, I think the best thing we can do is ignore and pray for such unfortunate people. Second to that, try and find ways to tell them that the Catholic Church is not a scary monster hiding under their bed.

kepha1
 
40.png
jmgainor:
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
Click to expand...
I noticed in another post of yours that you said you used to be Catholic but that you “prefer Jesus” or something to that effect. Many leave the Church without really knowing what they were leaving (while being entirely convinced that they do, which, they claim, is why they left). You appear to be among their numbers. I suspect you were raised in a nominally Catholic home? Me too. It’s interesting that the Lord has lead you and I in such different directions.
Scripture shows us that the theology preached by Christ was offensive to some. It’s one thing for the message to be offensive and quite another for one to purposely choose particular words in order to offend. One is done in love, the other in spite. One has truth as it’s motive, the other has offense as its motive.
***It would appear that you don’t wish to continue to dialogue. May the Lord bless you and keep you and give you peace!! ***
In His love,
***Nancy 🙂 ***
 
I just started this thread, and I have read quite a lot of posts, and I know it will get you off track a bit, but I still want to mention something that I consider to be an important distinction between the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition, since I do not recall it being noted…

When argueing Sola Scriptura vs. Scriptura et Traditione the protestant needs to understand that Tradition CANNOT be “canonized” as one of the early posts said. They argued, “if Tradition is on the same par as Scripture it should be written down and then cannonized.” However, the difference is this…Scripture is inspired (i.e. literally written from the hand of God through his trusty servants) whereas Tradition is not (name removed by moderator)ired, that is, “written.” It is infallible, inerrant, but it is not inspired (God written).

Tradition is just as authentic and as alive as Scripture, but it cannot be cannonized because the precise requirement for a sacred text is for it to have been inspiredly written by God.

This, inspiration, moreover, DOES NOT mean that God quites once he inscripturates he revelation. To deny the POSSIBILITY that God COULD use mere men/bishops to lead his flock and to preserve Truth is to deny the omnipotence of God.
 
40.png
PeterEricksen:
I just started this thread, and I have read quite a lot of posts, and I know it will get you off track a bit, but I still want to mention something that I consider to be an important distinction between the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition, since I do not recall it being noted…

When argueing Sola Scriptura vs. Scriptura et Traditione the protestant needs to understand that Tradition CANNOT be “canonized” as one of the early posts said. They argued, “if Tradition is on the same par as Scripture it should be written down and then cannonized.” However, the difference is this…Scripture is inspired (i.e. literally written from the hand of God through his trusty servants) whereas Tradition is not (name removed by moderator)ired, that is, “written.” It is infallible, inerrant, but it is not inspired (God written).

Tradition is just as authentic and as alive as Scripture, but it cannot be cannonized because the precise requirement for a sacred text is for it to have been inspiredly written by God.

This, inspiration, moreover, DOES NOT mean that God quites once he inscripturates he revelation. To deny the POSSIBILITY that God COULD use mere men/bishops to lead his flock and to preserve Truth is to deny the omnipotence of God.
Click to expand...
:amen:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top