Daniel 2 Prophecy Regarding the Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
po18guy said:
In Greek written form, which has genders. Jesus spoke it in Aramaic, which does not have genders. This recent and specious argument has been addressed and destroyed multiple times in these forums. It does not comport in the least with the role of Peter in the scriptures, or in the early Church. Not one bit!
Click to expand...
But isn’t the written Greek inspired ?
 
benhur said:
But isn’t the written Greek inspired ?
Click to expand...
The point is that a language that doesn’t use gender, does not translate easily into one that does. So, the result is exactly the problem we’re discussing, now. It has nothing to do with whether or not the Greek Gospels were inspired. Of course they were. But, that doesn’t change the fact that the terminology is difficult to translate. This is one of the main reasons that the Church has always been persnickety about translating the Bible into vernacular languages, and stuck so long to using Latin as the preferred language for liturgical use. Latin doesn’t change, so it can’t lose it’s intended meaning by being watered down to fit the ever changing vernacular language (like English).
 
Telstar said:
The point is that a language that doesn’t use gender, does not translate easily into one that does. So, the result is exactly the problem we’re discussing, now. It has nothing to do with whether or not the Greek Gospels were inspired. Of course they were. But, that doesn’t change the fact that the terminology is difficult to translate. This is one of the main reasons that the Church has always been persnickety about translating the Bible into vernacular languages, and stuck so long to using Latin as the preferred language for liturgical use. Latin doesn’t change, so it can’t lose it’s intended meaning by being watered down to fit the ever changing vernacular language (like English).
Click to expand...
Understand but not sure about the sticking to Latin reasoning. Anyways, that is why we go to the Greek, the original, and try to formulate dogmas from that. And the Greek apparently did use gender and I would say quite perfectly and purposely in the “rock” discourse. And yet, we come away with differing views. Seems like our differences has little to do with “language”. I would venture to say the “rock” in Daniel (Septuagint) is the same as Jesus the Rock NT(He is both Petros and Petras in an epistle). Hence when Jesus comes back He will set up His kingdom on Earth, as per Daniel.
 
benhur said:
The church is not the kingdom of God. The church is a dispensation within the Kingdom.
Click to expand...
Where do you get this?

Seems to me Scripture and history are filled with the understanding that the Church IS the Kingdom of God. Remember that Jesus declared the Kingdom of God WAS HERE with him. After all, where the King is, isn’t that the Kingdom?

Jesus is Head of the Church which is his Body. Where the king is, there is the kingdom. And he said he’d be with us always (and is, even physically, in the Eucharist).
Jesus is Bridegroom to the Church, his Bride. Where the king and queen are united, as the chief family and head of a nation, there is the kingdom. And we are all adopted into that kingdom family.

That the Kingdom of God is not complete yet is no surprise. Yes, we await Jesus’s Second Coming to conclusively defeat his enemies and bring his Kingdom to fulfillment. A lack of complete fulfillment now does not mean that there is no kingdom now, and takes nothing away from its unity in heaven and earth through him. Or else, by the same logic, we don’t have salvation now but have to await the final judgment. Or, in kingdom terms, that David was not the chosen, anointed king of God over the kingdom of His Chosen People, just because the promise to the Davidic Kingdom had not been completely fulfilled.
The church will not rule forever.
Click to expand...
Oh? Matthew 16:18 “…I [Jesus] will build MY Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

What is hell/hades/the underworld but an end, a death? If something does not die, it lasts forever, yes?
The CC has had secular as well as spiritual dominion over territory and much political alliance, even had a standing army at once.
Click to expand...
How is this relevant?
 
benhur appears to be a dispensationalist. That philosophy was invented in the mid-1800s by John Nelson Darby, who allowed his ego, (lead by a worldly spirit) to decide what God thought or did not think. The non-biblical teaching of the “secret rapture” appears to have sprung from this same fertile (but unauthorized) mind. Since the idea only further divided the Body of Christ, I believe the seed to have been planted by an enemy of Christ who sought division in Christ’s Body. It is very clearly a man-made doctrine.

The Church is the Body of Christ - exactly as Saint Paul wrote. If the Body of Christ is not the Kingdom of God among us, then what is?
 
benhur said:
Understand but not sure about the sticking to Latin reasoning. Anyways, that is why we go to the Greek, the original, and try to formulate dogmas from that. And the Greek apparently did use gender and I would say quite perfectly and purposely in the “rock” discourse. And yet, we come away with differing views. Seems like our differences has little to do with “language”. I would venture to say the “rock” in Daniel (Septuagint) is the same as Jesus the Rock NT(He is both Petros and Petras in an epistle). Hence when Jesus comes back He will set up His kingdom on Earth, as per Daniel.
Click to expand...
If you want to stick to the Greek, you’ll find that the word used in the LXX in Daniel 2:34 & 45 is neither Petros or petra but rather Lithos. Lithos is more often used to designate a “stone” rather than a “rock”.

Now, it was God who had “cut out” the stone; it doesn’t say that the stone was God.
 
po18guy said:
In Greek written form, which has genders. Jesus spoke it in Aramaic, which does not have genders. This recent and specious argument has been addressed and destroyed multiple times in these forums. It does not comport in the least with the role of Peter in the scriptures, or in the early Church. Not one bit!
Click to expand...
It is an assumption to say it was impossible then for Jesus distinguishing between whether Peter was rock or Jesus was rock, or any variation and by any means. Language is deeper than merely saying a word .There is inflection, tone, circumstance/context, gesturing, etc. etc. If you want to get up close and personal, as if you were there, all these must be considered also… Are you suggesting Greek is in error ?
 
FathersKnowBest said:
If you want to stick to the Greek, you’ll find that the word used in the LXX in Daniel 2:34 & 45 is neither Petros or petra but rather Lithos. Lithos is more often used to designate a “stone” rather than a “rock”.

Now, it was God who had “cut out” the stone; it doesn’t say that the stone was God.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Now was Jesus ever "lithos ? Is Peter lithos ? As far as God cutting out, the suggestion is not the content of “stone” so much but who is the initiator, or real power behind the event, just as we know He is behind the rise and fall of nations, as well as the final victory of His kingdom fully reigning on earth.
 
benhur said:
It is an assumption to say it was impossible then for Jesus distinguishing between whether Peter was rock or Jesus was rock, or any variation and by any means. Language is deeper than merely saying a word .There is inflection, tone, circumstance/context, gesturing, etc. etc. If you want to get up close and personal, as if you were there, all these must be considered also… Are you suggesting Greek is in error ?
Click to expand...
I am suggesting that agenda-driven, private interpretation of scripture, divorced from history and the tradition of the Apostles is error.
 
benhur said:
Except that would not be understandable to nebuchadnezzar. Again what is the rock in Daniel, for Jesus is both petros and petras
Click to expand...
Not everything needed to be understandable to him. All he was to know was that future kingdoms will rise and fall. After all, he wouldn’t even have understood Christ. Scripture is so seeped in almost-hidden prophecy that there are almost no insignificant words.

But I think you have gotten this a little bit mixed up. Yes, Christ is a rock, but Petros is a name for a man, as it is just the masculine variation of the word petra. It isn’t accurate to call Jesus “Petros” as it implies a given name instead of a title. Just because Jesus is a rock of all does not mean that He doesn’t have the authority to name a person and give him authority of the same title. But what is written in Daniel 2 is that this rock was cut out “not by human hands”, this seems to imply that the Divine hand was in the hewing of the rock, and would seem also the throwing, but that the rock itself was common of the Earth.

This interpretation does seem to make good sense given the future Church of the New Covenant, founded by Jesus - the Son of God, on Peter -the rock, that will exist to the end and grow to cover the gentile world. At the very least, if it was not recognisable to the people of the time, we can see this as another one of the Divine “hints” He leaves all throughout scripture, which sometimes only become apparent after the fact.
 
POJIUJH said:
But what is written in Daniel 2 is that this rock was cut out “not by human hands”, this seems to imply that the Divine hand was in the hewing of the rock, and would seem also the throwing, but that the rock itself was common of the Earth.
Click to expand...
Egg zactely.
👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top