Evangelical vs Protestant

[joe370]

Narrow_path you said:

I believe you are badly mistaken. See my earlier post for why I do not accept the idea that the RCC gave us the Bible. Sola Scriptura deserves a thread of its own; there is not enough space required to open up another issue on this thread. But, yes, I do believe the FINAL authority that Jesus and the apostles appealed to was SCRIPTURE. The last time I read through the gospels, I kept track of how many times Jesus refutes His critics by saying or implying, “It is written…” and I came up with 86 times!! Just in the gospels.

Of course I am badly mistaken; I will always be badly mistaken in your mind, based on your interpretation of your bible, just as I am badly mistaken in my sisters mind, based on her interpretation of her bible! You 2 would never see eye 2 eye on most things, with one exception: the RCC is not the church of God, even though I firmly believe that your churches are part of the Mystical Body of Jesus; nothing is impossible for God!!! We have contrasting belief systems; you defer to your bible as do all protestants, for answers; I defer to my bible as well, as long as my interpretations align with the interpretations of Jesus’ established church circa 33 AD, as per the bible. Your way, my sisters way, has led to a divided church; my way, every Catholic’s way, has led to a united church. I will never change, and don’t you ever change either, if that’s how you really feel brother; I love and respect your moxie, even though I don’t agree with you; free will…you gotta love it!!

This is a real simple question: If the C.C. did not codify/canonize your bible, then who…? Please don’t say the H.S. because I already know that; He was then, and He is now, guiding Jesus’ Church! Sola scriptura does have a thread of it’s own; I suggest you visit it, or p.m.me your views regarding your beliefs on sola scriptura; I used to be right where you are now, and would love to hear your thoughts, when you have the time.

You said:
I do believe the FINAL authority that Jesus and the apostles appealed to was SCRIPTURE.

Narrow_path, Jesus did not appeal to scripture, other than the O.T. He is the source of scripture, INCLUDING THE O.T. The Apostles appealed to that source, first the O.T. to prove what they were saying was in fact true, just as Jesus did with the men who were walking to Emmaus - and then to what Jesus taught them, and they in turn taught their flock as well as their successors, who would one day take their place, and they in turn appealed to the same source the Apostles did, and this was all done orally, for this was the normal mode of teaching. I get the idea that you believe, as my sister believes, that every Christian for the first 300 years, was walking around with a little black bible in their hand? - Not so my friend. The codified bible as we know it today, did not exist until the 4th century; people, for the first 300 years of Christianity relied on the C.C. for salvific erudition. Don’t take my word on it; see for your self; defer to critically acclaimed and accredited scholarship, or do you just defer to your keen insights via your bible in hand, as my sister does?

You said:

The last time I read through the gospels, I kept track of how many times Jesus refutes His critics by saying or implying, “It is written…” and I came up with 86 times!! Just in the gospels.

Yup…And each time He does that, He is referring to the Old Testament my friend!!!

 

[joe370]

Said by narrow_path: No, we are not agreed. I don’t know any other way to break this to you, but I do not believe the RCC was established by Christ, nor would it have been necessary.

**I will keep my responses short, for I know that there is only one of you and many of us. By the way, the path to heaven for Catholics, especially Roman Catholics is not just narrow, it’s non existent according to you, when you said:

“I don’t know any other way to break this to you, but I do not believe the RCC was established by Christ.”

You really are sure of your self; very impressive; I ask respectfully, where do you get this self assurance - from your bible or your church? Narrow_path, what was the name of Jesus’ established church for the first 1000 years of Christianity?
**

In fact, I do not believe the RCC EVEN EXISTS from purely a biblical perspective.

**In fact, I do not believe the P.C.'s EVEN EXIST from purely a biblical perspective; is that a fair assessment???
**

Sure, we have men that have called themselves “Popes” in church history; but this does not prove anything. The real issue is a BIBLICAL one, and I have already elaborated on why I do not believe in the one “true church.”

**You believe that all churches comprise the one true church - is that correct? Well, except the RC.C. Again, you said: I do not believe the CC was established by Christ. Try and sell that idea to scholars/historians.
**

Due to this, you and I have a completely different concept of what the Body of Christ or Church actually represents. I believe it represents ALL who have a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ - regardless of denominational affiliation (sometimes no denomination at all…especially with death bed conversions).

**We do agree; I believe the same; I just happen to believe that the C.C. which includes the C.C. in Rome, is part of Jesus’ Mystical Body to which He is the Head and Savior; you don’t!!! **

You believe the Church to be a HEIRARCHICAL INSTITUTION in which worshipping the Lord in the same building somehow means there is Unity among the members on an individual basis.

**Jesus’ established church is not a building per se: Jesus’ established church are all Jesus’ brothers and sisters in Christ united and one, with both teacher and pupil - agreed? The hierarchal system was established as early as the 2nd century, due to the rapid growth of Christianity. We see this in all institutions the world over. Did she, as the bride of Christ, actually start straying from the guidance of the Holy Spirit in her very infancy? If that were the case, then Christianity is nothing more than a man made religion.
**

This is inconsistent with how God operates (had He actually chosen to makes these decrees). So God is making decrees and ignoring them?

**Yup…Just kidding! LOL…We are bound by His decrees; He is not! If God wants to change His Divine mind, I’m pretty sure He can.
**

I believe the origins of these decrees are man-made with most of the material borrowed from early church fathers.

**So, most of Gods decrees are not His at all; you mean like sola scriptura, given to the P.C.'s by Martin Luther? The ECF’s gave you your bible; that is a historical fact, believed by all Protestant scholars; it is not disputed by any of them.
**

It is great to learn from those who have gone before us, but I simply am not willing to take the writings of the fathers and use it as infallible, God-breathed information. Rather, I’ll stick with the words of Christ and the apostles as they have been preserved for us.

**Preserved by whom for 1500 years??? I would be on board with you if not for the following:

1. The Holy Spirit was sent to Jesus’ established church on Pentecost to direct, teach and guide her in perpetuity, and He is still guiding her, as per sacred scripture, and that church was referred to as Catholic by both the eastern church leaders as well as the western church leaders, by the turn of the 1st century; if you need proof, just ask!
2. The Holy Bible which I love, treasure and read everyday, did not fall from the sky in the 4th or the 16th century. It was compiled, bound and officially canonized by the C.C. leaders. Prove me wrong and I will leave the C.C. **

I certainly enjoy debating with you and will get to your other comments as soon as I can.

God bless…

 

[benedictus2]

**2) The Holy Bible which I love, treasure and read everyday, did not fall from the sky in the 4th or the 16th century. **.

Nooooooooooo! Are you sure!

 

[narrow_path]

First, to give a quick response to Usemelord about OSAS:

You say, “What of the “born again” person who later rejects and renounces Christ altogether and/or chooses to be agnostic or atheist? What of the person that blasphemes the Holy Spirit which we know from Scripture is an absolute and certain bar from ever entering the heavenly Kingdom?

My answer is that apostasy demonstrates that genuine saving faith in Christ really never took place (even though it may have seemed like it did to outsiders, just look at Judas before his betrayal). Next, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (Mat. 12:31-32) is not a singular event. It is an ongoing rejection of God’s mercy and grace. The Pharisees hated Christ passionately and attributed His miracles to Beelzebub, the prince of demons. So unlike those that were afraid they have committed to unforgivable sin, the Pharisees were totally unconcerned about Christ’s forgiveness and grace. Instead, with premeditation and persistence, they willfully blasphemed the Holy Spirit’s testimony that Christ was the Son of the living God. And that is precisely what the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is: a constant, ongoing rejection of Christ’s mercy and grace.

 

[narrow_path]

Little miss Benedictus2 and Paul C-

Apparently two issues need to be re-addressed: The establishment of the Papacy and who gave us the Bible. I have already addressed the latter giving definitive biblical examples as to why I do not believe the RCC gave us the Bible……but this has been ignored and replaced with unimpressive pro-Catholic rhetoric. My reply will be to both of you concerning the establishment of the papacy. So, let’s start with the famous Matthew 16 passage, shall we?

Mat. 16:13-20 “When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.”’

There are many factors in the Greek text to consider. EVERY time Peter is referred to in the passage it is in the second person (you), conversely “this rock” is in the third person. Therefore, they do not agree with each other and do not refer to the same thing. Also, Peter (petros) is a masculine singular term and “rock” (petra) is a feminine singular term—once again, they do not have the same referent. Therefore, in context, petra here refers to Peter’s CONFESSION OF FAITH that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God—which was mentioned just prior to these words so it would make perfect sense for Jesus to reiterate them. In fact, the entire context of Matthew 16:13-20 is all about JESUS not Peter! The key issue of discussion is the identity of Jesus Himself! Jesus asked the disciples about who the people say He is (verse 13). Peter then declared correctly that “Jesus is the Christ” (verse 16). So, to prevent a premature disclosure of His identity, Jesus warned them not to tell anyone the He was the Christ (verse 20). So, petros and petra are the words that the Holy Spirit inspired and placed into this verse—not kepha. There simply is no inspired Aramaic and it is mere conjecture to think so. If the Holy Spirit had wanted kepha to be used, it would be there……but it is not. However, even if it were, the context would still be the same.

Before I put too much on the table, I give you an opportunity to respond…

 

[benedictus2]

Little miss Benedictus2 and Paul C-

Apparently two issues need to be re-addressed: The establishment of the Papacy and who gave us the Bible. I have already addressed the latter giving definitive biblical examples as to why I do not believe the RCC gave us the Bible…but this has been ignored and replaced with unimpressive pro-Catholic rhetoric.

Good. I will try to locate your post regarding this. I have not read the earlier post so I will do a bit of back tracking.

… My reply will be to both of you concerning the establishment of the papacy. So, let’s start with the famous Matthew 16 passage, shall we?

Yes, sir

Mat. 16:13-20 “When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.”’

There are many factors in the Greek text to consider. EVERY time Peter is referred to in the passage it is in the second person (you), conversely “this rock” is in the third person. Therefore, they do not agree with each other and do not refer to the same thing. Also, Peter (petros) is a masculine singular term and “rock” (petra) is a feminine singular term—once again, they do not have the same referent.

First of all, Jesus spoke Aramaic. What he said here goes like this: You are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my church". In Aramaic, rock is Kepha.
If you translate the Aramaic into English it goes like this: “You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church”.
How dd we end up with petros and petra.

When they translated Jesus’s words into Greek there they ran into a problem because the Greek language has gender for things and kepha translates to petra. But since they cannot give Simon a female name they gave him the male equivalent which is Petros.

How do we know that he was indeed called Kepha? Well have it in John and elsewhere Paul calls him Cephas.

Therefore, in context, petra here refers to Peter’s CONFESSION OF FAITH

No it does not as I have shown above. Peter is the the Kepha or Cephas which really is rock.

that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God—which was mentioned just prior to these words so it would make perfect sense for Jesus to reiterate them.

But Jesus is not reiterating them. What did Jesus do after Peter’s confession? He changes Peter’s name to Kepha / Rock. No re-iteration happening here.

In fact, the entire context of Matthew 16:13-20 is all about JESUS not Peter!

Wrong again. It is about Jesus MAKING Peter the Rock upon which He will build His Church.

The key issue of discussion is the identity of Jesus Himself! Jesus asked the disciples about who the people say He is (verse 13). Peter then declared correctly that “Jesus is the Christ” (verse 16).

And what did Jesus say after that. He said "flesh and blood did not reveal this to Peter but His Father in heaven. So think about that God the Father specifically CHOSE Peter. Handpicked Him. That is why Jesus then affrms the Father’s choice by saying that Peter will be the foundation of His Church.

So, to prevent a premature disclosure of His identity, Jesus warned them not to tell anyone the He was the Christ (verse 20). So, petros and petra are the words that the Holy Spirit inspired and placed into this verse—not kepha.

Nope because Jesus was not speaking in Greek. As I have said above, that is why Peter is referred to as Cephas in other books of the Bible.

There simply is no inspired Aramaic and it is mere conjecture to think so.

It is not conjecture it is in the Bible

If the Holy Spirit had wanted kepha to be used, it would be there….

"And it is. In John 1:42 Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter). "

Before I put too much on the table, I give you an opportunity to respond…

And I have.

Byt the way, Little miss Benedictus2 is cute. I like that. Very similar to how the company director addresses me.

 

[paul_c]

Little miss Benedictus2 and Paul C-

Apparently two issues need to be re-addressed: The establishment of the Papacy and who gave us the Bible. I have already addressed the latter giving definitive biblical examples as to why I do not believe the RCC gave us the Bible……but this has been ignored and replaced with unimpressive pro-Catholic rhetoric. My reply will be to both of you concerning the establishment of the papacy. So, let’s start with the famous Matthew 16 passage, shall we?

Tell us again, how you can deny that the Holy Spirit used the Catholic Chruch to establish the bible? How can you possibly use the Bible to show that? Please illuminate us.

Mat. 16:13-20 “When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.”’

There are many factors in the Greek text to consider. EVERY time Peter is referred to in the passage it is in the second person (you), conversely “this rock” is in the third person. Therefore, they do not agree with each other and do not refer to the same thing. Also, Peter (petros) is a masculine singular term and “rock” (petra) is a feminine singular term—once again, they do not have the same referent. Therefore, in context, petra here refers to Peter’s CONFESSION OF FAITH that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God—which was mentioned just prior to these words so it would make perfect sense for Jesus to reiterate them. In fact, the entire context of Matthew 16:13-20 is all about JESUS not Peter! The key issue of discussion is the identity of Jesus Himself! Jesus asked the disciples about who the people say He is (verse 13). Peter then declared correctly that “Jesus is the Christ” (verse 16). So, to prevent a premature disclosure of His identity, Jesus warned them not to tell anyone the He was the Christ (verse 20). So, petros and petra are the words that the Holy Spirit inspired and placed into this verse—not kepha. There simply is no inspired Aramaic and it is mere conjecture to think so. If the Holy Spirit had wanted kepha to be used, it would be there……but it is not. However, even if it were, the context would still be the same.

Before I put too much on the table, I give you an opportunity to respond…

Frankly Narrow Path, this is not in the least compelling. Do you think that Jesus and his followers were speaking Greek? If so, you would be the only ones. They were speaking Aramaic and the work for Rock is Kepha. The well documented reason that that translates into two words in Greek is that word in Greek for rock is feminine which would have been inappropriate for Peter. There is no such issue in Aramaic. Translated into English, which also doesn’t have this issue, " You are rock and on this rock I will build my church." The Bible reading you have retains Peter instead of the translated Rock because the greek name has always been retained for St. Peter, (Simon, son of Jonah). And everything I have highlighted in Blue was clearly addressed to St. Peter and is clearly establishing his leadership. This was reiterated throughout the rest of the New Testament as I described in the post above. By the way, why would Jesus name Peter the rock and then describe a rock on Which he would build his church if there wasn’t a connection? do you think a omniscient and efficient God would just have a word hanging out there for no reason?

Cease yoru unbellief but believe. Answer this directly point by point if you can. You will see then the fallacy of your arguments.

 

[narrow_path]

LM Benedictus2-

“First of all, Jesus spoke Aramaic. What he said here goes like this: You are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my church". In Aramaic, rock is Kepha. If you translate the Aramaic into English it goes like this: “You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church”. How dd we end up with petros and petra. When they translated Jesus’s words into Greek there they ran into a problem because the Greek language has gender for things and kepha translates to petra. But since they cannot give Simon a female name they gave him the male equivalent which is Petros. How do we know that he was indeed called Kepha? Well have it in John and elsewhere Paul calls him Cephas.”

Sorry, this does not fly. You are completely IGNORING the context of Matthew 16. As I already mentioned, even if kepha were used, if would not diminish the context of the chapter! You seem to think by using an Aramiac word somehow destroys the fact that Peter just got through saying that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the loving God??” Here’s a news flash: it does NOTHING to even remotely change the context! We still see Peter’s confession here as the “rock” in which Christ was referring to! You HAVE NOT addressed the context of the passage—rather; you are relying on what your Catholic predecessors have told you……sad indeed.

“But Jesus is not reiterating them. What did Jesus do after Peter’s confession? He changes Peter’s name to Kepha / Rock. No re-iteration happening here.”

Really? What do you call this: “But what about you? He asked. Who do you say that I am?” (verse 15) “Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (verse 16). IN THE VERY NEXT TWO VERSES CHRIST MAKES CLEAR—“Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on THIS ROCK (THE CONFESSION PETER JUST MADE) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” JESUS REITERATES Peter’s correct statement that He is in fact the Christ, the Son of the living God. You are in Catholic denial to think otherwise.

“Wrong again. It is about Jesus MAKING Peter the Rock upon which He will build His Church.”

Did I not make myself clear? You are not refuting my statement! As I said before, “The key issue of discussion is the identity of Jesus Himself! Jesus asked the disciples about who the people say He is (verse 13). Peter then declared correctly that “Jesus is the Christ” (verse 16). So, to prevent a premature disclosure of His identity, Jesus warned them not to tell anyone the He was the Christ (verse 20).” WHAT SAY YOU TO THIS?? You have done NOTHING to diminish this contextual fact except regurgitate a one-line Catholic statement that DOES NOT EVEN ADDRESS the context. SHOW ME that Jesus MADE Peter the “rock” based on the CONTEXT. You cannot….because He DID NOT.

“And what did Jesus say after that. He said "flesh and blood did not reveal this to Peter but His Father in heaven. So think about that God the Father specifically CHOSE Peter. Handpicked Him. That is why Jesus then affrms the Father’s choice by saying that Peter will be the foundation of His Church.”

Excuse me? The Father explicitly said that “Peter would be the foundation of His church?” Where are you coming up with this? Certainly it’s not in Scripture, that much I know for sure. You are making generalized Catholic statement—you ARE NOT quoting the biblical text. Sure, the Holy Spirit revealed to Peter that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God—I’m perfectly OK with that. How does this mean that God the Father HANDPICKED Peter to be the supposed “head??” You are jumping to an erroneous Catholic conclusion……once again, based on your prior commitment that no amount of biblical evidence could convince you otherwise. I run into this all the time with Catholics—they WILL NOT use Scripture to refute biblical points raised, rather they will resort to a Magisterial spin on the text and then speak of their interpretation as if it MUST be true. Wow. These are cult-like symptoms.

“Nope because Jesus was not speaking in Greek. As I have said above, that is why Peter is referred to as Cephas in other books of the Bible.”

So, you think that it is out of God’s power and providence to supernaturally reveal his words to us in Aramaic? You can believe that if you wish, but I choose not to. If God had wanted to have Aramaic written and inspired, HE WOULD HAVE DONE SO. This is totally consistent with God’s prerogative. He can do what He wants, when He wants. Therefore, He could have used inspired Aramaic if He really wanted to……but He didn’t. Ironically, it would not have even mattered if He did because as I already mentioned, the context would still be the same!

“It is not conjecture it is in the Bible”

Are you in some form of denial? Are you believing now that the Matthew 16 text was inspired Aramaic? Like I said, no amount of evidence could convince you otherwise—biblical or secular.

“"And it is. In John 1:42 Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).”

In many ways, I sincerely feel bad for you. You continue to miss the same basic point over and over again because of your prior commitment to Catholic theology. You simply WILL NOT let the text speak for itself. That is certainly up to you. Your “refutations” are not even true refutations, rather they are just more Catholic babblings that have NO contextual basis.

 

[narrow_path]

Paul C-

“Frankly Narrow Path, this is not in the least compelling. Do you think that Jesus and his followers were speaking Greek? If so, you would be the only ones. They were speaking Aramaic and the work for Rock is Kepha. The well documented reason that that translates into two words in Greek is that word in Greek for rock is feminine which would have been inappropriate for Peter. There is no such issue in Aramaic. Translated into English, which also doesn’t have this issue, " You are rock and on this rock I will build my church." The Bible reading you have retains Peter instead of the translated Rock because the greek name has always been retained for St. Peter, (Simon, son of Jonah). And everything I have highlighted in Blue was clearly addressed to St. Peter and is clearly establishing his leadership. This was reiterated throughout the rest of the New Testament as I described in the post above. By the way, why would Jesus name Peter the rock and then describe a rock on Which he would build his church if there wasn’t a connection? do you think a omniscient and efficient God would just have a word hanging out there for no reason? Cease yoru unbellief but believe. Answer this directly point by point if you can. You will see then the fallacy of your arguments.”

I never said that I thought they were speaking in Greek. What I have consistently said is that the INSPIRED WORD OF GOD WAS INTENTIONALLY WRITTEN IN GREEK. God choose Greek as the language HE WANTED to use to communicate to His people. This was done FOR A REASON.

Once again, you highlight this verse, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

For contexts sake, will you let the passage speak for itself?? I have already explained this in my prior response. But you REFUSE to acknowledge the fact that Peter’s CONFESSION OF FAITH that he JUST MADE is the “rock” Christ is referring to. Stick to the CONTEXT of the passage, not just an Aramaic word for “rock.” Once again, EVEN IF kepha were to be used, IT WOULD DO NOTHING TO CHANGE THE CONTEXT OF THE CHAPTER. My suggestion is to read Matthew 15-17 over again to get a better feel for the context.

 

[bigbaldone]

Hi Benedictus2

The disagreement and division demonstrated in this thread among Catholics makes me feel like saying: “I rest my case.” All of this supposed “unity” among Catholics simply does not exist as they might think once they begin to actually find out what each other actually believes. This is what I have been saying all along. Usemelord rejects the authoritative canons of Trent (as do millions of others), yet we (Protestants) are supposed to believe that there is this perfect unity of belief in the RCC. Nothing could be further from the truth as this thread has so clearly exposed. (I hope the uncommenting Catholics will take note.)
Peace be with you

Unity is not a utopia of butterflies and John Denver music where everyone is thinking the exact thing every moment of the day…wait…Sunshine On My Shoulders is on…

Please not the following:

1. Disagreement happens in every church whether Catholic or Protestant.
2. Disagreement over councils, etc is mute. Why? Please read on.
3. The Rabbi’s of antiquity disagreed over certain issues, yet the unity of the Jewish faith was not diminished. Each local Rabbi practiced Binding and Loosing. One Rabbi’s Bind might be another ones Loose. Note: There is a real significance to Jesus saying this, Binding and Loosing, to Peter.
4. Is there Protestant unity? Is so, why so many denominations?
5. Individual Catholics may disagree with certain issues, yet that does NOT affect the official teaching of the Church worldwide.
6. Individual Protestants may disagree, and that disagreement can and sometimes does (has) leads to church splits, new denominations, sectarianism, fights over proper biblical translations, etc.

Conclusion. Catholic or Protestant, individuals within a denomination or congregation/parish may disagree; it is human nature. However, the RCC has stood the test of time. Protestantism on the other hand has spawned numerous denominations, all claiming to hold the truth, due to disagreements.

Most disagreements within Catholicism are very minor. Any major issues typically arise from the Traditionalist Catholics which are a splinter group not in communion with the RCC (even though many of these church’s call themselves RCC).

BTW, I love John Denver’s music! Really…I do.

 

[narrow_path]

Joe 370-

“1) The Holy Spirit was sent to Jesus’ established church on Pentecost to direct, teach and guide her in perpetuity, and He is still guiding her, as per sacred scripture, and that church was referred to as Catholic by both the eastern church leaders as well as the western church leaders, by the turn of the 1st century; if you need proof, just ask!
2) The Holy Bible which I love, treasure and read everyday, did not fall from the sky in the 4th or the 16th century. It was compiled, bound and officially canonized by the C.C. leaders. Prove me wrong and I will leave the C.C.”

Read my previous post (#99) and you will get my position on this.

 

[bigbaldone]

Joe370,

I enjoyed your post concerning the 300 years of the church using the OT.

Narrow_Path makes it clear that Jesus and the Apostles relied on what we call Sola Scriptura. Hmm…that is a half truth.

Judaism relied heavily on oral tradition in addition to the scriptures. Yes, Jesus viewed the scriptures as his authority, as you and I both know the RCC does as well. However, growing up Jewish, he was taught the traditions.

These traditions later became known in written form as the Talmud:

The Talmud has two parts: the Mishnah which is the first written collection of Judaism’s Oral Law; and the Gemara, a commentary of the Mishnah and related writings that often discuss other subjects and expounds on what we call the OT.

These writing are extra-biblical, yet played an important part in Jewish religious life. While not in written for at the time of Jesus, they were orally taught and practiced.

You hit the nail on the head when you stated that many Protestants believe the early Christians walked around with a bible.

I also find it funny and tragic that they believe that the Holy Spirit just some how dropped the NT out of the sky and said “Here you go!”, or that the apostles just “knew” which writings were inspired. They do not understand the long process of cannonization, or for that matter, what the word cannon means. For them it seems that if they mention the “Holy Spirit” did this or that, that no one should even dare question that statement.

I am babbling…thank you for your post.

 

[bigbaldone]

Joe 370-

Read my previous post (#99) and you will get my position on this.

I see your position after reading your post.

The issue is not with the Old Testament, rather the texts of the New Testament. Therefore, when it is said that the RCC gave us the bible it is speaking of the complete cannon of the NT. To deny this is really to deny an historical fact.

Just an historical note, the Septuagint, which after translation, was the corpus of text which Jesus used, and contained deutero-canonical writings. It was accepted.

Since you posses a Seminary degree, I am surprised that this is not a part of your education. My Theological training is not Catholic either, yet I was blessed to have a Prof. who grew up Jewish and later became a Christian.

 

[paul_c]

Paul C-

“

Frankly Narrow Path, this is not in the least compelling. Do you think that Jesus and his followers were speaking Greek? If so, you would be the only ones. They were speaking Aramaic and the work for Rock is Kepha. The well documented reason that that translates into two words in Greek is that word in Greek for rock is feminine which would have been inappropriate for Peter. There is no such issue in Aramaic. Translated into English, which also doesn’t have this issue, " You are rock and on this rock I will build my church." The Bible reading you have retains Peter instead of the translated Rock because the greek name has always been retained for St. Peter, (Simon, son of Jonah). And everything I have highlighted in Blue was clearly addressed to St. Peter and is clearly establishing his leadership. This was reiterated throughout the rest of the New Testament as I described in the post above. By the way, why would Jesus name Peter the rock and then describe a rock on Which he would build his church if there wasn’t a connection? do you think a omniscient and efficient God would just have a word hanging out there for no reason? Cease yoru unbellief but believe. Answer this directly point by point if you can. You will see then the fallacy of your arguments.”

yes, there was an imminitely practical reason for the New Testament to be written in Greek at this point: It was the universal commercial language of the day and only those in Judea spoke Aramaic so it wasn’t good for spreading the word outside of jewish circles. When the universal language became Latin, all the bibles were copied into Latin. The reason that Kephas was translated into Peter here was so that the word play made sense to the Greek readers. And by the way, there is tradition that Matthew’s Gsopel was first written in aramaic and then translated into Greek. Although I don’t know of any existing Aramaic manuscripts, man translators will tell you there the Greek in Matthew reads like it was translated from Aramaic in terms of word choices and sentence structure.

Once again, you highlight this verse, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

For contexts sake, will you let the passage speak for itself?? I have already explained this in my prior response. But you REFUSE to acknowledge the fact that Peter’s CONFESSION OF FAITH that he JUST MADE is the “rock” Christ is referring to. Stick to the CONTEXT of the passage, not just an Aramaic word for “rock.” Once again, EVEN IF kepha were to be used, IT WOULD DO NOTHING TO CHANGE THE CONTEXT OF THE CHAPTER. My suggestion is to read Matthew 15-17 over again to get a better feel for the context.

Narrow Path, YOU must let the passage speak for itself. He says to Peter, YOU are Rock. He doesn’t say " Your confession" is the the Rock. You are simply reading something into the passage that you would like to be there. If Jesus was talking about the confession and not the person who God enlighted with the confession, why does he does give Peter the keys to the kingdom with the power ot loose and bind? Clearly he can not give the keys to a confession?

Read the passage again:

Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven

Clearly God has chosen Peter to be the one person who understood that Jesus was the Messiah, the son of the Living God. Can you deny this?

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it

You are the individual that recieved this message from God are a rock. And on this Rock I will build my church. And hell will not overcome it. (and the church founded by Christ on St. Peter still is strongly viable today after 2000 years to prove it).

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

I ( Jesus) will give You (peter) the keys to the kingdom heaven: you are in charge of binding and loosing on earth and in heaven.

This is all simple and eligant as you would expect from God:
You, Simon son of Jonah, are chosen to be the head of my church . I am giving you the authority to bind and loose in heaven and on earth.

And you are right that the assiging to the leadership of the church is consistent with the rest of the Matthew 15-17, where he is begining to prepare the Apostles for life with out him. Telling them of his impending passion and showing them his transfigured form. Notice that at the end of Matthew 17, Jesus has Peter pay the temple tax for Jesus and Peter as the leaders (but not the other Apostles)…

 

[bigbaldone]

paul c wrote

yes, there was an imminitely practical reason for the New Testament to be written in Greek at this point: It was the universal commercial language of the day and only those in Judea spoke Aramaic so it wasn’t good for spreading the word outside of jewish circles. When the universal language became Latin, all the bibles were copied into Latin. The reason that Kephas was translated into Peter here was so that the word play made sense to the Greek readers. And by the way, there is tradition that Matthew’s Gsopel was first written in aramaic and then translated into Greek. Although I don’t know of any existing Aramaic manuscripts, man translators will tell you there the Greek in Matthew reads like it was translated from Aramaic in terms of word choices and sentence structure.

Exactly!

Allow me to add something here.

Matthew was written to a Jewish audience and the theme presents Jesus as a King.

Also, the term Binding and Loosing is only found in Matthew in this chapter and again in chapter 18.

Binding and loosing was used either Judicially or Legislative. A Rabbi would bless his Talmidim (disciple) by giving him the Keys of Heaven, which was his approval for the man to Bind and Loose. That is interpret the scriptures and make decisions. It was also used to decide the fate caused by a persons actions, as we see discussed in chapter 18.

Bind: To forbid
Loose: To Allow

The significance here is based on the revelation of who Jesus is, and that Peter was given the keys and the authority to bind and loose; Jesus was placing his approval and authority upon Peter. It forever solidified Peters leadership.

It has been brought up that Peter could not be the leader based on James being in charge of a meeting, etc. Rubbish! Leadership is also delegated. Within the RCC there are many levels of leadership today. In my company, there are district meetings run by the District Manager and decisions are made. The CEO is not present at these meetings, so does that make him NOT the CEO?

 

[narrow_path]

Paul C-

“Narrow Path, YOU must let the passage speak for itself. He says to Peter, YOU are Rock. He doesn’t say " Your confession" is the the Rock. You are simply reading something into the passage that you would like to be there. If Jesus was talking about the confession and not the person who God enlighted with the confession, why does he does give Peter the keys to the kingdom with the power ot loose and bind? Clearly he can not give the keys to a confession?”

Right, Jesus says “this rock.” You believe He is referring to a man and I believe He is referring to the fact that HE is the rock—the Son of the living God. The context fits this perfectly. The keys to the kingdom is an obvious relation to witnessing and evangelism by the apostles. In other words, ALL of the apostles were given the power to grant or deny access into the Kingdom of God BASED ON HOW INDIVIDUALS RESPOND TO THE GOSPEL. Those who respond favorably are “granted” access, while those who choose not to believe are “denied” access to the Kingdom.

Keep in mind that the terms “bind” and “loose” were Jewish idioms indicating that what is announced on earth has already been determined in heaven. Binding meant to forbid, refuse, or prohibit; loosing meant to permit or allow. So, we can announce the prohibition or allowance of certain things on earth because GOD has ALREADY made an announcement on these matters. Once again, this fits perfectly with the context of Matthew 16:19—for there are two perfect participles in periphrastic construction. The correct and proper translation actually is: “Whatever you bind upon earth SHALL HAVE ALREADY BEEN BOUND IN HEAVEN, and whatever you loose upon the earth SHALL ALREADY HAVE BEEN LOOSED IN HEAVEN.” The bottom line is that Christians can therefore announce the prohibition or allowance of certain things on earth because heaven has already made an announcement on these matters.

The ancient Jewish understanding of this also fits in perfectly with the context. If you were a Jew living at the time of Christ and let’s say that you did something that you thought could be a violation of the Mosaic Law, you would have taken your problem to the ruling elders. Then, they would have debated your case and come to one of two conclusions: they would have either bound you or loosed you. If they had bound you, this meant that you had violated the Mosaic Law and you were obligated to pay the penalty (sacrifice or restitution). If they had loosed you, then you did not violate the Mosaic Law so no sacrifice was necessary. But the point is that the ruling elders were simply declaring WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN LEGISLATED BY MOSES. This is how the ancient Jews understood binding and loosing.

Further, it is clear in the book of Acts that Peter and the apostles did indeed “grant access” into the Kingdom of God to VARIOUS people. There were Jews (Acts 2:14-36), Samaritans (8:4-25) and Gentiles (9:32-10:48) who were granted access to the Kingdom BASED ON THEIR RESPONSE TO THE GOSPEL. What we do not see is Peter rising to a level of supremacy and exercising authority over all others.

 

[narrow_path]

Paul C-

“Narrow Path, YOU must let the passage speak for itself. He says to Peter, YOU are Rock. He doesn’t say " Your confession" is the the Rock. You are simply reading something into the passage that you would like to be there."

You might want to read the passage as many times as it takes to understand. Jesus does not say to Peter “YOU are rock”. Jesus did say “You are Peter”. Is that what you meant? I know that Roman Catholicism begins to fade once this passage is correctly understood. And, for most Catholics, they just don’t want to believe what the text says based on their prior commitment to Catholic theology.

Read it again:

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on THIS ROCK (Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ) I will build my church…”

Nowhere does Christ tell Peter directly, “YOU are rock.”

 

[narrow_path]

Bigbaldone-

“The issue is not with the Old Testament, rather the texts of the New Testament. Therefore, when it is said that the RCC gave us the bible it is speaking of the complete cannon of the NT. To deny this is really to deny an historical fact. Just an historical note, the Septuagint, which after translation, was the corpus of text which Jesus used, and contained deutero-canonical writings. It was accepted. Since you posses a Seminary degree, I am surprised that this is not a part of your education. My Theological training is not Catholic either, yet I was blessed to have a Prof. who grew up Jewish and later became a Christian.”

Yes, on to the NT. As I mentioned earlier, the OT Scriptures that Christ came to fulfill were canonized centuries before the RCC came into existence (although the existence of the RCC itself is debatable). The procedure God used to gather these books was the same procedure for forming the canon of the NT—which is only DISCOVERED by men NOT DETERMINED by men. When the Synod of Carthage in 397 AD listed the 27 books of the NT, it did not confer upon them any authority which they did not already possess, but simply recorded their previously established canonicity. So, the church is subject to the authority of the Scriptures, not the other way around. How men discover canonicity has to do with looking for the earmarks of inspiration which are the authoritative, prophetic, authentic, dynamic and accepted nature of the books. This is also why the Apocrypha fails the test—no prophet wrote any of the books, Jesus and the apostles NEVER quoted them……well I won’t get into that right now……I digress……

So, Hippo and Carthage did not DETERMINE the canon in the fourth century, rather they confirmed what was ALREADY accepted as canonical. The purpose of these councils were not to sort through old dusty scrolls that had been stored in some monastic attic and announce to the Christian world which books were canonical! As a matter of fact, the Scriptures receive their authority not because some councils made a public statement of their acceptance, but because the early church accepted the Scriptures in much the same way as Israel accepted the OT Scriptures—they knew and believed the Scriptures to be inspired by God. The early church rightly saw itself subject to the authority of the Scripture—not the other way around. Thus, the church has always been subject to the authority of God’s written Word.

The unique position of the apostles played a vital role in enabling the early church to accept the NT canon. THEY were the Lord’s companions for most of His ministry and He gave them they ultimate mission: The Great Commission. SO, not only were they eyewitnesses to the resurrection, but they were endowed the necessary credentials to establish themselves as God’s spokesperson’s. The miracles they performed testified to this role. Acts 5:12 records that, “the apostles performed many miraculous signs and wonder among the people.” This included raising the dead to life and restoring the sick to perfect health. Acts 19:11 records that “God did extraordinary miracles through Paul.” Paul had no hesitation in pointing to the miracles performed by the apostles as proof positive of their divine calling (2 Cor. 12:12).

For many years the apostles taught the church all that God was revealing to them, and the church accepted their teaching. The church had every confidence that what the sapostles taught them WAS INDEED the will and Word of God. Like the prophets before them, they too would die, but God made sure that His message would always be available. Thus, the Holy Spirit guided the apostles to record God’s will in the Scriptures, and the church accepted their writings as the Word of God. Jesus gave the very words the Father had given Him (John 17:8) and promised to send the Holy Spirit to teach them, guide them, and recall to their minds all that He had told them during His earthly ministry (see John 14:26; 16:13). Part of the Spirit’s guidance pertained to the writings of the 27 books that compose the NT. Of course, this is not surprising considering that the early church grew out of a Jewish heritage, which had accumulated the writings of God’s former spokespersons. Under the Spirit’s guidance, the early church followed the same practice.

Therefore the church is a SERVANT and NOT a mistress; a DEPOSITORY but NOT a judge. The church exercises the office of a minister, NOT of a magistrate. The church delivers a testimony, NOT a judicial sentence. The church DISCOVERS the canon of the Scriptures; it DOES NOT DETERMINE the canon. The church RECOGNIZES the authority of the canon, it DOES NOT GIVE the authority. Therefore, the authority of the Scriptures is not founded on the authority of the church; rather, the church is founded on the authority of the Scriptures.

 

[paul_c]

Paul C-

“Narrow Path, YOU must let the passage speak for itself. He says to Peter, YOU are Rock. He doesn’t say " Your confession" is the the Rock. You are simply reading something into the passage that you would like to be there."

You might want to read the passage as many times as it takes to understand. Jesus does not say to Peter “YOU are rock”. Jesus did say “You are Peter”. Is that what you meant? I know that Roman Catholicism begins to fade once this passage is correctly understood. And, for most Catholics, they just don’t want to believe what the text says based on their prior commitment to Catholic theology.

Read it again:

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on THIS ROCK (Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ) I will build my church…”

Nowhere does Christ tell Peter directly, “YOU are rock.”

Narrow Path, . You are obviously not an expert on language. Jesus said you are Kephas in Aramaic which is rendered Peter in Greek and Rock in English. Read it again as it was originally rendered> Simon, son of Jonah, You are Rock and on this Rock I will build my Church.

its as simple and straightforward as that. No need to try to do linguistic gymnastics to understand it. This is not a Catholic thing. This is simple translation. If you can’t understand this intellectually, I wonder what is keeping you from it.

 

[joe370]

**Narrow_path, you asked me to read this post regarding the canonization of the bible:
**

Many seem to be unaware that the apocryphal books were not canonized by Trent until some 1500 years AFTER they were written largely as a RESPONSE to the Reformation. Of course, Luther was very critical of the RCC for not having scriptural support for doctrines such as praying for the dead. So, by canonizing the Apocrypha, Catholics then had a “go to” passage in 2 Maccabees 12:45,46. Of course I am aware of the arguments made that the Apocrypha should belong in Scripture: some of the early church fathers, including Augustine considered them to be inspired; also the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT) contained them. But these facts were ALREADY KNOWN in the early centuries of Christianity; thus, the RCC delay until the 16th century to declare the apocryphal books canonical depletes these arguments tremendously.

*Interesting…You said: * “I don’t know any other way to break this to you, but I do not believe the RCC was established by Christ.” With that said, perhaps they got it wrong regarding the 27 books of the N.T. and the 39 books of the protestant O.T.as well; certainly that is a possibility if the C.C., the codifier of your bible, was not established by God, as you claim! **

**Narrow_path, using just your bible, please explain to everyone here at CAF where your bible came from! **

Further, NONE of the apocryphal books even claim to be inspired themselves; unlike the canonical NT books we have (see 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21; 3:16).

**All scripture is inspired by God…2 Timothy 3:16 - Where in this passage does it exclude what you call the apocryphal books? Where in this passage doe it include the 27 books of the N.T. as opposed to the apocryphal books such as the gospel of Peter or the gospel of Thomas? It simply says: all scripture…We know that God is the author, but who supplied the table of contents? This passage in no way claims/identifies which books are inspired, or which books are not. **

Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. 2 Peter 1

**Hmmm…Human beings moved by the holy spirit…Perhaps this applies to the human beings belonging to the church built by Jesus on Pentecost. Please identify this church; what did she go by nominally, for the first 1000 years of Christianity. This passage in no way claims/identifies which books are inspired, or which books are not. You need the C.C. TO DISTINGUISH SACRED SCRIPTURE FROM PSEUDO SCRIPTURE!!!
**

*As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. *2 Peter 3:16

**This passage clearly indicates that sola scriptura via private interpretation is a no - no. This passage in no way claims/identifies which books are inspired, or which books are not.
**

Additionally, no apocryphal book was written by a true prophet or apostle of God nor do they contain divine miracles—something that happened often among the prophets in the OT and apostles in the NT.

**Perhaps you should give 2 Maccabees a once over; plenty of divine intervention in that book. No apocryphal book was written by a true prophet or apostle - based on whose authority? Who HAD THE RIGHT to make an authoritative decision regarding inclusion/exclusion of books in the bible? Please do not say Jesus; He did not mention anything regarding the books in the bible; He left it up to His established church! Who HAD THE RIGHT to authoritatively decide what was considered apocryphal and what wasn’t? There are plenty of apocryphal books with plenty of miracles that didn’t make the cut; your logic is lacking. **

There is also NO predictive prophecy, which would have served to confirm divine inspiration. And, there is not even one quote of the Apocrypha from ANY of the NT writers. Rome knew all this of course—hence the delay in canonization. Much more could be said.

** If they weren’t considered part of the canon, then why didn’t they jettison them just as they did other books, such as the gospel Peter? There are only 17 prophetic books in the bible, 5 of which are considered major and the remaining 12 minor. The large majority of Old Testament references in the New Testament are taken from the Greek Septuagint, which include what you call the apocryphal books. The Septuagint contains the Old Testament books shared by all Christians along with the Deuterocanonical books used by Catholics, traditional Protestants , and many Orthodox Churches. Again, Jesus’ church did not start in Rome; she started in Jerusalem and eventually circumscribed the entire Mediterranean basin, which included cites in both the east and the west, and they were identified by the name Catholic. **

So, did the RCC give us the Bible as she claims (and almost everyone on this thread)?

**Yes…absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, as per all scholars! **

Or, was there already a body of work that was considered inspired prior to that? Well, I believe it existed prior for a number of reasons.

**Of course a body of work already existed; they existed as early as the turn of the 1st century along with many many spurious books, and they were safeguarded by the C.C. and eventually codified/canonized by the C.C. **