Evangelical vs Protestant

[joe370]

First, Jesus Himself endorsed the OT as being the authentic Word of God. After His Resurrection, Jesus met with His disciples and told them everything that had been written about Him in the Scriptures: “Beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning Himself” (Luke 24:27). What do I conclude from this? Since the Lord had come to fulfill all that was written about Him in the Scriptures, there HAD to have existed a recognized canon of Scripture. And there was. We can see this by Jesus’ reference to Scripture. When speaking on His own deity, the Lord said, “the SCRIPTURE cannot be broken” (John 10:35) To what was He referring? It was to that body of Scripture we know as the OT (the Old Testament).

**Agreed! Of course a recognized O.T. canon of Scripture existed. The question is: do we embrace the Jewish tradition which agrees with the P.C.'s regarding the O.T. (39 books) - or do we embrace Catholic tradition (46 books). **

In fact, when Christ was chastising the Jews for their rejection of Him as Messiah, He said, “You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about Me.” (John 5:39). Note that Jesus did not say they were looking in the wrong place—at writing that did not constitute as Scripture. Rather, they were looking in the right place, PROVING that there was a recognized body of work that was regarded as the Word of God.

Agreed!

Other examples include when the Sadducees came to Jesus with a question about the Resurrection. In reply, Jesus told them, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God” (Mat. 22:29) Therefore, the Sadducees could have resolved their error by referring to the Scriptures, which were a recognized source of authority even at that time.

**Agreed! However, Jesus never mentions which books are included in either the O.T. or the N.T.; again, He leaves that little chore up to His established church circa 33 AD. Agreed?

**

So, Christ saw the hypocritical behavior of the Sadducees and saw that it was rooted in the traditions of men. How could Jesus say that they had abandoned the commands of God revealed in Scripture, unless a recognized body of Scripture already existed? Perhaps because it DID already exist!

**Again, of course it existed, but you can’t identify these books using just your bible, and Jesus certainly didn’t identify them either! You wouldn’t even have your bible if not for Jesus’ established church. Again, if I am wrong, prove it.

**
One of my favorite NT examples is when Paul arrived in Berea, where he was pleasantly surprised by the attitude of the people—“Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11). Of course, Paul did not have to correct them, saying they were looking to the wrong source for verification of his message. He did not tell them to be patient until the RCC comes along to provide us with the Scriptures! No, the Bereans WERE looking in the RIGHT place—the 39 books that compromise the OT.

**So, the bible says: “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the 39 books of the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”

Of course not. I respectfully ask: Why would I take your word for it, that there is only 39 books in the O.T.? Jesus charged His church ambassadors with the mission of teaching all that He commanded, and He sent the Holy Spirit to guide her into all truth regarding all that He commanded. I trust Jesus and the authority He conferred on the church He built.
**

 

[joe370]

These books had long been recognized as the Word of God and canonized long before the RCC came into existence.

**The C.C. was not born in Rome in the 4th century; she was born on Pentecost in Jerusalem circa 33 AD, or was she born in the 16th century? The Septuagint is the Koine Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, translated in stages between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC in Alexandria. The Septuagint enjoyed widespread use in the Hellenistic Jewish diaspora and even in Jerusalem, which had become a rather cosmopolitan, and therefore Greek-speaking town. Both Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher born in Alexandria, Egypt (20 BC - AD 50) and Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian and apologist of priestly and royal ancestry who survived and recorded the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 - show a reliance on the Septuagint in their citations of Jewish scripture. The New Testament writers, when citing the Jewish scriptures or when quoting Jesus doing so, used the Greek translation, implying that the Apostles and their followers considered it reliable.The discovery of many fragments in the Dead Sea scrolls that agree with the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic text proved that many of the variants in the Greek Septuagint were also present in early Semitic manuscripts. As the Christian Church grew and started separating from Judaism, the Jews also began to codify a set of books that they considered inspired - Either in response to Christianity or to divisions between the different Jewish sects. It was in these early years of Church formation that the 2 distinct Old Testaments (Masoretic and the Septuagint) - were codified. The Jews did not have access to the entire Septuagint texts in original Hebrew; using this as a basis, they rejected the Deuterocanonical books as not being inspired.

Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the deutero-canonicals based on the fact that the early Jews rejected them. Let us not forget that the Jewish councils that rejected them (“Jamnia” in 90 - 100 A.D.) - were the same councils that rejected Jesus Christ and the entire New Testament canon. Therefore, Protestants who reject the Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament. Do you really feel comfortable with that?
**

 

[joe370]

DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT…

Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt… 7:12 - Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 - let those “flee to the mountains” is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus’ description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth’s declaration of Mary’s blessedness above all women follows Uzziah’s declaration in Judith 13:18.

Luke 1:52 - Mary’s magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 2:29 - Simeon’s declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

Luke 13:29 - the Lord’s description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.

Luke 21:24 - Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18.

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke’s description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.

John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus’, Luke’s and Paul’s usage of “signs and wonders” follows Wisdom 8:8.

John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

John 6:35-59 - Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.

John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.

John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.

John 15:6 - branches that don’t bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.

Acts 1:15 - Luke’s reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.

Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter’s and Paul’s statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.

Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.

Rom 1:18-25 - Paul’s teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.

Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God’s existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.

Rom. 1:23 - the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.

Rom. 1:24-27 - this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27.

Continued…

 

[joe370]

Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.

Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.

Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.

1 Cor. 2:16 - Paul’s question, “who has known the mind of the Lord?” references Wisdom 9:13.

1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 - warning that, while all things are good, beware of gluttony, follows Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30.

1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Paul acknowledging many “gods” but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3.

1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul’s description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7.

1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.

1 Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.

Eph. 1:17 - Paul’s prayer for a “spirit of wisdom” follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.

Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1 Thess. 5:8.

Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul’s description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.

2 Tim. 4:8 - Paul’s description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16.

Heb. 4:12 - Paul’s description of God’s word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15.

Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.

Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

Heb. 12:12 - the description “drooping hands” and “weak knees” comes from Sirach 25:23.

James 1:19 - let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.

James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

James 3:13 - James’ instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17.

James 5:3 - describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11.

James 5:6 - condemning and killing the “righteous man” follows Wisdom 2:10-20.

1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.

1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.

2 Peter 2:7 - God’s rescue of a righteous man (Lot) is also described in Wisdom 10:6.

Rev. 1:4 – the seven spirits who are before his throne is taken from Tobit 12:15 – Raphael is one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints before the Holy One.

Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13.

Rev. 2:12 - reference to the two-edged sword is similar to the description of God’s Word in Wisdom 18:16.

Rev. 5:7 - God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8.

Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.

Rev. 8:7 - raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.

Rev. 9:3 - raining of locusts on the earth follows Wisdom 16:9.

Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.

Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 19:1 - the cry “Hallelujah” at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18.

Rev. 19:11 - the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.

Rev. 19:16 - description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 21:19 - the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17.

Exodus 23:7 - do not slay the innocent and righteous - Dan. 13:53 - do not put to death an innocent and righteous person.

1 Sam. 28:7-20 – the intercessory mediation of deceased Samuel for Saul follows Sirach 46:20.

2 Kings 2:1-13 – Elijah being taken up into heaven follows Sirach 48:9.

2 Tim. 3:16 - the inspired Scripture that Paul was referring to included the deuterocanonical texts that the Protestants removed. The books Baruch, Tobit, Maccabees, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom and parts of Daniel and Esther were all included in the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used.

 

[narrow_path]

As I suspected, there is no information provided by Catholics in this forum (whom I presume are copying and pasting from websites like crazy just to not look silly) that I consider convincing. In fact, I have ALREADY ANSWERED these statements:

“Of course not. I respectfully ask: Why would I take your word for it, that there is only 39 books in the O.T.? Jesus charged His church ambassadors with the mission of teaching all that He commanded, and He sent the Holy Spirit to guide her into all truth regarding all that He commanded. I trust Jesus and the authority He conferred on the church He built.”

We are going around in a circle now. I was hoping it would last a little while longer, but unfortunately this will be my last post on this thread. Surely, I can expect in the minds of Catholics. As long as they keep posting and have the last word they have now “won” the debate. How tragic! So the posts following this one will no doubt include Catholic antagonizing, etc. But make no mistake: an objective look at the contextual evidence SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. This is what I am going on. Not the tradition of men, just Scripture which God Himself provided and preserved for us - not a religious institution.

Read my prior posts for answers to all of the points that were just raised.

Peace to you - Usemelord, Joe370, Joe C, Bigbaldone and Little Miss Benedictus2!

Perhaps I will see you guys (and girls) on the other side of eternity…and if I do, I promise that I won’t say: “I told you so.”

May the grace, love and peace of Jesus Christ dwell in your hearts forever.

 

[paul_c]

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.

…

Don’t you recognize that God uses men to do his will on earth? Those 27 books didn’t just show up. They were written by men: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter, Jude,and Paul. All of these men were members of the Catholic Church and they wrote those 27 books to help them spread the message. And yes they were inspired but they may not have realized it when they were writing. After all, do you think St. Paul really thought Philemon would become one of the 27 books when he wrote it? And yes, the 4 gospels and acts and most of Paul’s epistles 1 Peter and 1 John were identified very early but if you read Eusebius, you know that there was considerable debate before Hebrews, Revelation, 2 Peter, 2John and 3 John and Jude and James were admitted to the Canon. Yes the debate was inspired but it occurred within the leadership of the Church and was sanctioned by the reigning Pope. and to state that the Church was subject to the authority of God’s written word is ludicrous. The written word is a tool of the church, written years after the church’s inception to share what it was already spreading orally. It is inspired becasue the Church is inspired and protected by the Holy Spirit

 

[paul_c]

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.

I’m with you here. Yes, the Apostles were given the deposit of Faith to share with the people. They did it in many ways. Through the written word, through the sacraments, through the mass, through the spoken word. They explained to their successors how to interpret the words they wrote and under what context they were written . They explained in a nutshell, how to love God, love your neighbor and get to Heaven.

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.

Yes, the Church’s position is to serve and to teach and to lead others on the path to heaven. It has no temporal power. It only has the moral authority of having the full deposit of Faith from the Apostles and those that have been called, will listen to what it teaches and follow it to heaven.

God gave authority to Men, not to books. Men wrote the books to help them train the people in the way to heaven that they themselves were taught. Books are teaching tools. Sure, the Holy Spirit protects the church and made sure it inspired the Popes and councils to choose the Canon correctly and because the Church was given the authority to make these decisions, their decisions were accepted. This is important. It is because the Pope cried out that the books were accepted, not because the books cried out by themselves.

 

[paul_c]

As I suspected, there is no information provided by Catholics in this forum (whom I presume are copying and pasting from websites like crazy just to not look silly) that I consider convincing. In fact, I have ALREADY ANSWERED these statements:

“Of course not. I respectfully ask: Why would I take your word for it, that there is only 39 books in the O.T.? Jesus charged His church ambassadors with the mission of teaching all that He commanded, and He sent the Holy Spirit to guide her into all truth regarding all that He commanded. I trust Jesus and the authority He conferred on the church He built.”

We are going around in a circle now. I was hoping it would last a little while longer, but unfortunately this will be my last post on this thread. Surely, I can expect in the minds of Catholics. As long as they keep posting and have the last word they have now “won” the debate. How tragic! So the posts following this one will no doubt include Catholic antagonizing, etc. But make no mistake: an objective look at the contextual evidence SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. This is what I am going on. Not the tradition of men, just Scripture which God Himself provided and preserved for us - not a religious institution.

Read my prior posts for answers to all of the points that were just raised.

Peace to you - Usemelord, Joe370, Joe C, Bigbaldone and Little Miss Benedictus2!

Perhaps I will see you guys (and girls) on the other side of eternity…and if I do, I promise that I won’t say: “I told you so.”

May the grace, love and peace of Jesus Christ dwell in your hearts forever.

Narrow Path, this is not about debate. This is about trying to learn the truth. And you are right, the contextual evidence does speak for itself. The trick is to interpret it properly. You believe that you personally have been given more insight and more understanding than the millions of divinely (name removed by moderator)ired theologians and priest who have have helped the Catholic Church pass on the deposit of Faith given to it by the Apostles 2000 years ago. I have no idea why you are so confident of this fact, but you have offered no credentials, other than your words so why should we believe your view, particularly with something as precious as our souls on the line. Someday, God willing, you will realize this.

 

[usemelord]

Frankly, narrow_path and everyone else, I was a millimeter away from unsubscribing to this thread earlier today. I became too tired to read all the bickering back and forth between quasi-theologians who, let’s be truthful, will probably never persuade the person on the opposing side of the argument that their position is correct. A lot of the postings were very informative, some quite contentious and others just plain overkill trying to make a point. As for me, I’ve already said that I’m quite comfortable in my (relatively) new Catholic faith, but at the same time I sincerely embrace non-Catholic Christians who know Christ as their one and only Saviour. May the grace and peace of Christ be with you all.

 

[bigbaldone]

Bigbaldone-

Don’t you recognize that God uses men to do his will on earth? Those 27 books didn’t just show up. They were written by men: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter, Jude,and Paul. All of these men were members of the Catholic Church and they wrote those 27 books to help them spread the message. And yes they were inspired but they may not have realized it when they were writing. After all, do you think St. Paul really thought Philemon would become one of the 27 books when he wrote it? And yes, the 4 gospels and acts and most of Paul’s epistles 1 Peter and 1 John were identified very early but if you read Eusebius, you know that there was considerable debate before Hebrews, Revelation, 2 Peter, 2John and 3 John and Jude and James were admitted to the Canon. Yes the debate was inspired but it occurred within the leadership of the Church and was sanctioned by the reigning Pope. and to state that the Church was subject to the authority of God’s written word is ludicrous. The written word is a tool of the church, written years after the church’s inception to share what it was already spreading orally. It is inspired becasue the Church is inspired and protected by the Holy Spirit

If you are addressing me, I am confused…I agree with you

 

[benedictus2]

LM Benedictus2-
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!

On the contrary it is you who miss the point. There is no need to contextualize the passage because Jesus has just said you are ROCK to Peter. THERE IS NO OTHER CONTEXT save for the glaring fact that Jesus has just told Peter that Peter will be the rock upon which Jesus will build his church.

Are you even aware of the significance of this event happening in Ceasaria Philipi? I will post that next.

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.

And I have shown you that it is not. Jesus SPECIFICALLY CALLS PETER ROCK. He renames Peter, Rock. ISTM you are afraid of the truth that is why even when it stares you in the face you persist in shutting your eyes. Now THAT is sad because it speaks of a determination to remain in error.

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)

Nope what Jesus said" Blessed are you, Simon BarJonah …And I tell you that you are ROCK, and upon this rock I will build my church. "

So who was the first ROCK this sentence? Peter. So therefore who is the second rock? Peter.

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.

Well have a look at what you have written here can you see a reiteration? No, no reiteration at all. What actually happens? He says He will build His Church opon PETER and that the gates of hell will not overcome that Church.

You are in Catholic denial to think otherwise.

I am in Christ’s TRUTH and YOU are in a protestant denial. TRUTH is staring you right in the face and you insist in being in error. Well, there is no helping that. You have consciously chosen the lie.

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 made yourself clear and the error of your statement cannot be clearer.
What happens after verse 13 when Peter makes the declaration? Christ’s CHOOSES him to be the rock upon which He will build his church. Not his confession, him, Simon. That is why He changed Peter’s name to Kepha or Cephas i.e. Rock.

Why did he choose Peter, because the Father had already chosen Peter by signling him out to make the first pronouncement of who Jesus is. That Jesus said in Verse 20 not to tell anyone HAS NO BEARING on the verse that we are disputing.

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.

I have but you choose to remain deaf and blind.

One more time: Jesus said to Peter, You are Kepha (meaning rock) and upon this kepha (meaning rock) I will build my Church. No need to contextualize and twist, turn and gyrate because IT IS PLAIN AS DAY.
Notice too that Jesus gives him the keys to the gates of heaven and the power to bind and loose on earth as in heaven.

 

[bigbaldone]

As I suspected, there is no information provided by Catholics in this forum (whom I presume are copying and pasting from websites like crazy just to not look silly) that I consider convincing.

We are going around in a circle now. I was hoping it would last a little while longer, but unfortunately this will be my last post on this thread.

But make no mistake: an objective look at the contextual evidence SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. This is what I am going on. Not the tradition of men, just Scripture which God Himself provided and preserved for us - not a religious institution.

Read my prior posts for answers to all of the points that were just raised.

He may leave, but will check back to see what has been written.

 

[bigbaldone]

Frankly, narrow_path and everyone else, I was a millimeter away from unsubscribing to this thread earlier today. I became too tired to read all the bickering back and forth between quasi-theologians who, let’s be truthful, will probably never persuade the person on the opposing side of the argument that their position is correct. A lot of the postings were very informative, some quite contentious and others just plain overkill trying to make a point. As for me, I’ve already said that I’m quite comfortable in my (relatively) new Catholic faith, but at the same time I sincerely embrace non-Catholic Christians who know Christ as their one and only Saviour. May the grace and peace of Christ be with you all.

I say the following to encourage: Perhaps this type of forum is not healthy for you at this time. I love to debate, though I strive to be respectful in my approach. My years in ministry helped develop this trait within me.

If you find the inability to detach from the content of this thread, or if you notice it affecting you spiritually, by all means take a break.

I belonged to another forum on the web for some time. I enjoyed it, but individuals like narrow_path were abundant. I once took a 2 month break and then later a 3 month break.

I come on this forums for fun, constructive debate. I have to back off when I feel the bickering getting out of control.

 

[joe370]

narrow_path;5189678]As I suspected, there is no information provided by Catholics in this forum (whom I presume are copying and pasting from websites like crazy just to not look silly) that I consider convincing. In fact, I have ALREADY ANSWERED these statements:

**You have got to be kidding me. So, we all look silly and the church to which we belong is not from Christ. That is not the kindest thing to say, and you have provided absolutely no proof to back up your claim. Why is it that your church is part of Jesus Mystical Body but our church is not? Narrow_path, one more time, please explain to everyone here at CAF where your bible came from, and let’s pretend that you are correct about the C.C. You seem like a smart guy; do what I couldn’t do as a protestant.
**

I said:

“Of course not. I respectfully ask: Why would I take your word for it, that there is only 39 books in the O.T.? Jesus charged His church ambassadors with the mission of teaching all that He commanded, and He sent the Holy Spirit to guide her into all truth regarding all that He commanded. I trust Jesus and the authority He conferred on the church He built.”

We are going around in a circle now.

**Are you saying that that is not a legitimate question my friend? **

I was hoping it would last a little while longer, but unfortunately this will be my last post on this thread.

**That is a very typical move by non-Catholics when they can’t or won’t answer simple questions. **

Surely, I can expect in the minds of Catholics. As long as they keep posting and have the last word they have now “won” the debate.

**I want you to have the last word; where did your bible come from, and when was it codified/canonized. **

How tragic! So the posts following this one will no doubt include Catholic antagonizing, etc.

**Have I ever antagonized you? I certainly don’t care which church in the world you belong to; I’m just trying to understand where you are coming from. I embrace your church as part of the body of Christ; you reject mine. Who is antagonizing who?
**

But make no mistake: an objective look at the contextual evidence SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.

**Where did this contextual evidence of the bible come from? Jesus did not hand you your bible. Did Christ build a church and send the H.S. to guide that church in perpetuity? What was the name of that church for the first 1000 years of Christianity, and again, let’s assume it wasn’t the C.C. Did that church give you your bible, if not, then where did it come from?

**
This is what I am going on. Not the tradition of men, just Scripture which God Himself provided and preserved for us - not a religious institution.

**Why do you trust your bible? How did God provide and preserve your bible through the centuries? **

**I hope you will kindly answer the question, for you have yet to do so. If you choose not to, perhaps I’ll e-mail you and you answer the question that no one in your shoes could answer. **

May the grace, love and peace of Jesus Christ dwell in your heart forever as well.

 

[joe370]

bigbaldone, you said:

Allow me to add something here.

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?

Well said!!! Sadly most protestants truly believe that God provided and preserved their bibles through the centuries, but they won’t tell us how God managed that feat; they just say: the C.C. had nothing to do with it. You ask over and over and over and the question is never answered, because there is only one answer, and they are blinded by their learned preconceived notions from the churches to which they belong, all the while claiming that the bible is there exclusive source.

If you ask them the name of Jesus’ established church circa 33 AD, for the first 1500 years of Christianity, as I did with narrow_path, again, they just ignore you. If they admit that it was called the C.C. then they will have to admit that she can’t fail, when it comes to all that Jesus commanded, thanks to the guidance of the H.S., as per the bible, regardless of all of the wolves in sheep’s clothing through the centuries. I guess they forget that Christ’s church has a a very clever, diabolical and macabre enemy called the anti-Christ who preys on souls, especially souls belonging to Jesus’ church. He is the author of confusion and that is the very reason why I left the protestant world; all I ever found was confusion there. I noticed narrow_path provided a laundry list of bad guys in the C.C. through the centuries; I could do the same thing, starting with Martin Luther all the way down to the myriad P.C.'s in the world today, but I understand that there is real evil in the world and its ringleader hates Christ and all of His disciples, especially ordained Christians. Perhaps narrow_path will surprise us all and answer the question, but I’m not gonna hold my breath, because there is only one answer.

 

[joe370]

I don’t usually argue the finer points of Matthew 16, considering the fact that 95% of Protestant scholars agree with Catholic scholars; they simply no longer contest it.

He said to them, But who do you say that I am?

Simon Peter said in reply, You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.

Simon answers the question.

Jesus said to him in reply, Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

Simon is blessed because Jesus’ Father in heaven revealed this truth to him, and because of this revelation Jesus changes his name.

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

The church is clearly not built on Peters answer for the simple fact that the second rock is aimed directly at the first rock preceding it in verse 18, not Peters answer 2 verses earlier; that’s just silly. It never made sense to me as a former Lutheran and it doesn’t as a Catholic.

Below, neither scenario’s makes any sense:

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this Christ I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this “confession” I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

Jesus then says to Simon renamed Peter:

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Why would Jesus basically insult him by renaming him pebble and then give him the keys to the kingdom of heaven? We already know that Peter and the rest of the Apostles form the foundation of Jesus’ church, so it just makes sense that Peter is the rock Jesus’ church is built on.

I find it rather interesting that protestants believe that Jesus, because of Peter’s answer, decided to rename him, pebble. What an honor. LOL… Why would Jesus rename him with such a disparaging name? Your name back then defined you. Occasionally God renamed people, such a Abraham and Sarah and Jacob who was renamed Israel, and He did it for a reason, just as He did with Peter. People in the Bible were named because of a particular occurrence. In Genesis 29 and 30, the sons of Jacob were named. Take for example 1 Samuel 25:25: "As she fell at his feet she said: "My lord, let the blame be mine. Please let your handmaid speak to you, and listen to the words of your handmaid. Let not my lord pay attention to that worthless man Nabal, for he is just like his name. Fool is his name, and he acts the fool.

The people that insist that the second rock is a reference to Jesus are clearly wrong because the second rock refers directly back to the first rock. The church being built on Peters answer makes more sense than this.

I asked my dad who belongs to an evangelical church, if the following sentence makes any grammatical sense at all:

You are a protestant and upon this catholic…He said no. It only makes sense if it reads: You are a protestant and upon this protestant I will build my church. I then asked him: So, why does: you are pebble and upon this massive rock, I will build my church - make sense to you? No answer, because there isn’t one. The 2 MUST be the same! The second rock cannot be Peter’s answer and it cannot be Jesus Christ unless Peters answer or Christ is applied to the first rock, and neither are. Ask 15 atheist, or 15 people who simply do not care one way or the other, and see what they tell you. Does it make more sense that Jesus renamed Simon as a metaphorical massive rock due to his revelation from God, or a metaphorical pebble due to his revelation from Jesus’ Father. What would be the significance of renaming Simon a pebble?

Jesus could have gotten around it if He’d wanted to. He didn’t have to say, “And(kai) on this rock I will build My Church.” He could’ve said, “But(alla) on this rock I will build My Church,” meaning another rock, but (kai) He would have then needed to explain who or what this other rock was.

The Aramaic word kepha translated into Greek is the feminine noun petra. Petros, the grammatically correct, masculanized form of the Greek word Petra was used by the 2nd Century Greek translators as the name given to Simon. The N.T. refers to Simon as “Cephas” or “Rock” a couple of times, even by Jesus.

He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas.” John 1:42

Most Protestant scholars today admit that there is no distinction in meaning between petros and petra in the Koine Greek of the New Testament. Petra means a large rock; and that’s what petros means. It does not mean pebble. If the scribes wanted to call Peter a pebble they would have used the Greek word for ‘pebble’ or ‘small stone’ which is lithos, not petros.

The same applies in the Aramaic language. Again, Jesus renamed Simon Bar-Jona “Cephas” the transliteration of the Aramaic word “kepha” which means “Rock.” If Jesus had intended to rename Simon Bar-Jona, “little stone” or “pebble” he would have use the Aramaic word “kevna.” It’s really just that simple.

 

[joe370]

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.

Now if catholics added words to scripture, you’d have a conniption. I can’t believe I overlooked this. - …SHALL ALREADY HAVE BEEN LOOSED OR BOUND IN HEAVEN… MAN YOU ARE MAKING THIS WAY MORE DIFFICULT THAN NEED BE.

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.

And that is exactly what Jesus told His Apostles to do! Matthew 18:17.

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.

The ruling bishops and presbyters of the C.C.simply declare WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN LEGISLATED BY Jesus. The C.C. defers to what Jesus taught and they make a judgment call based on His teachings, and bind or loose accordingly. This is how Jesus’ ancient church understood binding and loosing.

 

[paul_c]

If you are addressing me, I am confused…I agree with you

I was addressing Narrow Path but was responding to his response to you, that’s why your quote was first… Sorry for the confusion

 

[bigbaldone]

joe370.

An excellent review of the Aramaic/Greek in Matthew 16

I am a biblical contextualist, which can be defined as interpreting the biblical text within the proper context: cultural, sociological, historical, etc. I believe it is the word of God.

I am not a literalist, which I define as someone who ignores the context.
What I love about the RCC is the exhaustive contextualism in interpreting the scriptures.

That is why I loved your post to the pseudo-theologian narrow_path. He attacks, he states that he has refuted every objection handed to him, he interprets the text through his proverbial rose colored glasses, adding words and meaning that is plain a simply not there.

I too hold your position as to why I left the Protestant church. Thank you for your insight.

---

paul c,

Thank you for clearing that up. After I posted I realized that was what you had done.

---

Ladies and gents, I believe that narrow_path will not return here for some time, though he will check in to see what we are posting.

One thing is clear, he has presented so many errors in his interpretation, which through a proper contextual and historical review, has disqualified him as a credible theologian.

One last thought. He concluded that all the Catholics did on this thread was cut and paste. Hmmmm…in several of his posts the linguistic style of his text changed. It was in these sections that I took note. Conclusion, narrow_path was the biggest “Cut and paste” culprit on the thread. I will give him credit, though, for changing a few words around to make it look natural. All of us have knowledge that we can dig up in our memory and present. It was obvious when he presented other peoples material as his own! He opened the door when he began to accuse us of doing the same things as himself.

 

[paul_c]

All,
Our job here is to give Catholic Answers. I think we have done that with Narrow Path. Whether they are “cut and paste” is frankly irrelevant as long as the answers are pertinent to the question at hand. Those that have been on these forums for even a few months know that we spend a lot of time discussing Sola Scriptura, Sola fide and OSAS since these are the main Protestant innovations that people want to discuss. Because these are topics are repeated so often, so are the answers.

Different people are more or less receptive to the truth we offer here. It is not unusual to see someone back out quickly from these forums. This can be for a number of reasons:

They become frustrated because they can’t get the Catholics to listen to their logic as expected.
They become nervous because they find their core beliefs have been challenged and they need to go off line to regroup.
They just lose interest in keeping up with multiple posts all the time. Its a lot of work when you are at the center of the storm.

It is unclear which one Narrow Path is but hopefully he stays engaged and learns, even if he is not posting regularly himself. Many people get converted to Catholicism based at least partially on forums that provide answers like this one. Many here provide testamony to that. The more the spirit calls, the more he will find himself here looking for answers. (even if he fights initially. I have seen it happen that people go from virally anti-catholic to wanting to convert virtually overnight, once the spirit makes inroads.) In any case, give him a break. Its a big decision to change Faiths - your soul is on the line. - and there is often angst involved… Keep the faith.