Foundations of the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dan_471
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
For any fellow Catholic here. I had this respoinse on Peter the rock from a pastor and need help with it. I do know that the Catholic view is not dependent on Matt. 16 being in the Aramaic but want to know if this point from him holds water in Aramaic:
  1. The proper translation of Petros is Ke’pha’. On this we have the authority of the Word of God itself in the Greek original of the New Testament, where the name “Ke’pha” (in the English Bible “Cephas”) is six times given as the Aramaic equivalent to Petros for the name of Simon bar Jonas. (John 1:42; 1Corinthians1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Galatians 2:9) So, we can say, based upon the authority of the original Greek of the New Testament that Petros, the name given to Simon bar Jona by the Lord Jesus (John 1:42) is the correct translation of the Aramaic/Syriac word Ke’pha’. Greek: Petros = Aramaic: Ke’pha’ (“Cephas”)
    But what of the Greek word Petra? Is it correctly translated as Ke’pha’?
    There is nowhere in the Greek New Testament where the word Ke’pha’ is given as the correct translation of the Greek word Petra. In order to determine the Syriac/Aramaic word which best translates the Greek word Petra we will have to look at the translations of the Greek New Testament which were made in the first five centuries of the Christian Church to determine how the Greek word Petra was understood.
    Greek: Petra = Aramaic: ?
  2. In the Peshitta Syriac New Testament the Greek word “PETRA” is translated by the Aramaic word SHUA' as in Matthew 7:24-25 meaning a massive rock or a boulder. PETRA is used 16 times in the Greek New Testament: Of those times it is translated in the Peshitta Syriac 9 times by the word SHUA’ ,
    6 times by the word KE’PHA’ and
    1 time by the Hebrew root word ‘ABENA’
    Of the ten times PETRA is used in the Gospels it is translated:
    7 times by the word SHU`A’
    (Mt.7:24, 25; Mk.15:46; Lk 6:48[2x];8:6, 13)
    3 times by the word KE’PHA’
    (Mt.16:18; 27:51; 27:60)
Of the three times KE’PHA’ is used to translate PETRA in the Gospels:
[1] in Mt. 27:60 the parallel passage in Mark’s gospel (Mark 15:46) more correctly uses SHUA' to translate PETRA. [2] in Mt. 27:51 the word KE'PHA' is used to describe the rocks (plural) which were broken at the earthquake when Christ died (and hence, these rocks became movable) [3] the other passage is Mt. 16:18 where KE'PHA' is used to translate both PETROS and PETRA. In all other places in the Gospels the Greek word PETRA is translated by the Syriac word SHUA’, meaning “a massive rock.”
KE’PHA’ is used in the Syriac N.T. as the translation of both the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS.
The Greek word LITHOS, which means “a stone” (generally of a size which could be picked up or moved) is ALWAYS translated by the Syriac word KE’PHA’.
As LITHOS in classical Greek is the common prose word for “a stone” (see the quote from Liddle and Scott’s Lexicon, above) and PETROS is more common in poetry, this shows that the definition of KE’PHA’ as “a stone” is correct. The Syriac KE’PHA’ is equivalent to the Greek LITHOS, a movable stone.
KE’PHA’ IS ALWAYS USED TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD LITHOS.
SHU’A IS THE MORE USUAL AND CORRECT SYRIAC WORD TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD PETRA.
KE’PHA IS A MOVABLE STONE = LITHOS / PETROS.
SHU’A IS A MASSIVE ROCK = PETRA.
The Syriac word SHUA' is NEVER used to translate the Greek word LITHOS. Because a LITHOS is NOT a large massive rock, but a SHUA’ is.
The Syriac KE’PHA’ is correctly used to translate the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS because these are movable stones.
  1. The fact that the Greek text of the New Testament uses two separate Greek words in the passage [Matthew 16:18] indicates that any underlying Aramaic/Syriac original (if there was one, AND THIS IS FAR FROM PROVEN) also must have used two separate words.
 
(dan) so, if you are interested, we can take a look at the issue ‘What does Paul say about Abraham’s state in Romans 4?’

Both speak of faith, but not faith “alone”.
according to Paul in Romans 4, what does Abe do to get justified, or have his sins forgiven?
And Paul and James don’t contradict each other.
it looks to me like they do… Paul says that Abe is justified before circumcised, James says (or implies strongly) it’s after he’s willing to offer Isaac on the alter… a full 13 years later…
When Paul says Abraham “believed”, was it an intellectual belief
at that point I think so…
and nothing was done by Abraham after that? No.
right, A did do stuff afterwards… did those things that he did make his iniquities more forgiven…?

when were Abe’s sins or iniquities forgiven? were they forgiven prior to circumsion? if so, how was his iniquity-state different after the Isaac-alter incident… or was it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by D
hmmm… so when Paul writes ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness’, how do you understand that? it sounds to me like his sins were forgiven…
Let’s use an example
Jesus tells the following story about Lazarus and the rich man. ewtn.com/ewtn/bible/search_bible.asp
Abraham’s bosom ?(not equal to) heaven. It’s a place of comfort but it’s not heaven. If sins in the OT could be forgiven without a redeemer and messiah, why did we need Jesus as redeemer or messiah? If Abraham was in heaven, that would mean one could make it to heaven using an OT dynamic. That would contradict the NT.
right… I’m not understanding your answer to what does ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness’ mean to you? I understand you don’t think Abe was in heaven at that time… what does it mean? to you?..
Quote:
Originally Posted by D
or we could use the word ‘iniquities’… the word the NAB uses… and ‘sins not being recorded’… it looks to me that Paul says Abraham is in this state prior to being circumsized… how does it look to you?
Paul says, circumcision doesn’t really count. It’s faith, but not faith alone
right… so it’s faith that puts Abe in a state of sins ‘sins not being recorded’…not faith alone… I agree that Paul doesn’t use that phrase… but Abe is in that state before being circumcised… is that what you’re saying? or would you agree with that?
Romans 4:16 Romans 9:8 Romans 11:1 1Corinthians 7:19
Galatians 5:6
right… good verses all… and I’ll be glad to talk about any of them in-depth that you want… what I’m interested in is what was Abe’s state prior to being circumcised and after believing God… are his iniquities forgiven?

PS I love this kind of discussion… Peace be with you!
 
To doubt is the greatest insult to the Divinity.[St Padre Pio]
How about investigating the reliability of claims made about Jesus… is that a good idea? I think it is…
What claim(s) do you challenge?
that He said the part in Matthew 16 we’ve been talking about…

To doubt is the greatest insult to the Divinity.[St Padre Pio]
Padre, are you saying that we should believe everything we hear? should we believe the part about where Jesus teaches in the Americas?
 
I haven’t followed this thread lately and I’m really not sure if you like either the message or the messenger.
well, I like the idea of ‘how lovely on the mountains are the feet of them who bring good news’… so, I think I like the message… ‘good news’… and the messenger… ‘how lovely’…
So I’ll start by laying out the basic message first. We all decide for ourselves what we’ll believe to be true -and of value.
right… and hopefully it’s based on things God has put there for us to find and be improved by them…
Humans have choices. We can opt to love very well in this life, or opt to hate, or opt to live somewhere in between these extremes. We’re all tempted to let selfishness, pride, greed, lust, etc, to be our guiding lights, or, alternatively, to let higher and nobler values reign.
with you there so far…
The CC claims to have received revelation regarding the nature of reality at its most basic level. And, at that level, the Church teaches that love and goodness reside, centered in a rational being who’s the source of all that we observe and experience in this life. And that this being has every right to expect and even require that love and goodness and order should continue to be the qualities that orient the universe.
still with you there… tho, did only the CC recieve that revelation? why would we think that?..
Humans, again, are free to do as they please regardless of whether or not they have the right to do as they please. According to our faith humans chose first of all to simply do what they want regardless of the will of any superior being, as if, in fact, no such being, with any aforementioned requirements or demands, even exists.
did all humans choose this? or only Adam and Eve, and the rest of us inherited their choice? humans sometimes choose to do good things, I think…
This disposition,
humans are pre-disposed because of Adam and Eve?.. or something else?..
this state of being, is what allows for moral evil to have its way in human affairs because humans who do as they please don’t necessarily do what’s right-to the extent that they’re separated from this higher being. And this disposition is true for all of us, whether or not we’re part of a religious institution; it’s a fact of life that we all struggle with, because we all struggle with whether or not we even-in truth- prefer to heed the will of a higher being.
In any case the message, IMO, is correct, while the human beings who “possess” and deliver the message are in varying degrees of “correctness”. Some can be full-blown hypocrites (a very human tendency), while others have become quite good at cultivating the virtue of love, truly heeding the message as, for example, St Francis did in spite of the initial objections of church leaders, family, and others.
The point is that the message is beautiful
what is the message, how does it look to you? …
regardless of the beauty of the messengers. But without them, and the “ark” they’ve carried down to us through the centuries, there would be much less light in this world now.
right, then, I think, to use those metaphors, who are the messengers, why would we think they’re carrying God’s message, what is the ‘ark’,… how do we separate the light and dark parts of the message, if in some parts they’ve gotten mixed together…
Darkness will stay with us as well, for the time being, perpetrated by people both inside and outside religious bodies.
sounds right… so I think it would be good to have a way to separate them out…

hey, thanks for the great post!
 
still with you there… tho, did only the CC recieve that revelation? why would we think that?..
Couldn’t say for sure-I can only say that this was the specifice revelation the CC received.
did all humans choose this? or only Adam and Eve, and the rest of us inherited their choice? humans sometimes choose to do good things, I think…

humans are pre-disposed because of Adam and Eve?.. or something else?..
What I can observe in this world-and in myself-is that something is out of sync, not quite harmonious, not as it “should be”. The worst manifestation of this “something”, of this unreasonableness, of this “sin”, can be most explicitly observed when humans commit atrocious acts of evil against others: genocide, rape, torture, etc.-often as not otherwise normal people doing this. Until and unless a truly normal moral standard is revealed to us-an objective morality, a “natural law” for man-we have nothing to compare our behavior to, nothing to “go by”, only our own “righteousness”, whatever that may be, driven by whatever values we may happen to pick up along the way, which as often as not probably cater to pure selfishness. The Old Covenant was intended to be just such a standard, so man would know in certain terms what is expected, at least in basic ways, what “righteousness” looks like. But man couldn’t live up to it; he couldn’t fulfill the law. The New Covenant gives man the power to be who he was created to be, because the NC is about man and God reconciling and reuniting, communing, as it were. This reverses the separation of man and God that Adam opted for, this is mans healing, this is his justice. Without this communion disorder and disharmony reign to one degree or another.

To the extent that we stay away from God, and continue to sin, we affirm Adams choice, his preference for himself over God; we carry on the family tradition.
what is the message, how does it look to you? …
The message, the good news, as I made mention to, is that goodness and love are foundational to the universe. IOW God IS…and God is love.
right, then, I think, to use those metaphors, who are the messengers, why would we think they’re carrying God’s message, what is the ‘ark’,… how do we separate the light and dark parts of the message, if in some parts they’ve gotten mixed together…
They’re not mixed. Light and dark still coexist in us, which includes church members as well as her leaders. The ark carries the message, the light-and we’re still learning from it, stumbling at times, hopefully growing nearer to its likeness.
 
Dan_471;10778669]
hmmm… so to see how strong the link is between Jesus and the RCC, we look to see what the RCC says about itself? does this strike you as circular at all?
The thing is, we wouldn’t know anything about Jesus to begin with without the apostolic churches, especially the RCC and the Orthodox churches. Nor would we know nor possess what these churches call scripture.
not sure if Paul thought Peter was pope… would he still be Catholic?
Back in the days of the infant church, Paul probably did not think of Peter as pope in the same sense we think of Peter as pope today. Peter was the leader of the apostles, and so Paul had to be accepted by Peter. Of course back then all the apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit in their teaching. No one is inspired today. .
the writer of the Gospel of Matthew may not have been named Matthew…
Possibly not; it is only tradition that the writer was Matthew.
yes, I understand ‘catholic’ means ‘whole area’… or ‘universal’… just because ‘Luke’ used a common greek preposition plus another word which later gave birth to the english word ‘catholic’ doesn’t mean he was thinking the same thing as we think of when we hear the word ‘catholic’…
.
You’re right. ‘Catholic’ was used in that context to distinguish the universal church from other, local, “heretical,” groups. Because, even then, not all Christians were united. However, the proto-orthodox, or ‘catholics,’ won the argument, and that name has endured to designate the great, universal, catholic church from the various regional, schismatic, ‘heretical’ groups…
no doubt… there were probably other people around who saw it differently, yes?
No doubt, but they didn’t win out.
yes, I have no doubt that there were people back then who were into having a Catholic Church… I was most interested in the connection to Jesus…
The idea is that only one church carried out the apostolic connection to Jesus, the universal church, as opposed to various local, ‘apostate’ churches.
well, the justifiying usually goes something like this: we are the right group, Jesus started us, and as proof of that, we say so,… also we have Bible verses… and we have the right interpretation of those verses, because Jesus gave us the right interpretation… … pretty air-tight, actually… also circular…
The apostolic churches, such as the Catholics and the Orthodox start with Church. They simply assume Church to be true, and that the Churches’ teaching about Jesus is true. Catholics do not start with Jesus, nor with the scriptures. They begin with Church, and learn about Jesus and God through the Church. And Catholics accept that the residual writings of the apostles and their followers, what we call NT scriptures, are inspired because the Church teaches so.

This is in contrast to Protestants, who start with scripture, and from scripture derive church. To Catholics this does not make sense, because various Protestants have also called the pope and the Church the whore of Babylon, a false religion, and so on. So, how can Protestants create a true religion from the holy book of a false religion? That is their dilemma. They ultimately have no basis for determining the correct canon of scripture.

It is only in debates with Protestants that Catholics appeal to scripture to show to Protestants that the Catholic Church is the true church, since Protestants already assume (for whatever reason) that scripture is inspired. That creates the illusion of circularity to an outside observer.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_471 View Post

well… I don’t see anything in Galatians that indicates that Paul was looking for support for his message… it looks to me like he’s looking for fellowship… acceptance as a person…

well, I think that’s an assumption, there… I mean, yes, you can certainly read the Scriptures that way… I think a more natural reading is that Paul thinks his message came directly from Jesus, and he visits the other Apostles to see if he can get acceptance into the larger Church, not really so much to see if his message is ‘ok’…

Gal 2:1* Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.

Why did the HS prompt Paul to go to Jerusalem after 14 years?.Why lay out his preaching for them to judge if he was running in vain? The context is, Paul is looking for validation on his teaching
yes, that certainly is one reading… now, we also have the context of Paul is convinced that he got his message directly from Jesus… so, remembering that, let’s take a look at it… I went up by revelation;… revelation of what? he doesn’t say… maybe revelation that he needed to be part of the larger church… or that the church needed him to help them out ( is that a possible reading? I’m not sure…)… or that it was time to come out of the closet, stop running away from the Jewish leaders… come in off the grid… 'and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute)… right, because maybe Paul thinks that the other Apostles will understand where he’s coming from, but there may be other believers who would be happy to turn him in… ‘Hey, look, there’s the guy who killed my brother…I’m gonna go tell the high priest…’ this is in Jerusalem, where there are many Jewish leaders who would like to kill Paul… or at least arrest him… something well within their power… all it would take is one informant (so he meets privately)… and all the time Paul spent hiding (running) would have been to no purpose… he might as well as handed himself over 14 years earlier… I think that’s a possible reading… to me the easier… unless I missed something… I can consider that…
the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,
now, if you honestly felt, were fully convinced, that you had received a message directly from Jesus (and assume you hadn’t grown up in the church, as Paul hadn’t), do you ask other humans if this message was true?.. remember, it came directly from Jesus…
lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by D

again, sure, a possible reading… and again, if Jesus said that… aren’t we all called to ‘strengthen’ our brothers and sisters?..looks like there’s more than one way to read that ‘strengthen/confirm’ word, so it’s a matter of interpretation for the reader… also, if it is prophesied that Peter will strengthen fellow Christians, it must be a transitory or on/off thing, because he sows seeds of hypocrisy in Galatia…

The context of Lk 22:24…] is clear. It’s an argument over primacy. (which one is the greatest among THEM). Satan who was in the room, got them into an argument. Jesus tells the apostles this but He tells THEM through Peter what Satan wants to do. AND Jesus confirms one of THEM is the greatest. Then Jesus shows who is the greates among the apostles. As Jesus does so often, He says to Peter, (singular) He didn’t say this to the rest of the apostles, it was Peter who would strengthen THEM not the other way around.

24 A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat.32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”
yes, that certainly is a possible reading… it’s also possible that ‘Luke’ here is working from a sayings-source… a collection… and he puts the sayings together in a way that he thinks flows well… or leads the reader in a direction he (Luke) wants them to go…

a couple other things… the NAB has
‘…but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail;… it looks like not all of Jesus’ prayers get answered… there’s the garden prayer also… Peter’s faith does let him down… here and in Galatians… ‘and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.’… yes, after Peter is done with faith-issues, he really should try to help his bros… I think that’s a good idea… and he does, a lot of the time… as leader? possibly… some of them probably looked to him as leader…

I’m interested in the ‘on again… off again…’ nature of Peter’s strengthening…and keep in mind I think Peter’s a great guy…
so here’s another story… it does involve putting two different books of the Bible together, but here goes… in Luke 24, Jesus tells the disciples to stay in city (Jerusalem, I think)… then in John 21, Peter leads the disciples to go fishing… not a Jerusalem activity… I think… so we see Peter in the role of leader, but not leading the disciples to do what Jesus said… and maybe that’s what Paul is seeing in Galatians… maybe he actually does think that Peter is the leader (that’s why he rebukes him instead of going to him privately and trying to work this situation out)… it’s just that when Peter leads to do something different than what Jesus taught (Paul thinking his message comes directly from Jesus…), then it’s ok to not listen to him, not follow him there… maybe that’s what Paul is saying in Galatians…
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by D

Paul says he meets with ‘James the brother of the Lord’ (quoted from memory)… there is also James the brother of John, the sons of Zebedee… I think James the bro of John is the one on the Mount of Transfiguration, James the bro of the Lord is the Big Guy in Jerusalem…

James, Epistle of Saint - The author is commonly identified with the Lord’s brother, the Bishop of Jerusalem; the view that the Lord’s brother must be identified with James, the son of Alpheus, is by far the most probable
James the Greater, Saint - son of Zebedee and brother of John.
James the Less, Saint - son of Alpheus, the brother of the Lord i.e. cousin
right… and on the Mount of Tranfiguration… I think it’s Peter, James, and John… the James here, I think, is the bro of John, son of Zeb…my impression is that in the gospels, when ‘james and john’ are mentioned, it means the two bros… so, I think, the James on the Mount is different from the James in Galatians that Paul sees, that James being the bro of the Lord… the bro of John being already dead… probably…
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by D

the problem would be that certain parts of the church (James and sometimes Peter) are into compelling Gentiles to live like Jews, while Paul and the Gentile wing of the church have no real problems with this…

in Acts he tells them that…(maybe somewhere else too?)… in Galatians, he’s ‘compelling’ Gentiles to live like Jews…

Peter in council [Acts 15] ruled against putting Mosaic law around the necks of Gentile converts.
right… but in Galatians, Paul implies that he (Peter) was compelling gentiles to live like Jews… what are we to make of this? Paul was there, and very close to the situation… I think the best explanation is that Peter didn’t really want gentiles to live like Jews, but when folks came from James, he (Peter) was afraid of what would happen if word got back to Jerusalem that Peter was living like a gentile… so he pretends that he was always living like a Jew, or that he wanted to repent… here’s another possible solution that I think would have worked well if Peter wanted to protect somebody… people visiting from Jerusalem or people back there the whole time… he could’ve simply left the gentile region at that time and traveled back to Jerusalem with the folks from James, and then called the council at that time… clearly the same situation must’ve been popping up all over the place…
Paul otoh, In Acts 16:1-3 took a disciple named Timothy… and on account of the Jews of that region, had Timothy a gentile, circumcised.
say, I just came across this… something I used to know, I think, but forgot… Timothy’s mom is Jewish… so maybe in Paul’s mind it’s ok to circumcise an uncircumcised Jewish person… (Timothy being Jewish because his mom is… a tradition followed today, I believe…)
in any case, we’re left with a dilemma with Paul… if what he says in Galatians 5 is true… that if you are circumcised then Christ is of no benefit to you… then what he does to Tim is truely horrific… unless Paul sees an exception in what I wrote above… so perhaps Paul is insane… or forgot that you’re not supposed to circumcise… in any case, if the Acts 16 story is true, then we have an example of different Apostles teaching different things, and following different traditions… Paul circumcising and Peter being against it… also some people regarding Peter as leader, and Paul disregarding his instructions…

Then Acts 18:18, Acts 21:
-26 Paul shaved his head, purified himself and made sacrifice according to the Mosaic law, which he had previously said is no longer to be followed.
well, actually, I think what Paul says is that righteousness with God is not to be pursued through the Law… but you can still do stuff like choose not to work on the Sabbath, if you want… just don’t think it makes you more right with God… that’s my take on Paul… I could be wrong, tho… also, Paul is in a strong Jewish area at this time… no problem acting like a Jewish person there… it’s only when you’ve been hanging out in a gentile fellowship, and then shortly after that start acting Jewish… while still in the same gentile area…
or maybe Paul is just schitzo… says one thing and does another… has radically different lifestyles and teachings in different places… not really the kind of person I would want as an Apostle… hard to believe he started all those churches… unless he had them all deluded… fooled as to his true character… also we have good examples of the same Apostle teaching different things at different times… so there wasn’t one single solid tradition that all the Apostles taught at all times…
Paul explains himself by saying, to the Gentiles he becomes as a Gentile, to win them over, as to the Jews he became a Jew so that some might be saved. [1 cor 9:20] This is exactly what Peter did earlier with the gentiles so he wouldn’t lose any of them, and was rebuked by Paul for it.
well, I think Paul rebukes him for acting like a Jewish person while there’s still gentiles around… in a gentile area… connected to a gentile church…
Then Paul embraces this behavior for himself…
no, not really… Paul lives like a gentile while among them, is willing to go back to his Jewish lifestyle when in their area… doesn’t look the same to me… also, in the gentile fellowship where Peter comes to hang out for a while, there’s probably already Jewish and gentile believers… early churches often being composed of a mixture, I’ve heard… everybody is getting along just fine… Peter doesn’t change his behavior until people come ‘from James’…
 
What we have is consistency of teaching,
well,… it doesn’t look consistent to me… it looks like James and Paul have different teachings on how and when Abraham has his sins forgiven… not sure what Peter is teaching prior to the council at Jerusalem… those observing his actions would think that Jewish Christians shouldn’t eat with gentiles… not the same as what other Apostles are teaching…
also, what the council decides, about keeping four of the Laws, looks different to me than what Paul teaches in his letters…
it’s some actions that didn’t match the teaching.
yes,… isn’t that what Paul talks to Peter about? actions not matching words? saying one thing and doing another… that would be the hypocrisy Paul is upset about…
The Judaizers were the ones weak in their new faith.
and probably some of the gentiles who were wondering what was going on with Peter… the gentiles seem to be having some struggles too, prompting Paul to write Galatians… which must have occured later, meaning that there would have been at least some weak gentile believers at Galatia…
why is James sending out weak believers? granted, I know you take the view that they were just from James’ area… what were they hearing from James that made them think they should go out trapsing thru the countryside? … I think a good plan for Peter would have been to send them back, or better yet, go back with them, because obviously there were going to be a lot of people from James area heading out into gentile-land… and what was going to happen to them if Peter wasn’t around to act Jewish with them… what if only Paul was there, or someone else that thought like Paul?
They were steeped in Mosaic law.
Yes, what was James teaching them? what were they believers in? if they were still thinking that one had to keep the Law, or most parts of it, what was James saying to help them get over this? or was he saying anything? perhaps he was teaching something different… if James was teaching in his area just what Paul and Peter were teaching, and these folks just hadn’t heard it, then all Peter has to do is help them understand… he wouldn’t have to change his actions…
So Peter not out of maliciousness to the doctrine being preached, did things Jewish so not to offend the Judaizers.
note that Paul says Barnabas gets caught up in the hypocrisy… one meaning of ‘offend’ is to lead into sin… so Peter ends up offending some people… or at least one person… in order not to offend someone else… I think there has to be a better way…
Paul rebuked Peter for doing that.
quite rightly, imo…
Then Paul acts the same
I’m not seeing the sameness…
and goes even further, and it looks like he gives himself a pass.
yep, very strange indeed, if it’s as you say… Paul doesn’t look at all like a person worth following… yet he says to follow him as he follows Christ… maybe he means only follow him when he’s following Christ (I don’t think that)… we as individuals would then check to see if Paul (or any leader in the church) is following Christ, and then decide if we should follow them at that time or not…
In effect, Paul learned a valuable lesson from Peter. Don’t be so rigid that one loses new converts, and prospective converts, to the faith.
well, I can see value in the non-rigid approach… one thing one could be not rigid about is Peter being leader of the church… or maybe Peter leads, but in a lead-by-example approach… not a military-style hierarchy… maybe that’s what a lot of Catholics in North America are doing, like with contraception… not really being rigid about doing what ‘Peter’ (Peter’s successor) says or teaches… I think that in the process of becoming Catholic, a person is asked to make a confession of faith… to say that they believe all that the Church teaches… can one say ‘yes’ to that, but mean ‘in a really non-rigid’ sort of way?..
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by D

also, we have a good example of Paul, by his actions, not presenting Peter as head of the church… I suppose one could always say that Paul knew Peter was head, and just decided to go ahead with the circumcision anyways… well, that would give us the pattern of “Peter is the head of the church, but it’s no big deal if one does what he says or not”… I suppose one could say that Paul wasn’t really thinking or got carried away in the moment or something… but a circumcision isn’t really something you do by accident… I think it’s interesting that Paul never (that I know of) expresses remorse for the alleged circumcising… or disregarding of the decree…tho he does for persecuting the church…

And not everything got written down.
Well, very true… so… I’m really liking this non-rigid approach… I’m interested in seeing what your response is…
 
For any fellow Catholic here. I had this respoinse on Peter the rock from a pastor and need help with it. I do know that the Catholic view is not dependent on Matt. 16 being in the Aramaic but want to know if this point from him holds water in Aramaic:
  1. The proper translation of Petros is Ke’pha’. On this we have the authority of the Word of God itself in the Greek original of the New Testament, where the name “Ke’pha” (in the English Bible “Cephas”) is six times given as the Aramaic equivalent to Petros for the name of Simon bar Jonas. (John 1:42; 1Corinthians1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Galatians 2:9) So, we can say, based upon the authority of the original Greek of the New Testament that Petros, the name given to Simon bar Jona by the Lord Jesus (John 1:42) is the correct translation of the Aramaic/Syriac word Ke’pha’. Greek: Petros = Aramaic: Ke’pha’ (“Cephas”)
    But what of the Greek word Petra? Is it correctly translated as Ke’pha’?
    There is nowhere in the Greek New Testament where the word Ke’pha’ is given as the correct translation of the Greek word Petra. In order to determine the Syriac/Aramaic word which best translates the Greek word Petra we will have to look at the translations of the Greek New Testament which were made in the first five centuries of the Christian Church to determine how the Greek word Petra was understood.
    Greek: Petra = Aramaic: ?
  2. In the Peshitta Syriac New Testament the Greek word “PETRA” is translated by the Aramaic word SHUA' as in Matthew 7:24-25 meaning a massive rock or a boulder. PETRA is used 16 times in the Greek New Testament: Of those times it is translated in the Peshitta Syriac 9 times by the word SHUA’ ,
    6 times by the word KE’PHA’ and
    1 time by the Hebrew root word ‘ABENA’
    Of the ten times PETRA is used in the Gospels it is translated:
    7 times by the word SHU`A’
    (Mt.7:24, 25; Mk.15:46; Lk 6:48[2x];8:6, 13)
    3 times by the word KE’PHA’
    (Mt.16:18; 27:51; 27:60)
Of the three times KE’PHA’ is used to translate PETRA in the Gospels:
[1] in Mt. 27:60 the parallel passage in Mark’s gospel (Mark 15:46) more correctly uses SHUA' to translate PETRA. [2] in Mt. 27:51 the word KE'PHA' is used to describe the rocks (plural) which were broken at the earthquake when Christ died (and hence, these rocks became movable) [3] the other passage is Mt. 16:18 where KE'PHA' is used to translate both PETROS and PETRA. In all other places in the Gospels the Greek word PETRA is translated by the Syriac word SHUA’, meaning “a massive rock.”
KE’PHA’ is used in the Syriac N.T. as the translation of both the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS.
The Greek word LITHOS, which means “a stone” (generally of a size which could be picked up or moved) is ALWAYS translated by the Syriac word KE’PHA’.
As LITHOS in classical Greek is the common prose word for “a stone” (see the quote from Liddle and Scott’s Lexicon, above) and PETROS is more common in poetry, this shows that the definition of KE’PHA’ as “a stone” is correct. The Syriac KE’PHA’ is equivalent to the Greek LITHOS, a movable stone.
KE’PHA’ IS ALWAYS USED TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD LITHOS.
SHU’A IS THE MORE USUAL AND CORRECT SYRIAC WORD TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD PETRA.
KE’PHA IS A MOVABLE STONE = LITHOS / PETROS.
SHU’A IS A MASSIVE ROCK = PETRA.
The Syriac word SHUA' is NEVER used to translate the Greek word LITHOS. Because a LITHOS is NOT a large massive rock, but a SHUA’ is.
The Syriac KE’PHA’ is correctly used to translate the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS because these are movable stones.
  1. The fact that the Greek text of the New Testament uses two separate Greek words in the passage [Matthew 16:18] indicates that any underlying Aramaic/Syriac original (if there was one, AND THIS IS FAR FROM PROVEN) also must have used two separate words.
Hi Romans123, and welcome…

Here’s how I would look at it… in the greek that we have, basically the same word is used for both Peter and rock, so Jesus is saying something like, ‘I say to you that you are rock, and on this rock I will build…’ trying to figure out what a possible previous version might have said would not be profitable, imo, because the translator, who would’ve had (hopefully) good knowledge of the languages he was working from, as well as the cultures involved, would have (hopefully) attempted to communicate the ideas as he understood them… and he used the same word for ‘rock’ in both cases… of course, there may not have even been a translator, Matthew may have been written in greek…
hope this helps…
Peace be with you…
 
Originally Posted by Dan_471 View Post
still with you there… tho, did only the CC recieve that revelation? why would we think that?..

Couldn’t say for sure-I can only say that this was the specifice revelation the CC received.
oh, ok… then there could be other groups that have the revelation…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_471 View Post
did all humans choose this? or only Adam and Eve, and the rest of us inherited their choice? humans sometimes choose to do good things, I think…
humans are pre-disposed because of Adam and Eve?.. or something else?..
What I can observe in this world-and in myself-is that something is out of sync, not quite harmonious, not as it “should be”. The worst manifestation of this “something”, of this unreasonableness, of this “sin”, can be most explicitly observed when humans commit atrocious acts of evil against others: genocide, rape, torture, etc.-often as not otherwise normal people doing this. Until and unless a truly normal moral standard is revealed to us-an objective morality, a “natural law” for man-we have nothing to compare our behavior to, nothing to “go by”, only our own “righteousness”, whatever that may be, driven by whatever values we may happen to pick up along the way, which as often as not probably cater to pure selfishness. The Old Covenant was intended to be just such a standard, so man would know in certain terms what is expected, at least in basic ways, what “righteousness” looks like. But man couldn’t live up to it; he couldn’t fulfill the law. The New Covenant gives man the power to be who he was created to be, because the NC is about man and God reconciling and reuniting, communing, as it were. This reverses the separation of man and God that Adam opted for,
hmmm… sounds like it does go back to Adam, and everyone else inherited it from him,… maybe…
this is mans healing, this is his justice. Without this communion disorder and disharmony reign to one degree or another.
To the extent that we stay away from God, and continue to sin, we affirm Adams choice, his preference for himself over God; we carry on the family tradition.
sounds like a good approach… so, would you say that Jesus set up the RCC to be the only way that humans can get back to God… or just the best way… or maybe just one of the ways…?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_471 View Post
what is the message, how does it look to you? …
The message, the good news, as I made mention to,
well, actually, I didn’t see where you’d said what the good news was, so that’s why I was asking…
is that goodness and love are foundational to the universe. IOW God IS…and God is love.
right, and sounds good, thanks… so,… what role would you say, does the RCC play in accessing, getting back to, this God that loves? …
suppose we start with the idea that because Jesus came back to life again after being dead, He must be the place to start looking for a way to get close to God… does one end up at the RCC? or are there any number of places one might reasonably go to, using Jesus as a starting poing…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_471 View Post
right, then, I think, to use those metaphors, who are the messengers, why would we think they’re carrying God’s message, what is the ‘ark’,… how do we separate the light and dark parts of the message, if in some parts they’ve gotten mixed together…
They’re not mixed. Light and dark still coexist in us, which includes church members as well as her leaders. The ark carries the message, the light-and we’re still learning from it, stumbling at times, hopefully growing nearer to its likeness.
what is the ark, then?
 
oh, ok… then there could be other groups that have the revelation…
The main thing is the revelation itself. If the truth can be found elsewhere then that’s wonderful, but I’ve recognized the voice of truth-the voice of God-most clearly in the Christian message. All must discern for themselves.
hmmm… sounds like it does go back to Adam, and everyone else inherited it from him,… maybe…
Adam simply got humankind exiled from God, so to speak, by rejecting Him as God, for all practical purposes. Why God allowed the disobedience of one set of parents to affect their whole progeny was a matter of His will in accord with His wisdom and purpose.
sounds like a good approach… so, would you say that Jesus set up the RCC to be the only way that humans can get back to God… or just the best way… or maybe just one of the ways…?
It got me there, it’s getting me there, I believe it will fully get me there. 🙂
well, actually, I didn’t see where you’d said what the good news was, so that’s why I was asking…

right, and sounds good, thanks… so,… what role would you say, does the RCC play in accessing, getting back to, this God that loves? …
suppose we start with the idea that because Jesus came back to life again after being dead, He must be the place to start looking for a way to get close to God… does one end up at the RCC? or are there any number of places one might reasonably go to, using Jesus as a starting poing…
The resurrection removes a major stumbling block to man’s understanding of the world as not being meaningless, his life ultimately futile and hopeless. Again, goodness, goodwill, exists for man at a foundational level. Read the bible if you haven’t already. Look for God. I was surprised to find that my own search would take me back to the CC, that I would simply begin to increasingly agree with her on the main things.

Keep asking, seeking, knocking. I looked in a whole variety of places-mostly outside Christianity at first-because I really wanted to know- to know if there was anything such as truth in this world, if there was anything bigger than us, any answers to the questions humans simply can’t answer on their own, any real hope. Or was life just dog-eat-dog, one ego against the other, pride and selfishness and what they can get for us the only real values.
what is the ark, then?
The Church has been regarded as that ark by early fathers, carrying us to salvation. She contains the revelation of God we need in order to make our way home to Him. That’s her only real purpose.
 
Quote:
Dan_471;10778669]

Quote:
hmmm… so to see how strong the link is between Jesus and the RCC, we look to see what the RCC says about itself? does this strike you as circular at all?

The thing is, we wouldn’t know anything about Jesus to begin with without the apostolic churches, especially the RCC and the Orthodox churches.
right… and in the main I agree with that… the RCC playing a major role in preserving the documents and the message… (the Orthodox too? what role do you see them playing?) … and maybe we’re actually saying the same thing here… do we see the role of the RCC as preserver… maybe communicator… is there an authortarian role that the RCC plays too?.. some of the posters earlier were refering to an earthly government… based on Peter having the keys to the kingdom… if it’s more the role of communicator, and the individual has lots of flexability in what to do with it… how about the power of excommunication… would that be important?
Nor would we know nor possess what these churches call scripture.
right, tho there may be some writings that we don’t have because they were suppressed by church, I think…
Quote:
not sure if Paul thought Peter was pope… would he still be Catholic?
Back in the days of the infant church, Paul probably did not think of Peter as pope in the same sense we think of Peter as pope today. Peter was the leader of the apostles, and so Paul had to be accepted by Peter.
what do you mean by ‘had to’?.. is this how Paul thought of it? Paul seems to present Peter as kind of weak and vacillating (well, that’s my reading)… it seems like James is the one who holds power in the Jerusalem area…
if Paul wants to be accepted by Peter, and keep on good terms, (one would think,) then it seems odd to speak to him the way he did… why not go to him privately, and try to work this out?..
Of course back then all the apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit in their teaching.
well, then… I’m interested in your opinion, here…what do you think about the difference Abraham’s righteousness is portrayed in Romans 4 and James 2?..
was anyone else besides the Apostles inspired? perhaps the John who wrote Revelation… how about Marcion?
No one is inspired today. .
no individual person? or no inspiration anywhere… I thought one of the teachings of the RCC was that it’s established teachings could not be in error… do I understand that right?..
 
Quote:
well, the justifiying usually goes something like this: we are the right group, Jesus started us, and as proof of that, we say so,… also we have Bible verses… and we have the right interpretation of those verses, because Jesus gave us the right interpretation… … pretty air-tight, actually… also circular…
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_471 View Post
oh, ok… then there could be other groups that have the revelation…

The main thing is the revelation itself. If the truth can be found elsewhere then that’s wonderful, but I’ve recognized the voice of truth-the voice of God-most clearly in the Christian message. All must discern for themselves.
ok, so it’s really a matter of each person discerning for themselves… and I agree that the voice of God is most clearly heard in the Christian message… with you there… not sure about the RCC, tho… tho I can hear God’s voice in the main teachings of Jesus, I’m not really hearing it in the teachings of the RCC… that could just be my up-bringing, tho…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_471 View Post
hmmm… sounds like it does go back to Adam, and everyone else inherited it from him,… maybe…
Adam simply got humankind exiled from God,
now to me, that doesn’t really seem just… exileing everyone for the actions of the first person… Adam may have been, for all we know, a 14 year-old middle-schooler… would you put the fate of the earth and all humanity in his hands?.. or maybe God was actually looking for an excuse to come and be crucified… that would make sense…
so to speak, by rejecting Him as God, for all practical purposes. Why God allowed the disobedience of one set of parents to affect their whole progeny was a matter of His will in accord with His wisdom and purpose.
say, here’s another way of looking at it… even after Adam and Eve sin, God still comes looking for them… it’s the two that hide from God… He closes off the garden so that they won’t eat from the tree of life and live forever… live forever in that state, I think… nowadays, because of our knowledge of good and evil, we naturally shrink away from God, have a natural discomfort… but once you realize the origin of that discomfort, a lot of it goes away… imo…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_471 View Post
sounds like a good approach… so, would you say that Jesus set up the RCC to be the only way that humans can get back to God… or just the best way… or maybe just one of the ways…?
It got me there, it’s getting me there, I believe it will fully get me there.
ok, so, your experience… and that’s good, don’t get me wrong… tho… for someone else the RCC might not be the best choice… am I understanding that right?..
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_471 View Post
well, actually, I didn’t see where you’d said what the good news was, so that’s why I was asking…

right, and sounds good, thanks… so,… what role would you say, does the RCC play in accessing, getting back to, this God that loves? …

suppose we start with the idea that because Jesus came back to life again after being dead, He must be the place to start looking for a way to get close to God… does one end up at the RCC? or are there any number of places one might reasonably go to, using Jesus as a starting point…

The resurrection removes a major stumbling block to man’s understanding of the world as not being meaningless, his life ultimately futile and hopeless. Again, goodness, goodwill, exists for man at a foundational level. Read the bible if you haven’t already. Look for God. I was surprised to find that my own search would take me back to the CC, that I would simply begin to increasingly agree with her on the main things.
ok, well, we’re having different experiences, here, then…
Keep asking, seeking, knocking. I looked in a whole variety of places-mostly outside Christianity at first-because I really wanted to know- to know if there was anything such as truth in this world, if there was anything bigger than us, any answers to the questions humans simply can’t answer on their own, any real hope. Or was life just dog-eat-dog, one ego against the other, pride and selfishness and what they can get for us the only real values.
so, here’s a possibility… maybe… some people feel most comfortable when they approach God (or don’t run away from Him) as a group… one can see this in the Scriptures… and for the group-oriented, the RCC is a great choice… a large group, lots of different ‘flavors’ within the same group… centuries/thousands of years of thought to explore… for others, tho, being part of a group isn’t so important… they’re ok being with God as individuals… for these folks maybe the RCC isn’t such a good idea… how does that sound?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top