Greek text argument

[pnewton]

And I tell you, you are Peter {a stone} , and on this rock {a massive rock, Christ} I will build my church, and the gates of hell {hades, unseen, unpreceptible state, DEATH} shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18) First let me address the petra/ petros issue. I have never read this passage and thought that Jesus referred to anything but Peter. I can state three reasons why not.

First, we have the whole problem with an antecedant. Nothing else in the sentence makes any grammatical sense as to what “this” stands for. A pronoun must have an antecedant to make sense.

Second, Matthew, in writing this, could not have used the same word and made grammatical sense. Peter is a guy. A masculine pronoun must have be used. Petra is a neuter noun. They are different because Greek grammar requires them to be.

Third, the greek scarcily matters, except in regards as to why Matthew wrote it this way because Jesus spoke Aramaic. In Aramaic there is but one word that could have been used in both situations, negating the old stone/ledge arguement. How do we know that Jesus didn’t simply switch to Greek to make his point here? Simple. The Bible records Peter’s nickname: Cephus.

Here was the perfect opportunity for Him to assign it a name and AVOID all the fighting and warring that has occurred since He spoke those words almost 2,000 years ago but He did not. Why? Why not just come out and say it??

It would have made no sense to assign it a name. It was even called “Christian” until much later. Names evolve and change, both over time and from language to language or culture to culture. If Jesus did give it a name, like church of New Covenant, there would still remain the same arguement over what church was the Church of the New Covenant.

Some denominations have tried to capitalize on this and call them selves simplistic names like, Church of Christ, of Chirstian Church. While this is fine and good, the name does not grant an automatic historical link.

The only solution is to do what I did, and dig into the historical development of the first and second century to see what this church is that flowed from the apostles. I firmly believe this to be the Catholic Church. That is why Ieftmy Baptist roots and joined ten years ago.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I started to reply to your post. I then concluded that you are so far out of the truth that it would be meaningless. I really hope you are just kidding.

That may be so. I wasn’t kidding at all. If it is so , if I am as “far out of the truth” as you claim, then you, as the person making the claim, should show how it is so - by showing what is wrong with my reasoning, for instance. Do that, and you may get somewhere.​

Remarks about my - and anyone else’s - “blindness” are not terribly convincing otherwise

Over to you ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Or you just aren’t as eloquent to be able to reply, or you just don’t have a reply.

About time you put up some Scripture to back up all your claims M_Oliver, and stop the snide comments to us all.

We are here to discuss God’s Word, the translation and interpretation of it, and it’s meaning for us.

All I ever see is you using large font to intimidate us, with absolutely no Scriptural evidence as back up, or polite logical debate.

TY - if hell is not eternal, why should eternal life be ? The word αίωνίoς is applied to both; so by the OP’s argument either:​

• both are conditions of eternal life and bliss
  or
• Jesus was promising eternal life to the goats in Matthew 25.31-46: in which case, the prophetic parable makes no sense
  or
• one is a condition of eternal life, and the other is a condition of eternal death.
  Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed , into everlasting [166 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=166) fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Matt. 25.46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal

• into, respectively, kolasin aionion, & zoen** aionion**.

Are they to be equally punished, or equally welcomed ? They certainly have something in common - but one group is blessed, and the other, is cursed. It’s true that that understanding the issues here is not altogether plane sailing - but, the notion of eternal punishment was not something invented by the Church.

The variety of contexts in which the word is used in [these texts (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1/1158720797-7651.html) alone - as well as the rest - shows that the meaning is not always straightforward; but it does not show that the doctrine of eternal separation from God is false or not founded on the witness of the Bible.

FWIW - believing that there is a hell for the impenitent, does not make one immoral, or a sadist, or any suchlike thing. If Jesus had not loved those whom he warned of (what to most Christians appears to be) eternal punishment, why did he speak as he did ? If there is danger ahead, or the possibility of it, to warn of it is an act of kindness, not of cruelty. Why should the attiude of Christians be any different from that of Christ ? It is not meant to be. We believe he was talking about Hell - so we too talk of Hell, and treat it as a possibility arising from the freedom we have been given. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I loved this so much that I found myself unable to avoid quoting you.

That’s very kind - but I can’t take the credit - Father Faber come up with that way of seeing God’s forgiveness in his book All for Jesus, in 1853. (I’ve begun to read the Puritans since I read it, and there are some wonderful agreements in emphasis between them & him: they & he both emphasise the fact of Hell* and* the immensity of God’s mercy - I think he was originally Calvinist himself, though I’m not sure of that.)​

If anyone wants assurance that God is Love, Father Faber’s book is definitely one that would be worth giving them.

If anyone wants evidence that sin is the worst thing in all creation, bar nothing - not even Hell - they could do far worse than read this. Sin is the worst of evils, because God is incomparably the very greatest, very best, and most universal of goods, the very Good of all goods. Which is why there is a Hell. Hell is the punishment for unrepented sin - and even so, it is far less than what is deserved. Hell, sin, and the Atonement stand or fall together. The Crucifixion becomes meaningless sadism, if there is no Hell for impenitent, hardened, rebellious sinners. As this excellent book makes crystal-clear.

It might not be advisable reading for those with scruples - with that minor reservation, I can hardly recommend it enough. Anyone who thinks sin is trivial, should read it - it will change their lives. ##

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

God is also Just, Holy, Judge, Eternal, and so on.

If you emphasize one aspect over all the others then you create a god in your own image.

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

Here’s the original topic of the thread for those who might have forgotten:

I don’t hear Catholics quoting Greek translations nearly as often as protestants and I would like to know why that is. Also, the Calvinist friend seems to think that the reason Catholics don’t use the greek as much is because we are avoiding the true meaning of scripture. Any thoughts on any of that?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’ve been to a lot of Presbyterian services, RUF(Reformed University Fellowship), and I have a lot of Presbyterian friends. Something I’ve noticed is that Presbyterians very often refer to “the greek text”. For example, when I read John 3:16 --“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”-- to a Calvinist friend of mine, she made the comment that in the original Greek text, “the world” could mean either everyone in the world or everyone in the world that is a Christian. This Greek translation supported her argument that God sends people to Hell.

I don’t hear Catholics quoting Greek translations nearly as often as protestants and I would like to know why that is. Also, the Calvinist friend seems to think that the reason Catholics don’t use the greek as much is because we are avoiding the true meaning of scripture. Any thoughts on any of that?

Might sociology be involved ? Some Churches tend (or have tended) to attract members from certain social groups - and this might be related to whether people in a given Church are likely to be interested in looking up the Greek.​

Catholic piety of the RC type at least has plenty of devotional practices to be interested in other than the Bible - Calvinist piety, OTOH, is centred on the Bible & radiates from it. As the Greek of the NT is a feature of the Bible, those whose piety is stongly informed by the Bible have very strong reasons to be drawn to study the Greek: especially as it is the language of the NT.

The Bible has for evangelicals (such as Calvinists) pretty well the functions we associate with the Sacraments, sacramentals, devotion to the Saints, and so on - what Catholic piety expresses in those distinct ways, is expressed for evangelicalism by fewer means; and as one of those means is the Bible, it has (in a sense) a higher status for them than for us. We both venerate the Bible, but it has for them a symbolic value that Catholics associate with the Church. Bible & Church both function as symbols of whatever is seen to be of supreme religious importance next after Christ.

IMO, the reason for the Calvinist interest in the Greek text, as compared with the (specifically) RC attitude to it, is this difference in the symbolic importance & function of the Bible. And although the two Christianities are very similar in many ways, the elements in them are related in different ways: as in the patterns of a kaleidoscope. And this has effects on what both of us do as Christians & on what interests us. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…continued/ended]

1. Calvinists (for example) tend not to have much time for certain kinds of Biblical criticism; Calvinists have provided much of the theological inspiration for Fundamentalism. The critics they criticise came to the conclusions they did because they were trying not to avoid the meaning of the Bible, but to see what it means. This is why Catholic scholars, among others, are not Fundamentalists, and why they make use of evidence from outside the Biblical text to understand the text.

Besides, while Catholicism has its tradition, so do all Christianities any older than a generation. It is not having tradition that causes problems, but what is in that tradition. To have tradition, of some kind, is simply unavoidable - as unavoidable for a square to have four sides; because it belongs to the very essence of a square that it has four sides, not three or some other number. ##

 

[sterryfamily]

Does it occur to anybody, or concern them, that the magisterium is going to be biased?

The magisterium is only made up of people, they’re no different from anybody else. Taking their interpretations just because they say so, is exactly the same as taking the word of an Amway representative, that their products are superior to everyone elses’.

Not if God gave His promise to lead them into all truth and to be with them always, which, of course, He did. Without this promise all religion is man-made and moot.

 

[sterryfamily]

And I tell you, you are Peter {a stone} , and on this rock {a massive rock, Christ} I will build my church, and the gates of hell {hades, unseen, unpreceptible state, DEATH} shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)

It’s funny that you are always harping on people here to get to the “root” when you give this quote the way you did. In the language Jesus spoke (Aramaic) He said, "You are KEPHA and upon this KEPHA I will build my Church.

Even if He had spoken Greek (not) there was no difference in first century Greek between the meanings of Petra (feminine use) and Petros (masculine) - they both simply meant “Rock”. Whenever God changed someones name, it always had significant meaning. Peter means “Rock”.
M_Oliver;1506348:

Here was the perfect opportunity for Him to assign it a name and AVOID all the fighting and warring that has occurred since He spoke those words almost 2,000 years ago but He did not. Why? Why not just come out and say it??

Because it was unnecessary. All His followers were united as one in His Church - they didn’t even need a name. They have been one for two thousand years - any schism (condemned in the Bible) or heresy is simply that - heresy.

However, it does appear the apostles most likely called themselves “The Catholic Church”. The earliest written record of the use of this name comes from St Ignatius of Antioch, who was schooled by the apostle, St John and traveled some with Sts Peter and Paul (He was appointed bishop of Antioch by St Peter himself). When, in His writings, he refers to The Catholic Church, it appears to have already been an old term by then.

 

[Mystophilus]

The Bible has for evangelicals (such as Calvinists) pretty well the functions we associate with the Sacraments, sacramentals, devotion to the Saints, and so on - what Catholic piety expresses in those distinct ways, is expressed for evangelicalism by fewer means; and as one of those means is the Bible, it has (in a sense) a higher status for them than for us. We both venerate the Bible, but it has for them a symbolic value that Catholics associate with the Church. Bible & Church both function as symbols of whatever is seen to be of supreme religious importance next after Christ.​

Clear, concise, and insightful.

 

[Scottgun]

Here’s the original topic of the thread for those who might have forgotten:

Thanks. There are plenty of Catholic apologists that have no problem going to the greek texts. What one has to watch out for is non-Catholics playing a game of “textual hopscotch”. That is, bouncing from a greek text, to some translation, back to the greek text when it suits them. The funny thing is that many non-Catholics harp about the perspicuity of Scripture. Catholics of course believe Scripture is reasonably clear, but watch what happens when the perspicacious non-Catholic gets to a chapter like Matt 16 or John 6. All of a sudden it takes an army of academic pointy-heads yammering on for twenty pages about how the common-sense reading of Peter the rock, or Christ commanding to literally eat his flesh and blood is impossible.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I should have said there is “no church on this planet identified BY NAME in Scripture”. Sorry for the confusion. I agree Christ did say…

And I tell you, you are Peter {a stone} , and on this rock {a massive rock, Christ} I will build my church, and the gates of hell {hades, unseen, unpreceptible state, DEATH} shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)

Here was the perfect opportunity for Him to assign it a name and AVOID all the fighting and warring that has occurred since He spoke those words almost 2,000 years ago but He did not. Why? Why not just come out and say it ??

Nothing is so clear that it cannot be treated as incompehensible. That’s human nature. He wondered at the dullness of mind of the disciples; & if they were slow on the uptake, even though they were in close fellowship with Him, it’s no wonder if Christians since then are equally dull.​

He is referred to as our “dikaiosunē”, “our righteousness” - which is a feminine noun. If St.Paul can use a feminine noun to refer to a male person - why is it out of place to take the equally feminine noun petra in St.Matthew as referring to a male person ? No rule of grammatical agreement is broken in either case; it is not that Christ or Peter is feminine, but the grammatical gender of the words for the qualities being attributed to them: which is a very different matter. Matters are not helped by the recent confusion between sex & gender.

Petra is feminine in gender, Simon is male by sex - so when a petra-word is applied (seemingly, to him), it takes a form which reflects the sex of the bearer of it, and becomes Petros. Words can perfectly well be of gender A, while the things they are words for, can be of sex B - words for a thing, and the sex of that thing, are not necessarily the same. War is not particularly feminine - yet the French word for it is feminine in gender. Not every member of the species “man” is male - yet it is perfectly accurate to say that a woman is a member of that species - certain feminists fall into the same confusion between the grammatical gender of words, & the sex of the beings referred to by those words.

BTW - if the feminine noun petra cannot refer to the male person Petros (about the change of whosename there is no doubt), how can the feminine noun petra refer to the male person Iesous the christos ? The reasoning that on grammatical grounds forbids Peter to be the rock, also forbids his Master to be the Rock:

Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

“Jesus” & “Christ” are as masculine in their grammatical gender as “Peter” is - so how does the grammatical objection allow Jesus to be the petra, if the objection is valid ? ##

Because there is a purpose behind it is why. And from Genesis to Revelation Scripture reveals that purpose. It is so HARD to make it into that Assembly that a huge majority of each generation of the flesh never even comes close. This is on purpose.

For many are called {invited}, but few are chosen {selected}." (Matthew 22:14)

 

[R_McGeddon]

I do have to disagree with the analogy.

I’m a little curious, how is an Amway salesman saying: “our products are the best,” any different to a catholic saying: “our faith is the correct one. If you don’t believe it, ask the magisterium.”

The Magisterium are not working simply off their own assumptions,

What if they found something that directly contradicted the catholic faith. Do you think they would be completely open about it or disregard it and sweep it under the carpet?

but rather off two thousand years of Catholic theology. I would not say that this necessarily makes them right, but it can help to make their decisions somewhat more informed.

That 2000 years of theology is not guaranteed bias-free.

 

[sterryfamily]

I’m a little curious, how is an Amway salesman saying: “our products are the best,” any different to a catholic saying: “our faith is the correct one. If you don’t believe it, ask the magisterium.”

What if they found something that directly contradicted the catholic faith. Do you think they would be completely open about it or disregard it and sweep it under the carpet?

That 2000 years of theology is not guaranteed bias-free.

Actually it is guaranteed. Christ guaranteed it when He said that He would send His Spirit to guide the Church into all truth and that He would be with them always and that the gates of Hell would never prevail against it. The ECF confirm that this was the teaching and understanding passed down by the apostles. He has promised to ratify in Heaven anything they bind or loose on earth - so it is not fallible men making the decisions but the Holy Spirit. We have Christ’s word on it.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Actually it is guaranteed. Christ guaranteed it when He said that He would send His Spirit to guide the Church into all truth and that He would be with them always and that the gates of Hell would never prevail against it. The ECF confirm that this was the teaching and understanding passed down by the apostles. He has promised to ratify in Heaven anything they bind or loose on earth - so it is not fallible men making the decisions but the Holy Spirit. We have Christ’s word on it.

Actually it is not guaranteed, and your post is full of quotes directly from the source that I don’t believe to be free from bias.

You’ve just reinforced my observation that catholics say:

“The catholic faith is the true faith. If you don’t believe me, ask the catholic church.”

Circular logic at its finest.

 

[sterryfamily]

Actually it is not guaranteed, and your post is full of quotes directly from the source that I don’t believe to be free from bias.

You’ve just reinforced my observation that catholics say:

“The catholic faith is the true faith. If you don’t believe me, ask the catholic church.”

Circular logic at its finest.

I don’t understand your thinking…These were three quotes from Jesus Christ taken from Scripture. He was instructing His Church leadership at the time. All quotes from the ECF confirm that this was what the apostles believed. What are you saying?

 

[Scottgun]

Bias does not equal untrue. The apolostolic witness is something to be believed or not. Nothing circular about that.

Scott

 

[sterryfamily]

Bias does not equal untrue. The apolostolic witness is something to be believed or not. Nothing circular about that.

Scott

Dig ya, Scott

 

[R_McGeddon]

I don’t understand your thinking…These were three quotes from Jesus Christ taken from Scripture. He was instructing His Church leadership at the time. All quotes from the ECF confirm that this was what the apostles believed. What are you saying?

It’s scripture being unbiased that I don’t believe.

Scripture was written decades later, by biased people from second hand, word of mouth stories.

Scottgun:

Bias does not equal untrue. The apolostolic witness is something to be believed or not. Nothing circular about that.

Not always, but bias does equal untrustworthy.