How can people believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic?
- Status
P
PC_Master
Guest
To clarify – I’m not saying that I reject what Claudius has stated outright…I’m just not willing to blindly accept it (I don’t blindly accept anything). If I were to blindly accept it, not knowing whether Claudius is trustworthy or not, not knowing if his source material is accurate or not, not knowing if his goal is to defend the RCC at all costs, rather than to pursue the truth at all costs, I might be led into heresy. Does he sound like he knows what he’s talking about? Yes. Does his argument seem logical on the surface? Yup. But how do I know that it really is? My goal remains to find the truth, not to convince anyone of another position, or anything like that, but to raise questions that oppose the RC position to have them either countered (such as Claudius is doing) or affirmed.
Why? I’m not an expert, and though I am able to research individual facts and claims (for example the meaning of a given word in Greek), what I can’t do, necessarily, is formulate a complete hypothesis for every case as to why a given reason is valid or invalid. I put together what information is available to me in the most sensible manner I can. I really do wish I were a more scholarly individual so that I could sift through this information without the help of others, but alas, I’m imperfect.
I just wish people would focus more on information, and less on assuming my goal is to be a heretic and destroy the RCC.
Besides, if my goal were to persist in sin (as some people have claimed), do you think that yelling at me about it would actually help? All you can do in any case is present what you’re convinced is the truth. But bring a little more compassion to the table when you do so. It’s much more helpful to me, and probably to each of you as well. Being angry helps no one, and it isn’t likely to change how I or others respond.
(By the way, for those who posted in regards to seeing the status of “rock” being passed on to the whole church, I’d recommend reading Origen’s Commentary on Matthew, particularly the sections regarding Matthew 16 and 18. I think Origen may have been one of the earliest authors to clearly explain this truth. If we are to believe that Peter is the rock [a position I’m still not entirely in agreement with], Origen’s argument makes a lot of sense.)
Rony> If you’re reading this – can you clarify on other Syriac/Aramaic words for rock? What are they, how are they properly used? Are they synonymous with one another as Claudius has suggested, etc? Demonstrative use in literary works would be ideal (though I can’t actually read the language – I work with transliterated versions to do the best I can).
Why? I’m not an expert, and though I am able to research individual facts and claims (for example the meaning of a given word in Greek), what I can’t do, necessarily, is formulate a complete hypothesis for every case as to why a given reason is valid or invalid. I put together what information is available to me in the most sensible manner I can. I really do wish I were a more scholarly individual so that I could sift through this information without the help of others, but alas, I’m imperfect.
I just wish people would focus more on information, and less on assuming my goal is to be a heretic and destroy the RCC.
Besides, if my goal were to persist in sin (as some people have claimed), do you think that yelling at me about it would actually help? All you can do in any case is present what you’re convinced is the truth. But bring a little more compassion to the table when you do so. It’s much more helpful to me, and probably to each of you as well. Being angry helps no one, and it isn’t likely to change how I or others respond.
(By the way, for those who posted in regards to seeing the status of “rock” being passed on to the whole church, I’d recommend reading Origen’s Commentary on Matthew, particularly the sections regarding Matthew 16 and 18. I think Origen may have been one of the earliest authors to clearly explain this truth. If we are to believe that Peter is the rock [a position I’m still not entirely in agreement with], Origen’s argument makes a lot of sense.)
Rony> If you’re reading this – can you clarify on other Syriac/Aramaic words for rock? What are they, how are they properly used? Are they synonymous with one another as Claudius has suggested, etc? Demonstrative use in literary works would be ideal (though I can’t actually read the language – I work with transliterated versions to do the best I can).
po18guy
Well-known member
A lie does not persevere for nearly 2,000 years. It is exposed and falls apart of its own weight. Those who came after have the justifying to do, as Christ mentioned that we should beware of them.
Jesus didn’t say we had to like His commands, only that we keep them.
Christ’s peace.
P
PC_Master
Guest
Should we then say that Judaism is still legitimate? Or that Bhuddism is correct? Each have been around, though in error by the Christian perspective, for 2,000 years or more. There are many others I could name, but I trust you get my point.
Satan works secretly, and lest we think he’s incompetent in the art of deception (if this were the case, there’d be no need to warn us about it), we should expect his deception to be difficult to expose. The best lie is one that sounds like truth, isn’t it? Satan perverted Judaism while keeping the appearance of piety and truth, did he not?
C
Claudius
Guest
It is a sin to not be Catholic. However, the guilt of that sin is mittigated if someone does not know that they have to be Catholic through no fault of their own. In your case, you have all the information, accurate and all, right here in front of you but you refuse to accept it. That is not our fault, that is your fault and thus unless there is someone pointing a gun at your head preventing you from believeing, you are persisting in sin.
Yes, anyone who honestly looks at the fact will conclude that they have to become Catholic or Christianity is a false religion to begin with. Just like anyone who looks at the information honestly will have to conclude that the Earth is round with the only alternative being that this is not planet Earth.
Guilty.
There is a difference between what people can concieve of and what actually exist. Does anyone mind if I use some Aquinas? You can concieve of a mountian made of solid gold. However, such a mountian does not exist. I can imagine that the Catholic Church is wrong, however, such a possiblity does not exist in REALITY. We are talking about REALITY, not fantasy. Sure, I can percieve of the “possiblity” that I am wrong, but it would be unreasonable for me to ever conclude that. All the valid facts point to what I say to be true.
Which is why I told you to go get a Greek dictionary. You may want to pick up a Grammar, or primer. There are several on the internet availiable for free in PDF format. I have several downloaded on my cellphone so that I can read them on the train. You can get one that is decent at Textkit.com and there are several really old ones at the American PDF Library. archive.org/details/americana. You just type in what you are looking for and they usually have it. You can also find Syriac and Hebrew grammars there. You can even go to the University of Texas and just learn right on your compluter. utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/ntgol-0-X.html
This is not a hard sentence to learn. The reason we keep going over and over it though is because you refuse to accept the basic meaning of the sentence, in fact you refuse to accept what the sentence MUST mean. I am no complete expert either but you do not have to be an expert to read and understand this sentence, far from it.
You can also learn Syriac at this web site.
beith-morounoye.org/prayers/
Just go to the PDF area and start learning. You can also download a version of the New Testament, most importantly for this dicussion Matthew, in Syraic there. You can email the webmaster with your language questions and he will usually get back to you with the correct answer or show you where to find the correct answer. I myself am indebted to him for helping me get the sense of several prepositions.
I can’t just trust that you know what you are talking about, and considering that you lied to me, I don’t trust that you know what you are talking about. You were the one who came on here and started telling everyone that Jesus said Shu’wa. He said no such thing. If you accept the fact that Lord Jesus said Kepa twice then we can move on to the other facts but you have to stop putting words into the Universal Soviergn’s mouth first and proceed honestly twards the truth.
The Dictionary is the source. The GRAMMAR book is the source. The Langauge is the source. You have yet to show me one document, even just one document from within the time frame of 300 years before Lord Jesus’ birth to 300 years after his Glorious Ascention into the heavens that ever use Petros and Petra as two different words and not Synonymous with each other. Find me one, just ONE document from the time tha the Old Testament was translated into Greek to the time of the Byzantine Empire that ever used Petros and Petra as different words. Even if they were different words before (and as I do not speak Attic Greek I don’t really know that they were for sure and you have not provided a source for this claim) they certainly were by the time of Jesus. This is the same and in English we say “go” and “went” two different words that have fused together in meaning. I can not show you what does not exist. I can’t prove a negative to you without showing you every single document in Koine Greek that exist. You show me where they are used differently. I have already shown you where they are uses synonymously.
I sure hope he isn’t random anti-Catholic bigot protestant pastor number 5973.
Please look up the word EXEGESIS. Then apply that definition to your claimed readiing of the entire New Testament. If that doesn’t convince you, apply it to the New Testament and the Old Testament together and the only outcome is that Rome is right or the Bible is wrong. I will be happy to dicuss with you verse by verse if that is what it takes but first you have to accept the truth of Matthew 16:18 or you have no truth or honesty in you.
Translation: “I got busted so I will now stay away from the tread so that I don’t have to become Catholic and I can persist in sin.”
C
Claudius
Guest
No one is asking you to blindly accept anything. The sentence exist. Greek grammars exist. Translations of the sentence into just about every langauge on the planet exist. Many, many multiple translation exist in English with extensive commantary.
Just a simple look at the translations that exist and we see some amazing trends. The second degree demonstrative is almost always changed into a first degree demonstrative, even in langauges like Japanese, Latin, Slavonic, and Armenian which also have three degrees in their demonstratives and not two. Languages that have two degrees like English always translate this verse with a first degree. Why is that? There is even one translation into Latin that used the word Eundem instead of Hunc in order to create the “THE SAME” idiom from Greek. However, this is a pretty bad translation to read as it uses the word “IS” as an aproximation for the Greek article and so the text reads something like “He Man saw Her Woman in It Garder while she Woman other was cleaning His Paul’s It Car.”
My goal is to defend the Truth at all cost. My goal is to defend the Catholic Church are all cost. These are not mutually exclusive. The Catholic Church is the Body of Lord Jesus. Lord Jesus is the Way the TRUTH and the life. The Catholic Church is the Pillar and Foundation of the TRUTH. For me, these two concepts are really the same consept. The Catholic Church is synonymous with THE TRUTH.
What you need to do is stop trying to get people here to concieve of the possiblity that that the Catholic Church is wrong and you yourself need to begin to concieve of the possibility that the Catholic Church just might be right. You are not willing to enter into conversation in good faith.
Simple, don’t take my word for it, get a Greek dictionary, send an Email to the Greek Orthodox Church, ask a college proffessor. I am almost to the point of saying that this should all be common knowledge with how much people bring it up. Do a search on this forum and see just how many times this has come up.
,
Good, then Catholic Answers is the right place. We have a lot of truth here.
I should hope your goal would be to get the truth or if you have to truth, then to convince people of the truth. If you are not believing as you should, I sure do want to convince you of another position, the true position.
So, you only came here to try to lead Christians atrasy. Thank you for finally admitting it.
But now that they have been countered, what are you going to do? You already told us that you will not accept them as true even though they are. Now you are going to find your Guru (holy man) to give you more amunition and then come back with what you think will lead Christians astray. You are not open to yourself changing, you want us to change to be like you, even though you are wrong.
The sentence we are talking about is a very, very, VERY easy sentence to understand. All you really need is a dictionary and a declention plus conjugation table. Easy sentence, amazingly easty sentence.
Almost my entire last post was focused entirely on Grammar INFORMATION and you came back with you don’t buy it.
Yes, sometime all a sinner really needs is to hear that someone thinks they are sinning and that sometimes convinces them to stop. Admonish the sinner.
I have been harsh. Sometime I don’t realize just how harsh I am. I need people to remind me of it so that I can get better. We all need to stop sinning. The whole point at the end of the day is to stop sinning.
I will be perfectly willing to dicuss Origen with you once you accept that Lord Jesus said Kepa twice and was refering to nothing at all exept Peter in Matthew 16:18.
This is the most contructive thing that you have asked for and I hope you get it.
K
kaycee
Guest
So, I guess the original is not inspired, just the imagined aramaic scenario??
po18guy
Well-known member
Which church consistently makes international headlines and is clearly under attack from within and without? Other Christian sects are under attack only as much as they represent the truth. But, over time, the one church has become over 30,000. Evidence if the evil one’s efficaciousness.
Do we continue the evil one’s work of de-constructing the Church, or humbly submit out of obedience to unity against him?
Christ’s peace.
P
PC_Master
Guest
I’ll reiterate – you need more love and compassion in what you say. You need to be more concerned with the people you’re speaking to, and not so much about proving your beliefs to be right.
I don’t accept your arguments offhand, not because there is no material which proves it, but because I didn’t currently have that material. I’m working on it, but I am not an expert in languages.
Also remember, there’s a difference between admonishing someone, and simply insisting that they are sinning, over and over again. Part of admonishment is love, which your posts appear to be lacking – I can’t speak to your intentions, but only as to how I perceive them. You’ve mocked me, attacked me repeatedly, and just generally shown disrespect for me – all this because I disagree with your views?
The whole of your arguments are based on the concept that the RCC is Christ’s Church, and while this is fine to believe, you reject even the slightest notion that this is incorrect, while at the same time acting as though it’s not even an issue worth considering. You treat it as established fact, recognized by all. You base your entire premise of what truth is around this assumption. If this happens to be wrong, then all your other assumptions may be wrong as well. It’s this central point that I’m suggesting you could be wrong about. After all, you’re human, are you not? This seeming blindness to any possibility that you could be wrong in your most central belief means that the entirety of your argument must be evaluated in this way.
All of your arguments are based around the premise that the RCC is the one true church, and your goal is to defend this “truth” at all costs. Since I don’t accept the premise, and in fact would base that premise off of the things I’m examining, your logic doesn’t work.
The Aramaic/Syriac source material is greatly appreciated, and hopefully I’ll have time to get to it very soon. I do have a lot of reading on my plate at the moment, but like I said…hopefully.
As for the issue of trust – I haven’t lied to you (that is, intentionally spoken something I know to be untrue). However, if you’re as learned as you imply, you have lied to me. You claimed, if I recall correctly, among other things, that kepha means “unmovable rock”, which is false based on the most rudimentary examination of the text – direct examples of a kepha being moved mean that kepha is not an “unmovable” rock. Truthfully, this single claim, so obviously false, yet so confidently asserted, is what caused me to approach your other claims with skepticism in the first place. Had I accepted that one claim as truth, based on your seeming knowledge of the facts, I would now be believing a lie. How am I to know that there are not similar errors in the rest of your arguments? This is why it’s important to study for yourself.
As for the rest – I really don’t know what you think you’re gaining by all the ad-hominem. You won’t likely gain my trust, which would seem to be key if your goal is to discuss and share the truth with me. If your goal is simply to win an argument – I suppose you could claim you did that, though you didn’t convince anyone else of your position who didn’t already believe it, so I’m not sure that it matters. The assaulting of character just seems to be in poor taste to me, and is a sign of your lack of love. You’ll be in my prayers.
By the way, the comment on Origen was only there for those who wished to consider the topic further – I have no intention of discussing it with you. The passage speaks for itself in my opinion, with what is basically undeniable logic. Origen was a very smart fellow.
I don’t accept your arguments offhand, not because there is no material which proves it, but because I didn’t currently have that material. I’m working on it, but I am not an expert in languages.
Also remember, there’s a difference between admonishing someone, and simply insisting that they are sinning, over and over again. Part of admonishment is love, which your posts appear to be lacking – I can’t speak to your intentions, but only as to how I perceive them. You’ve mocked me, attacked me repeatedly, and just generally shown disrespect for me – all this because I disagree with your views?
The whole of your arguments are based on the concept that the RCC is Christ’s Church, and while this is fine to believe, you reject even the slightest notion that this is incorrect, while at the same time acting as though it’s not even an issue worth considering. You treat it as established fact, recognized by all. You base your entire premise of what truth is around this assumption. If this happens to be wrong, then all your other assumptions may be wrong as well. It’s this central point that I’m suggesting you could be wrong about. After all, you’re human, are you not? This seeming blindness to any possibility that you could be wrong in your most central belief means that the entirety of your argument must be evaluated in this way.
All of your arguments are based around the premise that the RCC is the one true church, and your goal is to defend this “truth” at all costs. Since I don’t accept the premise, and in fact would base that premise off of the things I’m examining, your logic doesn’t work.
The Aramaic/Syriac source material is greatly appreciated, and hopefully I’ll have time to get to it very soon. I do have a lot of reading on my plate at the moment, but like I said…hopefully.
As for the issue of trust – I haven’t lied to you (that is, intentionally spoken something I know to be untrue). However, if you’re as learned as you imply, you have lied to me. You claimed, if I recall correctly, among other things, that kepha means “unmovable rock”, which is false based on the most rudimentary examination of the text – direct examples of a kepha being moved mean that kepha is not an “unmovable” rock. Truthfully, this single claim, so obviously false, yet so confidently asserted, is what caused me to approach your other claims with skepticism in the first place. Had I accepted that one claim as truth, based on your seeming knowledge of the facts, I would now be believing a lie. How am I to know that there are not similar errors in the rest of your arguments? This is why it’s important to study for yourself.
As for the rest – I really don’t know what you think you’re gaining by all the ad-hominem. You won’t likely gain my trust, which would seem to be key if your goal is to discuss and share the truth with me. If your goal is simply to win an argument – I suppose you could claim you did that, though you didn’t convince anyone else of your position who didn’t already believe it, so I’m not sure that it matters. The assaulting of character just seems to be in poor taste to me, and is a sign of your lack of love. You’ll be in my prayers.
By the way, the comment on Origen was only there for those who wished to consider the topic further – I have no intention of discussing it with you. The passage speaks for itself in my opinion, with what is basically undeniable logic. Origen was a very smart fellow.
P
PC_Master
Guest
A couple of new posts since I started my last reply…
Of course, I still think the words of Christ might apply here – wide is the way that leads to destruction.
Well, the Roman Catholic position, or at least Claudius’ position seems to be that the average reader would have understood the meaning of petros and petra to be the same. I’m not sure we’ll ever have more than assertions this was the case. I can find almost no usage of petros (aside from being a proper name) in Koine Greek (admittedly I have no library to search – just did the best I could online). Clearly it was not a standard word to be used at the time, and so I’m unsure if people would have tended to apply the meaning of petra or the meaning of Attic Greek’s petros.So, I guess the original is not inspired, just the imagined aramaic scenario??
Much of that comes simply with being large in size, not with necessarily being “the true church”.
Of course, I still think the words of Christ might apply here – wide is the way that leads to destruction.
po18guy
Well-known member
Too late! I was going to suggest that, before you automatically reacted, that you actually look into Rony’s faith, history, language and beliefs. His church’s celebration makes ours (yours and mine) look almost childish by comparison. Please, do yourself a favor and at least look. Then, of course, you may return with your objections.So, I guess the original is not inspired, just the imagined aramaic scenario??
Christ’s peace.
M
mercygate
Guest
I think we’re gettng dizzy. I believe there is NO evidence of the word “petros” being used as a name.
No time to check my sources, but Claudius will probably jump in here.
As for feminiine/masculine “petra”/“petros” – I agree that this is NOT an argument in favor of Peter because in many ancient languages, a masculine name may very well have a feminine FORM with respect to the gender of the person who bears the name.
R
ronyodish
Guest
PC Master,
I’ll give you a small exercise:
Go to this website put together by an Assyrian scholar named Paul Younan: peshitta.org
On the left, click on Tools, and click on Lexicon. In the search field, type in these two words:
First, type in: rock
It will give you variations of kepa. Look through them until you get to word number: 9775. Look at the Concordance on the right and you will see that Mt. 16:18 is listed twice to show that this is where kepa shows up twice.
You will also see at the bottom of the page some variations of sho’a, but this term is not used in Mt. 16:18.
When checking the Bible, here are a couple of English versions of the Pshyta (Peshitta):
Younan, and Lamsa.
Second, type in: stone
It will give you variations of kepa, and word numbers 9774 and 9775 lists Mt. 16:18 twice.
It will also give you variations of abna (aka awna, avna), but this term is not used in Mt. 16:18.
It will also give you variations of ragem, but this term is used in the sense of “to stone” as in “stoning somebody to death”, and not relevant to the discussion. It is not used in Mt. 16:18.
Again, you can look up the Bible passages that correspond to the terms.
So, the relevant words are: kepa, sho’a, and abna. Only kepa shows up in the Scripture passage of Mt. 16:18 twice.
Now, as far as Holy Tradition, we received the Gospel message in our Aramaic language as we read in Acts 2:9 where Mesopotamia (we call it Beth-Nahrain) is mentioned, and that’s our land. Later, Mar Toma Shleeha (St. Thomas the Apostle), his disciple Mar Addai (St. Thaddeus, one of the 70 or 72), and Mar Aggai and Mar Mari (disciples of Mar Addai) came and missionarized us Mesopotamians, the Persians, and further East (India, and even unto China!).
We received the message that Simon was named by our Lord as Kepa, the Rock, and we’ve always referred to him as Mar Shim’on Kepa. We received the teaching that he is Resha daShleehe (Head of the Apostles).
We have an old Aramaic hymn called: “Immar ly ‘Edta” which means: “Tell me, o Church”, and it’s a hymn that asks the question of where the Church is built. The text can be read here in English: kaldaya.net/2007/11_DailyNews_Nov2007/Nov6_07_E1_BishopJammo.html
At the end, Bishop sarhad says: “she must be established upon the Rock which is the Faith of Simon Bar Yawna, sustained with the divine promises”. This is consistent with the Catechism of the Catholic Church which says:
424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.
As Catholics, we do not separate Simon from his confession of faith, nor do we separate him from the rest of the Apostles. We take a “both/and” approach, rather than an “either/or” approach. The Church teaches that Christ is the Founder, Living and Corner Stone of His Body the Church, and so Christ’s Church (not Simon’s), is built on:Simon as the unshakable rock of the Church;
Simon’s rock-solid confession of faith in the Son of God;
The foundation of the Apostles.
All of us, who are members of the Body of Christ, the Church, are living stones built into it.
God bless,
Rony
M
MIZER
Guest
Rony,
This is a beautiful and suncinct rendering of Catholic teaching. Thank you. I will use this often if you don’t mind and I’m sure you don’t. This rings so true, how can PC Master and Atemi continue to deny?
R
ronyodish
Guest
Sure, you can use it whenever you like
God bless,
Rony
K
kaycee
Guest
I think the testimony from the ECF’s be should be considered better the average reader? I believe the consensus of the ECF’s indicates that the meaning of Matt 16:18 is at best vague with more of them seeing Christ as the Rock or Peter’s confession as the Rock.
A very odd reality considering this is the so called charter of the papacy, a required belief for salvation!
How could such a purported foundational doctrine escape the notice of the entire church for hundreds of years?
K
kaycee
Guest
Hi PC.
Here is a good hi brow discussion of Matt 16:18
“I am happy to report all of the above theories are wrong, all of them failed to analyze the data correctly. Jesus’ real pun was with the Semitic Petros meaning “firstborn,” and the Greek word for stone, petros.”
ntrmindiscussionboard.yuku.com/topic/472/t/Will-the-real-Mt-16-18-pun-please-stand-up.html
po18guy
Well-known member
PC, you have nailed it!
In so doing, you have also pointed to the failure of sola scriptura. This forum is in SS format. There are the bare words, typed onto the page. Stark, emotionless images, devoid of all human quality. There is no cadence to them, no accent, no emphasis, no tonal inflection - in short, they lack everything that a face to face, or even phone conversation would contain. Without me to give authoritative interpretation of my words, and you to yours, misunderstandings are commonplace. You can easily misunderstand my intent, my honesty, or my charity. What if you read those same words without even a reply of any type possible? It could derail an entire movement. See the applicability to the bible here? Live interaction is what Christ used. It is our perfect model. I pray that this is taken correctly.Christ’s peace.
R
ronyodish
Guest
kaycee,
We have an Aramaic word for first-born: bukhra ܒܘܟܪܐ
It shows up in the Pshyta for instance in:
Mt. 1:25 ܘܠܐ ܚܟܡܗ ܥܕܡܐ ܕܝܠܕܬܗ ܠܒܪܗ ܒܘܟܪܐ ܘܩܪܬ ܫܡܗ ܝܫܘܥ
It does not show up in Mt. 16:18.
God bless,
Rony
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
PC-
You do understand that there is a reason why Origen is one of the few ECF’s who has not been declared a saint by the Catholic Church, right?
- Status