C
Contarini
Guest
“Open” is in various NT parallels, and it’s a natural image to use with the word “key.” “House” is better, but again since “build” is in Matthew the use of the word “house” is fairly obvious.
Edwin
How can people believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic?
- Status
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
This is an ad hominem and irrelevant.
Such as what? Without specifics your assertion means nothing. You don’t know what arguments I might use. I try very hard not to make Biblical texts carry more weight than they can bear.
It seems odd to me that you think the only reason someone might not be convinced of the truth of Catholicism is that they are “terrified.” One ought to require overwhelming evidence before breaking with the tradition in which one has been raised. The fact that Catholics on this board assume such a radically individualistic approach to conversion shows how much they have been influenced by American Protestant culture.
Edwin
M
MIZER
Guest
contarini writes:
This:
Of course this is conjecture on my part. Of course I don’t know you, so I pray you will allow me some latitude here and not take offense at my words because it is true also that I have been:
Edwin, I truly mean no offense. I’m just curious and I don’t beat around the bush. When I have a question, I just ask. Don’t mean to dis-respect your faith, however.
OK, I see you are Episcopalian. So how about the arguments you might use as evidence that Christ established more than one church? What do you base your evidence on if not the Biblical text? The vast majority of Historical evidence also points to Catholicism being the one faith Christ established. The issues of the keys to the kingdom of heaven which Christ clearly hands over to Peter carries more weight then you are willing to give it. Why is that? It must be because if you allow them the gravity they deserve (keys are so obviously a symobol of authority) you will have to become Catholic in order to exercise your faith in the fullness Christ intended.
This:
I have a great deal of respect for. It appears however that your bar for “overwhelming” is so high that it can’t possibly be achieved.
Of course this is conjecture on my part. Of course I don’t know you, so I pray you will allow me some latitude here and not take offense at my words because it is true also that I have been:
Here is a question I have for Episcopalians who did not come into the RCC immeadiately upon witnessing the red flags of female ordination and the acceptance of the Gay lifestyle and/or ideology as a part of the clergy. How can you miss this hugh red flag that something is amiss in American Episocopaianism? Even the Anglican church had a problem. Why didn’t we see an exodus of truth seekers when all that came to the fore?
Edwin, I truly mean no offense. I’m just curious and I don’t beat around the bush. When I have a question, I just ask. Don’t mean to dis-respect your faith, however.
C
Contarini
Guest
Since I don’t believe this, I would have no such arguments.
It is in continuity with that one faith. As are the Orthodox. As to a somewhat lesser extent are we, and indeed all Trinitarian Christians.
Or it could be that I am not as convinced by this evidence as you are. When you start with the assumption “the arguments that convince me must also convince others, so that if they act unconvinced they must have ulterior motives,” you make reasonable discussion impossible.
No, it can. But it is very difficult. It’s also very subjective. I don’t criticize others who think that the bar has been reached.
Well, first of all I don’t dispute that something is amiss. But then, I think something is amiss in all Christian communions without exception. We have one set of problems, you have another set. I’m not claiming that the two sets are equal. I’m simply saying that the recognition of problems is not a reason to leave.
In the second place, I do not disagree with female ordination. That is in fact one of the reasons I do not become Catholic. The arguments put forward by Catholics to defend the continuation of the male-only priesthood (in the absence of the cultural assumptions that once made it obvious) are hopelessly flimsy and cannot stand up to rational examination. I may of course be wrong on this. Or there may be better arguments that no one has thought of yet. Or a combination of the two (i.e., the arguments may be flawed as they stand, but have more weight than I’m currently willing to give them). But the ordination of women is not a point against Anglicanism–although I think that we should not have gone ahead with it on our own.
And finally, I think that the ecclesiological questions raised by our current crisis are indeed insoluble by the resources that we possess as separated Christians. We need the Catholic Church. And while I do not agree that the Catholic Church can simply be defined as those Christians in communion with Rome, Rome certainly plays an indispensable role. The question is not whether we need you. The question is how we should go about expressing and seeking to satisfy that need.
Edwin
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
I wouldn’t say Catholics on this board are assuming this at all. We have been told by Protestants who converted that they have been shunned by their families, that they have an “anything but Catholic” attitude. Scott Hahn talks about how horrified he was when he started finding out the Catholic Church was right. Kimberly prayed that he would stop this nonsense. I myself have seen this in many converts through my participation in our parish RCIA program. Fundamentalists especially disown family members. I haven’t found too many problems with mainstream denominations outside of Baptists.
You yourself admitted one that for you it’s not so much the intellectual but the cultural leap you would have to make.
A
antgaria
Guest
Dear Isa Almisry,
The Syriac traditions have very clear tradition of the blessedness of Rome in that it was the city of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul. The canons are pretty clear also in the primacy of Rome.
Peace,
Anthony
R
ronyodish
Guest
Hi folks,
Sorry for the delay. Here is a response I promised a week ago. It is not as elaborate as I hoped I would make it, but I wanted to go ahead and post it anyways. Please note that I will not be responding to any responses to this post due to my summer academic commitment which I mentioned earlier and which will begin this Monday. Also, I was only able to get through kacee’s first link, and did not devote any time to kacee’s second link and the other questions that were asked of me, which I had promised I would get to, so I apologize for not covering those. The “puzzle” that I mentioned earlier was the main thing that I wanted to look at, and so this is what I focused on.
Here are my selective comments on kacee’s first link, plus my comments on what I found puzzling. I have tried to comment mostly on ones that relate specifically to the Aramaic, and not so much on the ones that relate to the Greek:
For those who are interested, you can try to get a copy of The Old Syriac Gospels: (Volume 1 Matthew and Mark) by E. Jan Wilson, and check the Aramaic there.
Look through the books, chapters, and verses, and read from right to left (it’s ok if you can’t read or understand anything), just look for Kepa (ܟܐܦܐ) in the verses.
Sorry for the delay. Here is a response I promised a week ago. It is not as elaborate as I hoped I would make it, but I wanted to go ahead and post it anyways. Please note that I will not be responding to any responses to this post due to my summer academic commitment which I mentioned earlier and which will begin this Monday. Also, I was only able to get through kacee’s first link, and did not devote any time to kacee’s second link and the other questions that were asked of me, which I had promised I would get to, so I apologize for not covering those. The “puzzle” that I mentioned earlier was the main thing that I wanted to look at, and so this is what I focused on.
Here are my selective comments on kacee’s first link, plus my comments on what I found puzzling. I have tried to comment mostly on ones that relate specifically to the Aramaic, and not so much on the ones that relate to the Greek:
With regards to Matt. 16:18, the Old Syriac Gospel text known as the Codex Nitriensis Curetonianus has the same wording, word for word, in what appears in the Peshitta. So, both the first kepa and the second kepa are found in the verse.
For those who are interested, you can try to get a copy of The Old Syriac Gospels: (Volume 1 Matthew and Mark) by E. Jan Wilson, and check the Aramaic there.
I looked at all these verses in the Peshitta in Aramaic, and they are referring to Simon as mostly Kepa. A couple of differences:
- John 20:6 only has Simon (no Kepa here) in the Peshitta.
- Acts 1:13 refers to Simon as Patros, but this is a transliteration from the Greek Petros which I mentioned in a previous post. It is not originally an Aramaic word/name. The Greek Petros can be transliterated into Aramaic as (ܦܛܪܘܤ), and then into English as Patros, Putros, Petros, Patrus, Putrus, etc. This transliterated name from the Greek is common in Aramaic and Arabic households. In Arabic, Butrus is common.
- 2 Peter 1:1 again has the transliteration of the Greek Petros as Patros.
Look through the books, chapters, and verses, and read from right to left (it’s ok if you can’t read or understand anything), just look for Kepa (ܟܐܦܐ) in the verses.
All these verses have Kepa in them in the Aramaic Peshitta, so, there is no difference between these verses here and most of the ones above.
R
ronyodish
Guest
Continued…
I looked at the last source by Jastrow, which is available online here: tabs-online.com/TABS/Jastrow , and on page 1162, there is an entry on Petra and Petros.
My understanding is that the Petros shown in the Hebrew script in that link on page 1162 is a Hebrew transliteration of the Greek Petros shown next to it (just like the Greek word Petra above it). Further, the entry says nothing about Petros meaning “firstborn”; granted, I haven’t looked at the other two sources, especially the important one that references Dalman, since I have no immediate access to them. But from this source entry alone, I do not see the “Semitic Petros” meaning “firstborn”.
However, and this is what was puzzling to me, it turns out that there is a Hebrew term “peter” or “pitrah” that does mean “firstling” or “fissure” which is what the author of kacee’s link, and what Dalman, is referring to by “firstborn”. Here is an online link to Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon (If you have the print version, it’s on page 114 in the Hebrew section):
eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=6363
Now, here is Strong’s Greek Petros:
eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=petros
I have a copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and I have searched for 4QM130, but I haven’t found it. Perhaps, the author of this paragraph has made an error in the transcription of the name of the scroll, and is under a different designation. The article in the link requires subscription to Premium Content Membership in order to access it, and unfortunately I can’t pay for this service right now. If someone here has access to the actual paragraph where this Petros shows up, or knows the name of the scroll besides what is given here as 4QM130, you can post it here, and discuss the implications of it amongst yourselves.
Ok, here is the linguistic puzzle I was referring to, specifically this line: “Semitic Petros means ‘firstborn’”, and how this relates to what is found in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Before I get into it, I want to mention something about this source:
I looked at the last source by Jastrow, which is available online here: tabs-online.com/TABS/Jastrow , and on page 1162, there is an entry on Petra and Petros.
My understanding is that the Petros shown in the Hebrew script in that link on page 1162 is a Hebrew transliteration of the Greek Petros shown next to it (just like the Greek word Petra above it). Further, the entry says nothing about Petros meaning “firstborn”; granted, I haven’t looked at the other two sources, especially the important one that references Dalman, since I have no immediate access to them. But from this source entry alone, I do not see the “Semitic Petros” meaning “firstborn”.
However, and this is what was puzzling to me, it turns out that there is a Hebrew term “peter” or “pitrah” that does mean “firstling” or “fissure” which is what the author of kacee’s link, and what Dalman, is referring to by “firstborn”. Here is an online link to Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon (If you have the print version, it’s on page 114 in the Hebrew section):
eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=6363
Now, here is Strong’s Greek Petros:
eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=petros
R
ronyodish
Guest
Continued…
Now going back to the Hebrew term “peter” or “pitrah”, here is what I concluded, that is, my attempted “solution”:
Now going back to the Hebrew term “peter” or “pitrah”, here is what I concluded, that is, my attempted “solution”:
- First, Strong’s does not call it “Petros” as the link and Dalman says. There is no “s” in the Hebrew term. The author of the link sees Petros in Greek and makes an assumption that this Greek Petros is a transliteration of the Hebrew peter/pitrah. He does not establish the fact, he merely assumes it based on the perception that Petros is similar to peter/pitrah. The assumption is that Jesus said “peter (or pitrah)”, which ended up in Greek Matthew as “Petros”. Just because two words from two different languages seem to be similar, does not automatically mean that they are correlated.
- Second, since this Hebrew peter/pitrah means “firstling”, then Jesus is hypothesized to have said “peter/pitrah, and on this kepa”, which in Greek Matthew ends up as “Petros, and on this Petra”. So, the hypothesis is that Jesus said “firstborn/firstling, and on this rock”, and into Greek as “firstborn/firstling, and on this rock”. The problems I have with this are several:
- Strong’s does not translate the Greek Petros as firstborn/firstling.
- Greek Matthew does not use the Greek term for firstborn/firstling.
- Greek Matthew is hypothesized to have used a transliteration and then a translation in the same sentence for no real good reason other than to preserve some apparent pun.
- It is easier grammatically and logically to have “Rock, and on this rock” in a sentence than to have a sentence with two words “Firstborn, and on this rock” that have no shared meaning between each other.
- Third, peter/pitrah is a Hebrew term. Jesus spoke Aramaic. I looked in the Aramaic Peshitta Old Testament to find one instance of peter/pitrah based on the terms firstborn and firstling, and I could not find one. Every time I come across firstborn/firstling, I get the Aramaic term “bukhra”. My conclusion on this is that peter/pitrah is an originally Hebrew term, but I can not say (unless I find strong evidence) that it is an Aramaic term of Jesus’ times. If Jesus wanted to say to Simon: You are “firstborn, and on this rock”, then He would have said “bukhra, and on this kepa”, and from that we would know Simon as Simon Bukhra instead of Simon Kepa; or in Greek, the translation or even transliteration (according to the hypothesis) would not be Petros, but something based on bukhra.
In the Peshitta, Matt. 4:18 has Kepa. In the Old Syriac Codex Nitriensis Curetonianus, Matt. 4:18 has Kepa.
R
ronyodish
Guest
Continued…
eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=protos
Now, when I look at Matt. 10:2 in the Peshitta, I don’t find the Hebrew term peter, rather, I find the Aramaic term “Qadhmayhon” (ܩܕܡܝܗܘܢ) which means “the first of them”.
The author of the link has not established the pun he speaks of. He has not established the connection between the Greek Petros meaning Rock/Stone with the Hebrew peter/pitrah. It is just an assumption based on a similarity between these two words.
And Catholics will agree that the Rock is Christ in the above passages. Context is important. In Matt. 16:18, Jesus the Rock says to Simon: “You are Kepa”, that is, “You are Rock”. Christ makes Simon a sharer in His “Rockness”, and this is no strange concept to Scripture. Christ makes men sharers in His attributes, for instance, no one except God is good (see Mark 10:18), and yet men can share in that goodness by being good servants (see Matt. 25:21). Also, we have clear teaching that the Apostles are the foundation (see Rev. 21:14, and Eph. 2:20), which would not happen if they were not sharers in the Founder, Jesus Christ.
Yes, it can be used negatively, but also positively. The context of Matt. 16:18 shows a positive use of it, as shown by the preceding pronouncement of blessing on Simon “Blessed are you…”. Again context is important. Also, as I mentioned, our Aramaic Church has always referred to Simon as Kepa, which we would not have done if it was an insult.
Here the author gives us the Strong’s 6363 (as mentioned earlier), and the Greek word protos (written above as prwtos). Here is the Strong’s entry for protos:
eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=protos
Now, when I look at Matt. 10:2 in the Peshitta, I don’t find the Hebrew term peter, rather, I find the Aramaic term “Qadhmayhon” (ܩܕܡܝܗܘܢ) which means “the first of them”.
The author of the link has not established the pun he speaks of. He has not established the connection between the Greek Petros meaning Rock/Stone with the Hebrew peter/pitrah. It is just an assumption based on a similarity between these two words.
R
ronyodish
Guest
Continued…
But one does not need to go through all these hoops in order to establish the plain meaning of the sentence: “You are Rock, and on this rock”.
Also, in the Peshitta of John 1:42, there is no explanation given in the text itself of what Kepa means. In other words, the word Kepa appears once with no explanation. This makes sense in that when Jesus spoke to Simon, and called him Kepa, there was no reason to explain to him what Kepa meant, because as an Aramaic speaking individual, Simon already understood what Kepa meant:
You can see Kepa appearing only once in the Peshitta of John 1:42:
The author is stretching it, adding meanings into a hypothesis he has not first established/proven. Besides, this hypothesis (Simon as the firstborn having confessed before men the Christ as Son of God) fails to take into account those who came before him as having first made this confession:
- Demons confess Christ as Son of God in Matt. 8:29.
- Those in the boat confess Christ as Son of God in Matt. 14:33.
- If we cross over to John’s Gospel, we see in John 1:34, 36, that John the Baptist confesses Jesus as Son of God, and Lamb of God.
- Andrew in John 1:41 confesses that Jesus was the Messiah.
But one does not need to go through all these hoops in order to establish the plain meaning of the sentence: “You are Rock, and on this rock”.
Catholics are not disputing that Jesus is the Rock of the Church, the Founder of all foundations. We are talking about the context of Matt. 16:18, in that, Jesus didn’t say: “I am Rock, and on this rock”. He said “You are Rock, and on this rock”. Jesus here is making Simon who is the head of the Apostles, a sharer in the foundation of Christ’s Church, just as we read in the context of Eph. 2:20 where the Apostles as a whole, both the head and the body of the Apostles, are made sharers in the foundation of His Church.
The Aramaic Peshitta has Kepa in Mark 3:16.
Both Matt. 16:18 and John 1:42 has Kepa in the Aramaic Peshitta, there is no difference.
Also, in the Peshitta of John 1:42, there is no explanation given in the text itself of what Kepa means. In other words, the word Kepa appears once with no explanation. This makes sense in that when Jesus spoke to Simon, and called him Kepa, there was no reason to explain to him what Kepa meant, because as an Aramaic speaking individual, Simon already understood what Kepa meant:
You can see Kepa appearing only once in the Peshitta of John 1:42:
ܘܐܝܬܝܗ ܠܘܬ ܝܫܘܥ ܘܚܪ ܒܗ ܝܫܘܥ ܘܐܡܪ ܐܢܬ ܗܘ ܫܡܥܘܢ ܒܪܗ ܕܝܘܢܐ ܐܢܬ ܬܬܩܪܐ ܟܐܦܐ
R
ronyodish
Guest
Continued…
The context of Matt. 16:18 gives us a large rock, one on which the Church can be built. Also, the second rock is connected with the first rock by the words “and on this” to show that the two were being equated, rather than contrasted.
I will also say that tradition trumps innovation, and therefore Kepa remains the name by which Simon is called forever.
God bless,
Rony
As I mentioned in an earlier posting, the term kepa means rock or stone, and without a context, it does not tell us its size. So, a kepa can be a small, medium-sized, or large rock depending on context.
The context of Matt. 16:18 gives us a large rock, one on which the Church can be built. Also, the second rock is connected with the first rock by the words “and on this” to show that the two were being equated, rather than contrasted.
Catholics do not have a problem in saying that all of us who are baptized into Christ are stones built into the Church, as the Catechism says: “The baptized have become ‘living stones’ to be ‘built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood.’” (CCC 1268).
And we Assyro-Chaldeans and Antiochenes who are the descendents of those Aramaic speaking people first evangelized by the first hand apostolic witnesses of the Aramaic speech of Christ have always called Simon as Kepa/Kepha. The Hebrew peter/pitrah has not been proven to have anything to do with what Simon was called in the Aramaic of Matt. 16:18, but it was a nice exercise.
I will also say that tradition trumps innovation, and therefore Kepa remains the name by which Simon is called forever.
God bless,
Rony
R
ronyodish
Guest
By the way, for post #247, the second of three reasons that I gave deals with some Greek of the verse, and since I’m not that good with Greek, I may not have accurately reflected the author’s argument, so if you find that my comments on the Greek on this post (and in the other posts) do not accurately address the author’s argument, then you can scratch them off. I hope that you find everything else useful 
Sorry, I won’t be able to respond anymore, at least for a while.
Peace and God’s blessings on everyone!
Rony
Sorry, I won’t be able to respond anymore, at least for a while.
Peace and God’s blessings on everyone!
Rony
P
PC_Master
Guest
rony> I appreciate the research. I’m not sure I agree with all of the conclusions that you’ve drawn, but it’s certainly interesting.
The thing that still doesn’t make sense is why Kepa would ever be translated, rather than transliterated, were it a name. We clearly see it transliterated as “Cephas”, just as Jesus, John, Simon and many other names throughout scripture. So, I have no doubt Simon was called Kepa in Aramaic. My question is, would the instances of Petros be considered valid at all? It just doesn’t sit well with me, to break from established literary tradition.
Anyone got an explanation for this?
The thing that still doesn’t make sense is why Kepa would ever be translated, rather than transliterated, were it a name. We clearly see it transliterated as “Cephas”, just as Jesus, John, Simon and many other names throughout scripture. So, I have no doubt Simon was called Kepa in Aramaic. My question is, would the instances of Petros be considered valid at all? It just doesn’t sit well with me, to break from established literary tradition.
Anyone got an explanation for this?
This is strictly ad hominem.
As Edwin said – it’s not terrifying. You make the faulty assumption that one should become Roman Catholic unless they have good reason not to. This doesn’t make sense. Becoming Roman Catholic is only “terrifying” in the sense that by my current understanding of the truth, joining the RCC would not be embracing the fullness of truth as God put it forth. Being away from the truth is, to some degree, a terrifying prospect. If I were convinced the RCC were holding the fullness of truth as it claims, there would be nothing terrifying about joining, despite that family and friends might not understand.
For most, while I’m sure this is unsettling, I’m fairly sure it’s not “terrifying”, per se. Rather, the part that scares me is the prospect of being drawn into heresy through a religion that claims something to be the truth which isn’t.
No doubt there are many who do, but having been raised as a Protestant, I certainly don’t think it’s fair to issue such a blanket statement as this.
A
Always_For_Him
Guest
Thank you Rony for that magnificent scholarship in Aramaic translation and for so thoroughly proving what kepa/kepha/Petra/Petros/Peter/Pitrih mean, and how they are translated between Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.
Please forgive me, but I have to ask, why has it had to be so difficult to prove Peter is the Rock AND on this Rock means anything different from what it has always believed to have meant really until the reformers and after that? I don’t Non-C’s teach this detailed kind of thinking in Sunday School. So how is it that we are having to prove every tiny detail of what we have believed, taught and practiced since the time of Jesus and Peter is right? They changed it, not us! All every single non-C has to do is look back at history to see how it was interpreted, understood without contridiction, believed, taught for generations until somewhere in the last 500 years, it changed. Look at why it was changed. Why did the reformers change anything? Is there any truth in their justifications? What did they know that the previous 1500 years of Christians didn’t know? I think it just really stems from the fact that each non-C is entrenched in their church’s own deep tradition and beliefs. Yes, even they should admit tradition. That is what naturally happens in teaching faith. The Catholics have 2,000 years of rich Tradition, teachings and unaltered doctrine to draw on. There is a depth, Truth and accounatility to Catholicism that no other Church can compare to. If you honestly and openly look at our teachings you will see where everything we teach come from. It is just that Non-C’s have been taught so differently, and have been taught that the Catholics are wrong, have always been wrong, that we are demons, non-Christians, etc… So, naturally, they think that they are the correct interpreters of the Bible that we gave them (that they changed) and that any Catholic belief is wrong. They can’t believe in Sacred Tradition which really is what carried Christianity for so long because people couldn’t read or afford Bibles. They have been taught against Sacred Tradition in favor of individual interpretation. They have been taught against Apostolic Authority so they would be able to accept their own Church’s teachings as TRUTH. Non-C’s have to reject the Catholic Church, it’s Authority, all of it’s teachings, and teach blatantly false information in regards to the Catholic Church, because if they didn’t they would have to admit the truth. Protestants disagree with Catholocism because they are deeply entrenched in following the Protestant way of determining the truth. Non-C’s on their own are going to have to come to realize that their Churches are omitting/missing truth, or come to believe for Christianity’s sake that Jesus did establish a universal Church through Peter and the Apostles and transmitted his Power, His Authority, to them and their successors to keep his teaching his One Truth until the end of time. Jesus would have had to commit Authority to somebody in order to make sure that God’s teaching could continue to be taught, without error, His ONE Truth. His closest followers - the Apostles- continued his teachings guided by the Holy Spirit. History shows that the Apostles taught their followers, taught their followers and so forth. That is Apostolic Succession. The Catholic Church is the ONLY Church that can convincingly trace it’s origins back to Jesus and the Apostles. NO other Church can claim that! NO other Church orally taught teachings for hundreds of years because there was no Bible to teach from at that time. NO other Church determined the Canon and recorded God’s Word into the form of the Bible. Jesus didn’t write anything down, he would have had to commit that authority to somebody in order to make sure that God’s teaching could continue to exist in the world. The people he would have given it to would have been his closest followers, and the historical record shows that those followers taught their own followers – apostolic succession. Jesus founded ONE Church through Peter and the Apostles to continue to teach. Who do you think Jesus intended to speak thorough, you - each individual or Peter and the Apostles that he taught ONE Truth to and breathed the Holy Spirit on them and told them to go forth and teach? Doctrine was needed to keep the faithful true to the One Church, One Truth established by Jesus as taught by Peter and the Apostles through their successors and so on. There is just too much history of the Truth for there to be so many changes and interpretations in the last 500 years.
Please forgive me, but I have to ask, why has it had to be so difficult to prove Peter is the Rock AND on this Rock means anything different from what it has always believed to have meant really until the reformers and after that? I don’t Non-C’s teach this detailed kind of thinking in Sunday School. So how is it that we are having to prove every tiny detail of what we have believed, taught and practiced since the time of Jesus and Peter is right? They changed it, not us! All every single non-C has to do is look back at history to see how it was interpreted, understood without contridiction, believed, taught for generations until somewhere in the last 500 years, it changed. Look at why it was changed. Why did the reformers change anything? Is there any truth in their justifications? What did they know that the previous 1500 years of Christians didn’t know? I think it just really stems from the fact that each non-C is entrenched in their church’s own deep tradition and beliefs. Yes, even they should admit tradition. That is what naturally happens in teaching faith. The Catholics have 2,000 years of rich Tradition, teachings and unaltered doctrine to draw on. There is a depth, Truth and accounatility to Catholicism that no other Church can compare to. If you honestly and openly look at our teachings you will see where everything we teach come from. It is just that Non-C’s have been taught so differently, and have been taught that the Catholics are wrong, have always been wrong, that we are demons, non-Christians, etc… So, naturally, they think that they are the correct interpreters of the Bible that we gave them (that they changed) and that any Catholic belief is wrong. They can’t believe in Sacred Tradition which really is what carried Christianity for so long because people couldn’t read or afford Bibles. They have been taught against Sacred Tradition in favor of individual interpretation. They have been taught against Apostolic Authority so they would be able to accept their own Church’s teachings as TRUTH. Non-C’s have to reject the Catholic Church, it’s Authority, all of it’s teachings, and teach blatantly false information in regards to the Catholic Church, because if they didn’t they would have to admit the truth. Protestants disagree with Catholocism because they are deeply entrenched in following the Protestant way of determining the truth. Non-C’s on their own are going to have to come to realize that their Churches are omitting/missing truth, or come to believe for Christianity’s sake that Jesus did establish a universal Church through Peter and the Apostles and transmitted his Power, His Authority, to them and their successors to keep his teaching his One Truth until the end of time. Jesus would have had to commit Authority to somebody in order to make sure that God’s teaching could continue to be taught, without error, His ONE Truth. His closest followers - the Apostles- continued his teachings guided by the Holy Spirit. History shows that the Apostles taught their followers, taught their followers and so forth. That is Apostolic Succession. The Catholic Church is the ONLY Church that can convincingly trace it’s origins back to Jesus and the Apostles. NO other Church can claim that! NO other Church orally taught teachings for hundreds of years because there was no Bible to teach from at that time. NO other Church determined the Canon and recorded God’s Word into the form of the Bible. Jesus didn’t write anything down, he would have had to commit that authority to somebody in order to make sure that God’s teaching could continue to exist in the world. The people he would have given it to would have been his closest followers, and the historical record shows that those followers taught their own followers – apostolic succession. Jesus founded ONE Church through Peter and the Apostles to continue to teach. Who do you think Jesus intended to speak thorough, you - each individual or Peter and the Apostles that he taught ONE Truth to and breathed the Holy Spirit on them and told them to go forth and teach? Doctrine was needed to keep the faithful true to the One Church, One Truth established by Jesus as taught by Peter and the Apostles through their successors and so on. There is just too much history of the Truth for there to be so many changes and interpretations in the last 500 years.
M
mercygate
Guest
ronyodish: AWESOME (again). If there were a CAF award for most meticulous and thoughtful exploration of a topic, you would get it – hands down. :tiphat: :clapping:
M
MIZER
Guest
PC Master,
If this is ad hominem then I must ask you if you have, for yourself, as much information which proves beyond doubt that Matt 16:18 means whatever it is you think it means? Rony has given far more evidence that it means what the RCC says it means than any of us ever needed to believe the Catholic Church is the true church. It really appears to me that no matter how much information you get, Christ himself could stand before you and tell you, “look PC, the Catholic’s got it right,” and you would still argue. Now that’s ad hominem I know, but don’t you think at some point, faith involves more than just the intellect? Don’t you think it has anything to do at all with the heart and soul? It’s faith, not science.
M
mercygate
Guest
I chose not to say what you have said here – and it’s a good thing because you said it so much better than I would have. Yes. There comes a point where the facts must be allowed to stand; where constant “but . . . but . . . but” must remain without further reply because ALL the replies have been made and have been made clearly. There comes a point where intellectual churning becomes merely a way of avoiding a confrontation with the Person of Jesus Christ ON HIS OWN TERMS however disagreeable, disappointing, or humiliating those terms may appear to our selves.
I should know. BTDT. But I don’t have a t-shirt.
M
MIZER
Guest
Exactly! This is my point exactly! And, Always For Him will never get an answer to something like this from someone like PC Master because people with his mindset do not have an answer except to say, “oh, well, that’s ad hominem.” trying to be all high fallutin’ using latin against us and all, puffing himself up with his “superior intelligence”.
The quesion that will remain unanswered until they are ready to convert is, “Is there any truth in thier justifications?” The answer is NO! there is not. And so, until they are ready to convert to the real true church, they will not answer that question.
M
MIZER
Guest
Mercygate, I think you said this very well:
The one I can think of off the top of my head goes something like this:
.*…much study is wearisome to the flesh…making of books there is no end…let us hear the end of the matter, fear God and keep his commandments for that is the whole duty of man. *
Anyone familiar with this verse? Does it work here?
I also believe there is scripture to back up what we are saying but I’m too tired to dig it up today and I doubt it would make any difference to PC Master anyway.
The one I can think of off the top of my head goes something like this:
.*…much study is wearisome to the flesh…making of books there is no end…let us hear the end of the matter, fear God and keep his commandments for that is the whole duty of man. *
Anyone familiar with this verse? Does it work here?
- Status