If the Rock is Peter's faith

[guanophore]

Either way what we have is Greek as inspired Matthew, period. The Greek is explicit, while what they spoke or could have written can help with implications, the inspired rules. He could have written it in Chinese but what of it ?

As far as Aramaic, there is more than one word for stone, and there is also the possibility of gesturing , and voice inflection. All these ponderings may help but are not explicitly known.

Blessings

There is much more textual evidence toward an earlier Aramaic version, but you are right, it does not matter. The Church interprets what was written according to the One Faithh that was handed down. Peter’s role came into question during the Reformation as part if the effort to jettison the hierarchy/authority of the Church. So you are right, what of it? Now we have huge sects of Christendom separated from the visible sign of unity appointed by Christ.

 

[susanlo]

Susan, you’ve read the early Church writings and have seen these concepts: ?

• Salvation by Faith Alone
• The doctrine of Bible Alone
• Symbolic Baptism only
• Baptism delayed to the age of reason
• The Eucharist being bread and wine and not the actual body and blood of Christ
• 66 books in the bible

Yes, I have found many of these concepts in the early literature. Justin Martyr and Tertullian address a few of these. I am not sure what you mean by a symbolic baptism only. There have been other threads about many of these topics and I won’t address each of these on this thread. If you are interested in seeing some references for these, you can send me a message or start a new thread.

You know what Cardinal Newman said after reading the early Church writings?

Good article here from Dr. David Anders. who had a similar experience. He went out to prove the Catholic Church wrong but while doing so in seminary, found that those who follow the 16th century reformers, don’t really follow what they taught completely, and he found that the early Church was very Catholic.

My favorite topic here from Dr. Anders is that the “New Perspective on St. Paul” is actually a very Old and Catholic one. He cites NT Wright who is probably the most pre-eminent St Paul scholar today (an Anglican Bishop) … who’s writings have brought many people into the Catholic Church, to his chagrin.

(note, excellent book by Wright on St. Paul is** here** )

We all know what happened when Martin Luther and the reformers read the early literature…

 

[susanlo]

These are one and the same. Peter was given responsibility for the whole flock. There were no parts of the sheep that needed care and feeding that were excluded.

Teaching authority = magesterium

“Spirit will guide you into all Truth” = infallibility

I understand your point that you see these to be saying the same thing. My point was that J.N.D. Kelly clearly said that they were different and that his quote was taken out of context.

 

[guanophore]

We all know what happened when Martin Luther and the reformers read the early literature.......;)

Actually, Luther was a monk, and spent his whole life reading, writing, translating, studying,and praying. None of his sudy of the early writings caused rebellion in him. It was the corrupted practices of persons in positions of authority that provoked Luther. It was only after appealing to the holiness of the bishop, which was lacking, that he developed a rebellious heart.

Luther correctly recognized that people are always in need of reform. He did not clearly see that the Teachings of Christ did not need to be reformed.

 

[benhur]

There is much more textual evidence toward an earlier Aramaic version, but you are right, it does not matter. The Church interprets what was written according to the One Faithh that was handed down. Peter’s role came into question during the Reformation as part if the effort to jettison the hierarchy/authority of the Church. So you are right, what of it? Now we have huge sects of Christendom separated from the visible sign of unity appointed by Christ.

Hi g,

But there is more Matthew scripture text copies in Greek and zero in Hebrew/Aramaic.

Think about it, the early church was Jewish, and with their rich tradition of preserving Holy Writ, you mean to tell me there is zero copy texts of a book written in their language (Aramaic), the others being in Greek ?

The role of Peters chair came into question way before the reformation.

The visible sign of unity is to be Peter like in faith, and also from communion, the breaking of one loaf for the many, and by our love one for another.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Actually, Luther was a monk, and spent his whole life reading, writing, translating, studying,and praying. None of his sudy of the early writings caused rebellion in him. It was the corrupted practices of persons in positions of authority that provoked Luther. It was only after appealing to the holiness of the bishop, which was lacking, that he developed a rebellious heart.

Luther correctly recognized that people are always in need of reform. He did not clearly see that the Teachings of Christ did not need to be reformed.

Hi g,

Well of his 90 some points how many dealt with practices or corrupt application/practice , and how many dealt with actual bad doctrine ?

One can not underestimate the impact of his realization also that salvation came by faith, and that by grace, beyond institutional ritual/obedience.

Blessings

 

[Abu]

benhur #125
But there is more Matthew scripture text copies in Greek and zero in Hebrew/Aramaic.

Meaningless.

After devoting 12 pages to showing that Matthew’s Gospel was written in Hebrew, Claude Tresmontant in The Hebrew Christ, Franciscan Herald Press, 1989, p 39 concludes:
‘The fact is clear: neither the Hebrew Matthew nor the Greek Matthew was acquainted with the extension of the preaching of Jesus to the pagans. Thus the original Hebrew text of Matthew, as well as its translation into Greek have to be anterior to the year A.D. 36, the year of the “explosion,” when the word of God began to be preached to the pagans.’

After quoting from many Church Fathers that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, Tresmontant concludes:
“The Fathers of the Church knew very well how to distinguish Hebrew from Aramaic, especially those who, like Epiphanius and Jerome, knew both Hebrew and Aramaic!” (p 80).

The role of Peters chair came into question way before the reformation.

Christ’s institution of St Peter as the Rock on which he built His Church is very clear from the Gospels.

 

[Cathoholic]

Picky Picky. In post 113 you implied Catholics are inventing Matthean Hebrew authorship with no substantiation.

It suggests to me you aren’t even reading the thread.

With what has been placed here, I can’t take your objection seriously.

Please go back and read the thread.

benhur. You quoted . . .

against :

“Bottom line: Matthew wrote his gospel in Greek. That is what all of the textual evidence and internal scriptural evidence suggests (and on the other hand there is zero evidence for a Hebrew gospel apart from this one very questionable story). Irenaeus is repeating Papias’ story as others do as well later on”.

ichthys.com/mail-Matthew%20in%20Hebrew.htm

Either way what we have is Greek as inspired Matthew, period.

THIS IS nonsense.

Didn’t you bother to read my earlier discussion on this either?

Didn’t you read St. Jerome just matter of factly talking about how the Hebrew original text of St. Matthew’s Gospel was still in existance in this “present day” (about 400 A.D.) and you could go see it?

St. Jerome . . . Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. . . . .
— St. Jerome. “The Lives of Illustrious Men. Chapter 3.”

 

[Cathoholic]

Addendum to my last post.

The “Hebrew itself” not the “manuscript itself”.

I wanted to correct my own post as I did not word it well enough.

 

[guanophore]

Hi g,

But there is more Matthew scripture text copies in Greek and zero in Hebrew/Aramaic.

Think about it, the early church was Jewish, and with their rich tradition of preserving Holy Writ, you mean to tell me there is zero copy texts of a book written in their language (Aramaic), the others being in Greek ?

yes, of course, and the Church has accepted the Greek translation as authentic. The fact is that we don’t have the original manuscripts of any of the NT books.

The argument over the “rock” thing was not an issue in the Church for 1000 years, because this is the teaching that was received from the Apostles. Peter and his successors were considered “first among equals”. The problems arose when Church functions became conflated with secular politics and arrogant people began throwing their weight around at each other.

The role of Peters chair came into question way before the reformation.

I am not so much it was that, as the behavior of the person IN the chair.

And certainly there were many corrupt popes prior to the Reformation that Peter might have reacted to just as He did Ananias and Sapphira. None of this bad behavior invalidates Jesus intention in establishing a visible sign of unity for His One Church.

The visible sign of unity is to be Peter like in faith, and also from communion, the breaking of *one* loaf for the many, and by our love one for another.

Yes, these are all signs of unity, but Jesus established an authorative Church. Human beings need authority, and He made this authority visible, so that it could be found. How can one “take it to the Church” if one cannot find it?

Hi g,

Well of his 90 some points how many dealt with practices or corrupt application/practice , and how many dealt with actual bad doctrine ?

None of them, I don’t think. He was provoked that the doctrine of the faith was being obscured, in his opinion.

One can not underestimate the impact of his realization also that salvation came by faith, and that by grace, beyond institutional ritual/obedience.

Blessings

Indeed it was a great breakthrough for him to finally “get it”. His spiritual directors and superiors had been trying to get this point to him all his life, without any success. It did finally sink into him, praise God, but in the realization, he became disconnected from the foundations of the faith through which this realization caem to him.

I would not say “beyond” institutional ritual and obedience, as these are not at all contrary to salvation by grace through faith, but without the faith, the outward actions are just “dead”, which is perhaps how he felt?

 

[Picky_Picky]

Picky Picky. In post 113 you implied Catholics are inventing Matthean Hebrew authorship with no substantiation.

It suggests to me you aren’t even reading the thread.

With what has been placed here, I can’t take your objection seriously.

Please go back and read the thread.

…]

What an intemperate post!

I most certainly did not imply that Catholics are inventing a Hebrew Matthew, and I would be grateful if you could withdraw that remark. I expressed surprise that guanophore should have stated as bald fact that Matthew was written in Hebrew, without qualification, given that this, as with the origins of much of the New Testament, is subject to considerable scholarly debate, with most scholars (I had thought) concluding that Matthew was written in Greek.

It was the lack of qualification that seemed strange to me. To give an example, suppose I believed, as I think some do, that Beowulf was originally composed in a Gothic tongue. Knowing this to be not established fact but simply one opinion among others, I would qualify a statement about it, so as not to imply more than I should, thus:

“The manuscript of Beowulf we possess is written in Old English, of course, but I think it probable that in was originally composed to be recited in a Gothic language.”

You see the qualifications?

 

[Cathoholic]

I most certainly did not imply that Catholics are inventing a Hebrew Matthew, and I would be grateful if you could withdraw that remark.

Fair enough picky picky.

My apologies.

There’s a fair amont of direct patristic evidence for the original Hebrew.

I cited four patristic sources and another was linked.

Again. My apologies for an “intemperate post”. Constructive criticism from you is well taken.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Fair enough picky picky.

My apologies.

There’s a fair amont of direct patristic evidence for the original Hebrew.

I cited four patristic sources and another was linked.

Again. My apologies for an “intemperate post”. Constructive criticism from you is well taken.

That’s a very generous reply, and I thank you for it.

Picky

 

[rcwitness]

Yes, these are all signs of unity, but Jesus established an authorative Church. Human beings need authority, and He made this authority visible, so that it could be found. How can one “take it to the Church” if one cannot find it?

This is very sensíble to me. The Denominations have become the means of finding a Church that most conforms to one’s own perspective.

I would not say “beyond” institutional ritual and obedience, as these are not at all contrary to salvation by grace through faith, but without the faith, the outward actions are just “dead”, which is perhaps how he felt?

Yes. Luther held Baptism and Communion nearly identicle to the Church. He believed Infant Baptism was the Christian practice and Communion was the practice of Communion with God. Unless i’m mistaken, Martin considered excommunication as the censure of a person from the fellowship of the Church.

 

[benhur]

benhur. You quoted . . .

against :

“Bottom line: Matthew wrote his gospel in Greek. That is what all of the textual evidence and internal scriptural evidence suggests (and on the other hand there is zero evidence for a Hebrew gospel apart from this one very questionable story). Irenaeus is repeating Papias’ story as others do as well later on”.

ichthys.com/mail-Matthew%20in%20Hebrew.htm

Either way what we have is Greek as inspired Matthew, period.

THIS IS nonsense.

Didn’t you bother to read my earlier discussion on this either?

Didn’t you read St. Jerome just matter of factly talking about how the Hebrew original text of St. Matthew’s Gospel was still in existence in this “present day” (about 400 A.D.) and you could go see it?

Hi C
.
“There are manuscripts of Gospels of Matthew in Hebrew from later centuries, but they are not accepted by the majority of scholars as copies of an original Hebrew Matthew.”

hebrewgospel.com/Disappearance%20Hebrew%20Matthew%20Gospel.php

Again, I cited evidence for and against an original Hebrew Matthew. Either way, the Greek was deemed superior and inerrant, even for Jerome in his final days. Those that believe there was a Hebrew text also say copies got corrupted shortly after.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

yes, of course, and the Church has accepted the Greek translation as authentic. The fact is that we don’t have the original manuscripts of any of the NT books.

Correct, and why I stated “copies” .We have many partial copies from Greek Mathew but zero *copy *fragments of a Hebrew one.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Yes, these are all signs of unity, but Jesus established an authorative Church. Human beings need authority, and He made this authority visible, so that it could be found. How can one “take it to the Church” if one cannot find it?

Hi g,

So Baptists, or Lutherans, etc., have no place to go when a brethren has done an offense to them ? We can not find our churches ?

This is a tiresome ploy, to say or portray us as:

“We do not believe in papal authority, therefore we are anarchists, with no bishop/presbyters/patriarchs, etc…”

"We (P’s) do not believe in IC, so we do not venerate, call Mary “blessed”. "

“We do not place Tradition equal to Writ, therefore we do not believe in tradition.”

“We do not believe in salvation by works (or yes to “faith alone”), therefore we do not believe in works.”

It is a gift to place yourself in the "others’’ position when dialoguing, adding to the integrity of the conversation. Alas, frequently both sides be beggars for this

Blessings

 

[guanophore]

 Hi g,

So Baptists, or Lutherans, etc., have no place to go when a brethren has done an offense to them ? We can not find our churches ?

This is a tiresome ploy, to say or portray us as:

“We do not believe in papal authority, therefore we are anarchists, with no bishop/presbyters/patriarchs, etc…”

I said nothing of the sort. There are many non-Catholic ecclesial communities that retain the majority of the Apostolic structure. The further communities drift from the Sacred Tradition, the more of that structure is lost. In some storefront communities, there is a leader or pastor and if one has a problem, there is no where to go for an appeal. One must just leave and find another storefront.

 "We (P's) do not believe in IC, so we do not venerate, call Mary "blessed". "

I do not find it helpful to try to categorize “protestants” together as a group. There is too much variety that spans from one end of the spectrum to another. Overall, we can define “protestant” as having only one thing in common. They are all defined by which parts, and how much of the Catholic faith they reject.

That being said, the veneration of Mary is not commonly found in modern evangelical communities. This is because such communities are “bible based” and they do not see this veneration in the Bible.

"We do not place Tradition equal to Writ, therefore we do not believe in tradition."

This is also not an accurate statement about Protestants. The closer Protestant communities are to the Catholic faith, the stronger will be the role of Tradition. At the far end of the spectrum, “bible Christian” fundamentalists will deny that there is even any such thing as Sacred Tradition - only the traditions of men, which are all “against God”.

  "We do not believe in salvation by works (or yes to "faith alone"), therefore we do not believe in works."

I am puzzled why you are addressing the contents of this post to me. You have ascribed many statements to me that don’t at all reflect my views.

I think the CC has made great strides in overcoming the divide that occurred during the Reformation. The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification being one important step. It is an official statement that what Luther was saying about grace, faith, and works and what the CC teaches were not different.

It is a gift to place yourself in the "others’’ position when dialoguing, adding to the integrity of the conversation. Alas, frequently both sides be beggars for this

Blessings

Well, you might consider starting with making accusations toward me based on something I actually wrote or claim to believe!

 

[Cathoholic]

benhur.

I read over almost all of the link from the website you referenced to allege no (or “co”) Hebrew authorship of St. Mathhew’s Gospel (here).

The problems with these were so many, I just didn’t know where to begin. And I wasn’t willing to attempt to give it a rebuttal here (I’m using an android and not a full keyboard computer) given the frequency of “issues” the page had.

There is a multitude of contradictions by the authors cited (contradictions in several cases against even one another!).

Every conclusion was backed up by mere conjecture.

It pains me to watch our separated Protestant brethren strain so hard to assert these types of conclusions.

I also noticed a lot of discussion citing “scholars” and discussion ABOUT the Church Fathers, but NOT ONE citation FROM the Church Fathers!

Am I wrong on this?

Did I miss original patristic quotes.

I read it over the first time (I admittedly skipped over two “scholars” quotes because in skimming them first, it seemed to me, insufferable filibustering).

I sped read the whole page again (after slow reading it the first time-minus the two quotes).

And I could not find one patristic quote!

Again, did I miss them (I sure could have. I’ve missed plently of things in the past)?

So often I see our seperated brethren talk ABOUT the Fathers instead of actually READING the Fathers.

This website was not persuasive benhur

 

[JonNC]

Yes, I have found many of these concepts in the early literature. Justin Martyr and Tertullian address a few of these. I am not sure what you mean by a symbolic baptism only. There have been other threads about many of these topics and I won’t address each of these on this thread. If you are interested in seeing some references for these, you can send me a message or start a new thread.

We all know what happened when Martin Luther and the reformers read the early literature…

Well yes. He maintained:
Baptismal regeneration
Infant baptism
The real presence
He translated and included 74 books
Confession and Holy Absolution
Jon