B
- Status
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, AnIrishLutheran,
I had no idea that hyypcricy could be measured in mm of Hg! Your latest post is truly memorable since I have attempted on several occasions to get any response out of you. It would appear that this latest post of your is more evasion.
Drop the pretense and respond - or just simply be identified for what you really are.
Your choice.
God bless
I had no idea that hyypcricy could be measured in mm of Hg! Your latest post is truly memorable since I have attempted on several occasions to get any response out of you. It would appear that this latest post of your is more evasion.
Drop the pretense and respond - or just simply be identified for what you really are.
Your choice.
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Gurneyhalleck1,
In my opinion, you have not been keeping up with the various efforts to get reasoned discourse from AIL. He has yet to respond to me and in my opinion is happiest in the smoke screen he has created. What I mean is that if you look at the statements he has made - and how they have been systematically refuted by several posters - and how he just howls becuse his pet theories have been wounded, you find the essence of evasion. Rather than engage a specific topic, he complains that the points of arrows were too sharp.
While I am quite confident you need not worry about AIL being discouraged - I would recommend you redirect your efforts in helping him to actually engage rather than evade issues in a debate.
After reading the material presented, I think Benedictus2 simply called a ‘spade a spade’. Complaining of an offended ‘spade’ is certainly an odd approach to reality… and, in my view you are not really helping this new member to adjust to the rigors of actually using logic to explain his position. Enabeling evasion is not helpful.
God bless
In my opinion, you have not been keeping up with the various efforts to get reasoned discourse from AIL. He has yet to respond to me and in my opinion is happiest in the smoke screen he has created. What I mean is that if you look at the statements he has made - and how they have been systematically refuted by several posters - and how he just howls becuse his pet theories have been wounded, you find the essence of evasion. Rather than engage a specific topic, he complains that the points of arrows were too sharp.
While I am quite confident you need not worry about AIL being discouraged - I would recommend you redirect your efforts in helping him to actually engage rather than evade issues in a debate.
After reading the material presented, I think Benedictus2 simply called a ‘spade a spade’. Complaining of an offended ‘spade’ is certainly an odd approach to reality… and, in my view you are not really helping this new member to adjust to the rigors of actually using logic to explain his position. Enabeling evasion is not helpful.
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Benedict,
I do not want to argue … but, some appear to work hard at not only being lost but in evading those who would find them on CAF! I think enough effort has been spent on this character in this forum. The real answer to ‘finding’ this poster is with prayer.
God bless
I do not want to argue … but, some appear to work hard at not only being lost but in evading those who would find them on CAF! I think enough effort has been spent on this character in this forum. The real answer to ‘finding’ this poster is with prayer.
God bless
B
benedictus2
Guest
I think you will find this link helpful.
Here are several Protestant Scholars agreeing that Peter is indeed the Rock and in effect saying that the Petros/ Petra controversy is non-existent.
catholicity.elcore.net./SimonIsTheRock.html
R
rinnie
Guest
Yes, I can surely say that Peter was indeed the rock. How do I know? Quite simple the bible tells me so. Jesus changed Peter’s name to rock did he not? It is silly to me what I have seen people go to because they cannot accept this teaching.
Little Rock, Big Rock, Please, Jesus said you are Peter and on this ROCK I will build my Church. The Rock is the foundation on what things are laid. Jesus laid that foundation when he came here.
He took that foundation of his teaching and laid it on Peter to be in charge of. That is simply why he said You are Peter instead of All of My Apostles listen up, You are Peter’s. But see, he said it pure and simple you are Peter, singular, not plural. Peter was indeed the leader and Rock of our faith. The Pope today is the continuation of Peter.
Something very very interesting for you to think about. I heard this just this past week on EWTN.
It was said you do not have to agree with the Pope you just must obey him. Pretty simple huh? But the Priest said something that was also very very interesting, and something for us all to think about!!
Here it is. Who can say (Anyone in this world, that they are more Holy then the Pope??
J
jpaul1953
Guest
Dear Jesus 700,
As usual , another Protestant refusing to understand what language Jesus spoke in. ARAMAIC, not LATIN. IT IS AS THE MOVIE SAYS ’ Lost in Translation’.
Your controversy is old and most of you will not listen to the truth.
If St Jerome had english as his first language, there never would have been a controversy. The only word we would be discussing is what Kepha (Kephas) means, which is the new name Yeshuah (Jesus) gave to his lead disciple.
Do you know what Kephas means…Jagged Rock. Not a pebble as you would hope.The closest translation to Kephas in Latin is Petras…it is not a perfect match, just the nearest word known at the time.
Translate this:“Simon, son of Bar Jonah, you are Kephas and upon this Kephas I will build my Church.” It would translate something like this: Simon, son of Bar Jonah, thy name is jagged rock and upon this jagged rock I will build my Church. Much different from your understanding . Isn’t it? Keep in mind Yeshuah never said it is Kephas’ Church
When Aramaic is translated into Latin and then translated into English 1500 hundred years later, there is a translation problem. Try to understand the Bible for what it means and not try to read into it what you hope it says so you can feel right.
Remember that we have male and female names throughout man’s history. For instance in English, if my name is Patrick the woman’s name if the same would be Patricia. Just as if a rock in Latin is a female name petras, the mane name would be Petros. Woman -Petras…Man-Petros.
The problem exists from Latin to English. Not Aramaic to English (original texts were now unavailable in the 16th Century). The translators showed respect for Simon by not calling him by a female name. The translation problem came up once again.
"Simon, son of Bar Jonah, thy name is Petros and upon this petras I will build my Church. Petros means Peter in English while petras means small rock in English. HM! Think as you wish but you are not thinking like Yeshuah.
The reason Yeshuah scolded Simon Kephas is because just a moment before Yeshuah saw that Simon saw from the eyes of God and now Simon Kephas was not willing to believe his Lord would die so horrificly. I believe we all would not want that to happen to our Master .What about you? Would you wish that Yeshuah did not have to experience such brutal torment? I would hope so. Yesuah calls him satan to remind him that he is thinking like a non-believer for a moment. All of His disciples would have said the same thing. Don’t you think? They were shocked and terrified about maybe losing the greatest man ever to walk the face of the earth.
I hope this helps you see the meaning intended, not the meaning desired.
May you and your family have a wonderful Christmas season.
Jpaul1953
T
tqualey
Guest
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Jpaul,
Great post!
While this section of Matthew is important - there are so many other statements where Christ has singled out Peter for leadership throughout the Gospels. The Early Church Fathers also looked at the successor of Peter as the leader. There is all of this continuity that must be addressed. Now, it can be denied - and we see that all the time - but, the sound of an empty argument makes a distinctive note to the ear,.
God bless
Great post!
While this section of Matthew is important - there are so many other statements where Christ has singled out Peter for leadership throughout the Gospels. The Early Church Fathers also looked at the successor of Peter as the leader. There is all of this continuity that must be addressed. Now, it can be denied - and we see that all the time - but, the sound of an empty argument makes a distinctive note to the ear,.
God bless
B
benidict
Guest
i agree with you 100% my friend. i will shoot up a chaplet of divine mercy for him tonight. Peace and Gods blessings upon you.
A
AnIrishLutheran
Guest
OK, folks, I’ll take another run at this.
First of all, let’s deal with the ad hominem nonsense flying around here. The forum here claims to welcome discussion with those who are not Roman Catholics, and I chose to accept that invitation. That means I am your guest, at your invitation. I came here, read a few posts, thought there might be an interesting discussion or two to be had, and wrote a couple of my own.
There were some very civil and thoughtful replies from two folks. Thank you, and if the ratio of heat to light improves, I’ll consider and reply to your posts.
Then benedictus2 chose to weigh in. Just a quick review of post #66 reveals to me that I have an “ill-informed mind,” am “illiterate enough not to understand sentence structure in any language,” yada yada. Now this life is short. Clearly, my ill-informed mind would have nothing of value to offer benedictus2 or anyone else, so I should not waste my time here. But since I am only human, I will chuckle – in an ill-informed and illiterate manner, of course – by making one comparison:
First of all, let’s deal with the ad hominem nonsense flying around here. The forum here claims to welcome discussion with those who are not Roman Catholics, and I chose to accept that invitation. That means I am your guest, at your invitation. I came here, read a few posts, thought there might be an interesting discussion or two to be had, and wrote a couple of my own.
There were some very civil and thoughtful replies from two folks. Thank you, and if the ratio of heat to light improves, I’ll consider and reply to your posts.
Then benedictus2 chose to weigh in. Just a quick review of post #66 reveals to me that I have an “ill-informed mind,” am “illiterate enough not to understand sentence structure in any language,” yada yada. Now this life is short. Clearly, my ill-informed mind would have nothing of value to offer benedictus2 or anyone else, so I should not waste my time here. But since I am only human, I will chuckle – in an ill-informed and illiterate manner, of course – by making one comparison:
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I’m not claiming the poster is a saint. But I find your posts VERY sarcastic and biting. This one is evidence of that. Telling me I have “selective reading syndrome” is rude, is it not? Saying that the poster and I are “irrational” in our reasoning is uncharitable and unfriendly. And at the end telling me at least I now know what Ad Hominem means again is an insult to imply I’m a dufus that doesn’t understand what A.H. means, I’m a moron and you’re here to enlighten us morons. And telling the poster that he is unwilling apparently to answer a question is perfectly FAIR of you as he hasn’t responded. A reasonable assumption. But saying he is “likely unable” implies stupidity on the poster’s part, which is unfair again. I think your posts are uncharitable here, that’s all. You’re an intelligent poster with great reasoning and insight. I just think the way you word things is bullying and below you. God bless.
Unwillingness to debate?Well helloo, I rebutted all the points he raised. If anything IAL is is the one unwilling (but more like unable) to debate so pretends to be hurt so we will overlook the fact that he has no arguments forthcoming. Perhaps you had “selective reading syndrome” and so only saw the first sentence in a long two post rebuttal.
But that’s okay, that kind of irrational reasoning I am used to.
Hey, I just remembered that one is definitely a fallacy - an appeal to the emotion.
BTW if he’s post is well reasoned then let’s have some more of that by way o a rebuttal. That’s how you debate.
Show where the insult is and the polemics are.
Yes there are indeed. Don’t be discouraged. This site is a good site for learning. At least now you know what Ad hominem means
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Hi tqualey. You are correct. I am new to this discussion. And from the tone and tenor of it, I plan on leaving it. It’s not a productive one because of nasty rhetoric and verbage. I don’t like it. Thanks for your recommendations but I’m not trying to assist in anyone’s evasion. Show me where that has happened? In your opinion I’m an enabler here. That’s fine. There’s an old saying about opinions in the Marine Corps 
I won’t say it here 
I suggest you go back and read Benedictus’ posts and the nasty tone of them and think how uncharitable Catholics look by this and how you are willing to back Benedictus up just because you’re both Catholic. This doesn’t speak well of your faith to a Protestant. I’m outta here!
I won’t say it here I suggest you go back and read Benedictus’ posts and the nasty tone of them and think how uncharitable Catholics look by this and how you are willing to back Benedictus up just because you’re both Catholic. This doesn’t speak well of your faith to a Protestant. I’m outta here!
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
First of all, some of you need to fix your quote boxes.
Second, the topic is Was Peter the Rock? Keep it there and cease with the personal remarks.
Finally, if you are new here, I suggest a quick read through the forums rules.
Second, the topic is Was Peter the Rock? Keep it there and cease with the personal remarks.
Finally, if you are new here, I suggest a quick read through the forums rules.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Well then how do you account for the fact that you say I an unwilling to debate when I have done precisely that in succeeding paragraphs of my post where the opening remark was “in the ill-informed mind”?
How did you come up with the conclusion that I am willing to debate?
If the post is irrational then it is irrational. Perhaps not-rational would be more to your taste?
Your conclusion that I am un-willing to debate based on my starting statement is irrational considering I have actually done precisely that - given arguments to refute AIL, which is what debating is about.
Actually that was not meant for you. I was making a comment on your reply to AIL. The Ad Hominem reference was to him since he was the one who brought it up. If you look at that part of my reply to you, you will see that it was addressed to him.
Because if he was able (i.e. he have some good arguments to back him up) he would have. For sure, he would have come back with that so he can see me fall flat on my face.
But that was not forthcoming.And if he had been able to come up with a good rebuttal I would have replied with “Great post” or “brilliant thinking”; unless of course I was able to refute his rebuttal.
If I say that a post is irrational, it usually is. Or else someone would have come up with a rebuttal. I do not use strong words willy nilly.
Perhaps it will be better to your lacking if I had said : badly informed, or wrongly informed or un-informed and they would have all amounted to the same thing - ill informed.
So for irrational, what other terminology would you use? Not logical, not reasoned well, not thought out well, fallacious?
Let me know which one you think is the politically correct term to use.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Benedictus2,
I do not know about the laws where you live … but, over here… dead horses are not to be overly beaten! Especially, in such an ‘uncharitable’ manner!
Now, you know, I have not had any response to my comment about Peter actually being a tiny pebble (!) but with the mass (no pun intended) of a astronomical Black Hole! that Christ would build His Church on! Surely, a ‘pebble’ with such mass could easily withstand the hurricane winds of the Devil. Oh, well, I will briefly retreat from wit and charm and stay to the more tried and true…
God bless
I do not know about the laws where you live … but, over here… dead horses are not to be overly beaten! Especially, in such an ‘uncharitable’ manner!
Now, you know, I have not had any response to my comment about Peter actually being a tiny pebble (!) but with the mass (no pun intended) of a astronomical Black Hole! that Christ would build His Church on! Surely, a ‘pebble’ with such mass could easily withstand the hurricane winds of the Devil. Oh, well, I will briefly retreat from wit and charm and stay to the more tried and true…
God bless
Well then how do you account for the fact that you say I an unwilling to debate when I have done precisely that in succeeding paragraphs of my post where the opening remark was “in the ill-informed mind”?
How did you come up with the conclusion that I am willing to debate?
If the post is irrational then it is irrational. Perhaps not-rational would be more to your taste?
Your conclusion that I am un-willing to debate based on my starting statement is irrational considering I have actually done precisely that - given arguments to refute AIL, which is what debating is about.
Actually that was not meant for you. I was making a comment on your reply to AIL. The Ad Hominem reference was to him since he was the one who brought it up. If you look at that part of my reply to you, you will see that it was addressed to him.
Because if he was able (i.e. he have some good arguments to back him up) he would have. For sure, he would have come back with that so he can see me fall flat on my face.
And if he had been able to come up with a good rebuttal I would have replied with “Great post” or “brilliant thinking”; unless of course I was able to refute his rebuttal.
If I say that a post is irrational, it usually is. Or else someone would have come up with a rebuttal. I do not use strong words willy nilly.
Perhaps it will be better to your lacking if I had said : badly informed, or wrongly informed or un-informed and they would have all amounted to the same thing - ill informed.
So for irrational, what other terminology would you use? Not logical, not reasoned well, not thought out well, fallacious?
Let me know which one you think is the politically correct term to use.
S
stormy99
Guest
**The Catholic Church as I was taught in RCIA doesn’t rely only on the Bible but alsoTradition.
Our love for you is here…listen and you will hear it.
stormy.**
B
benedictus2
Guest
You mean the non-sense that YOU sent flying? There was no such nonsense till you started using a term you did not understand.
Which is indeed wonderful.
No, that means all of us (you, me, and the other posters) here are guests upon the invitation of CAF. Are you expecting preferential treatment just because you are protestant?
Which was good.
If there are civil and thoughtful replies, why wait till later before you reply? Tom Qualey has been waiting for an answer. Since you obviously do not find him obnoxious like me then how come you have not replied to his posts?
No I was not weighing in. If you check the thread I was the first reply to the OP.
Yes, go ahead, check it. This thread was actually moved from another
thread.
I had already done several posts before you arrived on the scene.
If you want a private debate, then ask someone else to do it by PM with you. If you are in a public forum, expect to be debated by any and everyone who happens on the thread.
Nope that was not referring only to you. That refers to anyone who still believes that the petros/petra controversy still exists. But – and here is the important thing – I gave a good argument as to why anyone who holds this view is ill informed.
And as I have also said, there is nothing wrong being ill-informed so calm your sobbing ego.
People in this forum have called me dense (and other things which I can’t remember off the top of my head )and I have taken it in my stride and acknowledged that I am indeed dense in some things. It is a fact of life that no single person is 100% informed on everything.
If you will only concentrate on the arguments instead of allowing your emotions to get the better of you then you will come up with good rebuttals just as you have in paragraphs following. But I will address that in a separate post.
Only as it pertains to the verse in question. And I also gave support for that by dissecting the verse.
This (yada, yada) being the comprehensive explanation of why it is ill-informed to hold your view. That you can reduce a clear explanation to yada yada means that you
a) did not understand it
b) have got no rebuttal so will dismiss a comprehensive explanation with the words yada, yada to hide the fact that you have no counter argument
And highly entertaining. But what has that got to do with the thread ???
Quit playing the injured party (because you are not) and so advance this discussion.
Emotionalism may have its place in other areas of discourse (though I can’t think of any) but in an apologetics debate all it does is derail the thread.
You may not be aware of this but appealing to emotion is a fallacy.
So let’s get this discussion going and just concentrate on the arguments. That’s what debating is all about.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Now that finally is a rebuttal. And a good one too.
Why you could not just go straight to that and avoid the emotional petition…
But anyway… to your rebuttal.
First question you should have asked is: Would the Catholic Church suddenly negate what it has taught all along and put this negation in the Catechism?
Second: The Church has always taught that the rock in thou art Petros is Simon. The Catholic Apologists in this forum and this website, have claimed so as well. Could all these people suddenly be wrong?
Now, let’s use sentence structure analysis once more.
“On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ built His Church.
So let’s analyze.
What is “this faith”? It Is clear that this faith is "that Christ is the Son of the Living God”
Now notice how it did **NOT **say “**upon this faith **(that Christ is the Son of the Living) Christ built his Church.”
**Neither did it say **“Upon this rock WHICH IS the faith confessed by Peter.
What did it say? Upon the rock OF this faith. Or, put another way: this faith’s rock.
So who is this faith’s rock? It cannot be the statement “that Jesus is the Son of God” because as I have noted above, that is the faith, NOT the rock.
The rock could only be the one who professed this faith. And this is well supported by the sentence structure of Matthew 16:18.
Even Biblegateway.com gives this footnote : The Greek word for Peter means rock. biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:18&version=NIV#en-NIV-23691
I gave earlier a link showing that Protestant bible scholars accept that Peter is the rock.
Here is Craig Blomberg’s ( A Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary) take on this
***Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter”, parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ”, as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” ***The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.
Code:
Actually the short cut version would have looked like this:Jesus : You are Rock.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Well I just used sentence structure to refute your claim.
So no, I don’t owe you an apology.
First all of I am not a man.
Second of all there is nothing to apologize for. The offense is only in your head. If I had called you an idiot, then I should apologize. But I didn’t.
Furthermore don’t assume. You make ***(donkey) of u and me when you do that
Also, this was my longer statement.
.
In the face of mounting evidence that Simon is the Rock, what is the motive behind wanting it to be otherwise? It cannot be in the interest of truth because even Protestant scholars have conceded that Peter is indeed the rock.
If you insist that you understand sentence structure (which means you **see **that based on the structure (as Craig Blomberg has said above), the only conclusion is that Peter is rock, then what is the motive behind wanting to insist on a perverted interpretation?
As an analogy, this verse came to mind.
John 9:40-41
Some of the Pharisees who were with him heard this and said to him, “Surely we are not also blind, are we?”
Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you are saying, ‘We see,’ so your sin remains.
- Status