Prodigal's Isle

  • Thread starter Thread starter Socrates4Jesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
utunumsint said:
500 years before the time of Christ, in Attic, not Koine. This destinction would not have been made with the adjectives Little and big during the time of Christ.

God bless,
Ut
Click to expand...
Sorry to put you between a rock and a hard place, Ut, but what is the distinction between a rock and a stone?

šŸ¤·
 
Thing said:
Bearing in mind that the Bereans could read the Scriptures already, but just reading the Scriptures was not enough, as they did not ā€˜get itā€™ until St. Paul [the Authority of the Church] told them the Churchsā€™ traditional teaching, handed down by word of mouth from Christ, and told them where to look in Scripture and told them how to interpret it.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Teachers of the truth are needed to help explain the truth, so God made some to be teachers:
It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare Godā€™s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.

(Ephesians 4:11-14)

And some does not mean all, as says Paul:

Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?

(1 Corinthians 12:29)

The question iā€™m trying to answer, here, is who these teachers are? Are they authorities of the Catholic Church, or authorities outside the Catholic Church?
 
utunumsint said:
Lithos is for stone, and petra is for rock, I believe. Petros is only ever used as a proper name to describe Peter in the Bible. It is never used to describe a little rock.

Check out this link,

searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4073

You can also search petros ans lithos.

God bless,
Ut
Click to expand...
Thanks, but the question still remains as to why Christ would say to Peter, ā€œAnd I tell you that you are petros, and on this *petra *I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.ā€

Ut, the Son of God would have know that you and i, and the early church fathers, and Catholics and Protestants would debate the meaning of His words by His choosing two different words in the same sentence. He is omniscient, after all; He knew the confusion this choice of words would wrought. Why not just end the controversy before it even starts and say this?
ā€œAnd I tell you that you are petros, and on this *petros *I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.ā€
or this?
ā€œAnd I tell you that you are lithos, and on this lithos I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.ā€
No cause for confusion, there. Iā€™m no all-knowing God, but even i know that! Of the possibilities I see only three:

  1. *]The translators were careless in translating the text.
    *]Christ was careless in choosing His words.
    *]Christ intentionally chose those words stone and rock for a reason.

    Please tell me: Which do you think is what acctually happened and why?

    šŸ¤·
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
Agreed. Teachers of the truth are needed to help explain the truth, so God made some to be teachers:
It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare Godā€™s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.

(Ephesians 4:11-14)

And some does not mean all, as says Paul:

Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?

(1 Corinthians 12:29)

The question iā€™m trying to answer, here, is who these teachers are? Are they authorities of the Catholic Church, or authorities outside the Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
Just ask yourself who they are not.
 
Soc in Christ,

Peter is referred to as Cephas in the NT. This is of course a greek iteration of kepha. It seems unlikely that Paul or anyone else would refer to Peter as Cephas rather than Petros if petros meant little stone.

Likewise, it seems unlikely that we should assume that Aramaic speaking people would think in terms of attic greek poetry(500 years removed) when Jesus spoke to them in Matthew 16:18. This would be especially true of the apostles who were not educated men.

What do you think?
 
Pax said:
Soc in Christ,

Peter is referred to as Cephas in the NT. This is of course a greek iteration of kepha. It seems unlikely that Paul or anyone else would refer to Peter as Cephas rather than Petros if petros meant little stone.

Likewise, it seems unlikely that we should assume that Aramaic speaking people would think in terms of attic greek poetry(500 years removed) when Jesus spoke to them in Matthew 16:18. ā€¦
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply, Pax. Iā€™m a bit confused. Are not the bulk of the oldest, ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament written in koine Greek (the Greek language that many people of Jesus day spoke) and not written in Attic nor in Ionic (the obscure, scholarly languages that only the highly educated could read and understand)? Paul, for example, is believed to have written exclusively in this koine dialect of the common man.

šŸ¤·
 
Pax said:
ā€¦ This would be especially true of the apostles who were not educated men. What do you think?
Click to expand...
ā€œNot educatedā€ is a criticism the enemies of Christ used to describe Peter and the other apostles in Acts. Accusing them of being uneducated does not prove that they were illiterate and could not read the Torah (i.e., Old Testament) and other ancient works. The Jewish people had the highest percentage of literacy in the ancient world. Consider this source:
The Pharisees, who were the democratic inheritors of the religious ideas of the ā€œMen of the Great Synagogue,ā€ also adopted as their motto the obligation to ā€œraise up many disciples and build a fence around the Torah.ā€ When they finally succeeded, under the leadership of Simeon ben Shetach, in wrestling control of the Sanhedrin from priestly aristocratic Sadduces about 150 years before the Destruction of the Second Temple, they proclaimed to the people that the Torah was the heritage not just of the priestly elite, but also of every single person ā€œin the congregation of Jacob.ā€ Accordingly, they established what amounted to obligatory universal and free religious education for the young in every Jewish communityā€“an event unprecedented in all history and one that was not duplicated anywhere until the introduction of free elementary schools in the United States during the nineteenth century.

(From The Jewish Book of Knowledge, An Encyclopedia of Judaism and the Jewish People, Covering All Elements of Jewish Life from Biblical Times to the Present, written by Nathan Ausubel, p. 337, (c) 1964, Library of Congress Catalog Number: 62-20063, printed in the United States of America.)

The upshot: Peter and the other apostles would have been fully literate, as they was educated in the obligatory, free, and universal, ancient Jewish educational system. It is likely he would have been exposed, when he was younger, to the Torah and other written works related to the Jewish people, history and culture. There is also evidence that Matthew, being from the priestly tribe of Levi, would have been even more educated that the others.
 
Thing said:
Just ask yourself who they are not.
Click to expand...
Spoken like a true Socratic philosopher (or lover of wisdom)! Thatā€™s exactly what you and i should do, Thing: Ask ourselves what it is that makes a person a religious authority and then compare Popes and Protestants to this concept to see which stands up to our examination. Good thinking!

šŸ‘

OK, iā€™ll start, and you please add to what i say, and iā€™ll do the same, in turn, and eventually weā€™ll know what a trustworthy Christian authority is:

First, a trustworthy Christian authority is genuine, sincere, and demonstrate this by his actions:
ā€œWatch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheepā€™s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.ā€

ā€“Jesus (Matthew 7:15-20)

Now your turn: What else makes a trustworthy Christian authority?
 
DrPiano said:
Aye, its very exciting. Iā€™ve been following the ISCs (induced stem cells) for some time. Unfortunately, some people refuse to look at the facts and are blinded by their ideologies and continue to insist that embryonic stem cells are the only way. šŸ¤· But thatā€™s another conversation for another thread.
Click to expand...
Go figure!
DrPiano said:
I canā€™t remember which post number exactly, but my very first two posts in this thread had a series of 3 or 4 passages that I encouraged you to take to prayer in front of the Eucharist. Those, taken together, with the support of the writings of the Early Church Fathers and the writings of the church today, convinced me that the Catholic Church today represents the Authority that Jesus first handed to his apostles and that they handed on to their successors, and that as that Authority, it can be trusted.
Click to expand...
OK, iā€™ll see if i can find them. Thanks.

šŸ™‚
Found it in post 42:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5541166#post5541166

Yes, i am praying for wisdom daily about the meaning of Jesusā€™ words in Matthew 16, Doc. Much of this discussion is about just that. Still looking for the answer to my prayer. Or perhaps the idea that Jesus was intentionally ambiguous is the answer?

If you have time, please tell me your thoughts.

šŸ™‚
 
pneuma07 said:
Dear Soc,

you are already dealing together with UT with an introduction to the papacy.

Iā€™d like to remain a little on petrine primacy, and more in particular its scriptural case.

This has multiple ā€œpillarsā€ IMHO. Far from resting on a single interpretation of a single verse.
  1. All of the three main ancient interpretations of the petros-petra game ( ie Peter, his confession or Christ Himself seen as the ā€œpetraā€), not only the first one, fit with petrine primacy. The second and third are accepted as legitimate ones by the Church, alongside the first one, no ā€œaut autā€ being among them.
  2. This is just one of the three main passages pointing to petrine primacy, the other ones being in Luke 22 and John 21. ( iā€™m going to quote a classic exposition of these) You might want to read them together, combining their messages.
  3. You can find cumulative evidence of Peterā€™s prominency, besides these key passages, througout the Gospels and Acts, and in the Corpus Paulinum too.
Click to expand...
Thanks, P7. Please tell me how you would finish these sentences:

Peter is the the papacy as Moses is to ______________ .

or

Peter is to the papacy as Abraham is to _______________ .
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Would Socrates believe Jesus?
Click to expand...
JJ:

Socrates spent his life looking for wisdom. Upon meeting Jesus iā€™m sure heā€™d say his search was at an end. Iā€™d also say:

John the Baptist was voice in the wilderness to the Jewish people pointing to Jesus

as

Socrates was a voice in the wilderness to the pagan Greek people pointing to Jesus.

The difference is that John the Baptist saw Jesus before he was put to death, but Socrates was put to death still longing to see Him.
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
Spoken like a true Socratic philosopher (or lover of wisdom)! Thatā€™s exactly what you and i should do, Thing: Ask ourselves what it is that makes a person a religious authority and then compare Popes and Protestants to this concept to see which stands up to our examination. Good thinking!

šŸ‘

OK, iā€™ll start, and you please add to what i say, and iā€™ll do the same, in turn, and eventually weā€™ll know what a trustworthy Christian authority is:

First, a trustworthy Christian authority is genuine, sincere, and demonstrate this by his actions:
ā€œWatch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheepā€™s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.ā€

ā€“Jesus (Matthew 7:15-20)

Now your turn: What else makes a trustworthy Christian authority?
Click to expand...
Provenance; otherwise called The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Acts Of Apostles 1

14 All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

9 Romans 15

6 That with one mind, and with one mouth, you may glorify God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I keep telling you Soccey.

John 3

11 Amen, amen I say to thee, that we speak what we know, and we testify what we have seen, and you receive not our testimony.

1 Corinthians 15

2 By which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain.

2 Thessalonians 2

14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

What have you learned from *That *authority by word?

Donā€™t know? Why! Lets ask the Church which heard those words.

Let us run together to the history books of the Churchā€¦

ā€¦and find what that Apostolic Authority taught the Churchā€¦

For it is said;

26 If therefore they shall say to you: Behold he is in the desert, go ye not out: Behold he is in the closets, believe it not. 27 For as lightning cometh out of the east, and appeareth even into the west: so shall the coming of the Son of man be. 28 Wheresoever the body shall be, there shall the eagles also be gathered together.
 
Thing said:
Provenance; otherwise called The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Acts Of Apostles 1

14 All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

ā€¦
Click to expand...
prov-e-nance

/Ėˆprɒvhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngnəns, -ĖŒnɑns/ cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif Show Spelled Pronunciation prov-uh-nuhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngns, -nahns] cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif Show IPA
in a SentenceProvenance

***ā€“noun ***place or source of origin: *The provenance of the ancient manuscript has never been determined. *

**Origin: **
1860ā€“65; < F, deriv. of provenant, prp. of provenir < L prōvenÄ«re to come forth; see pro-1 , convene, -ant http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, Ā© Random House, Inc. 2009.

When i think of the provenance (or origin) of the church, i think of Jesus:
In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

(Hebrews 1:1-2)

Isnā€™t He the origin of the church?

šŸ¤·
 
pneuma07 said:
And here is Francis de Sales on the Lordā€™s words to Peter in John 21

CHAPTER V. FIFTH PROOF. THE FULFILMENT OF THESE: FEED MY SHEEP. ā€¦

*It is now easy to see what authority Our Lord intrusted to S. Peter by these words: Feed my sheep. For in truth the charge is so general that it includes all the faithful, whatever may be their condition; the commandment is so particular that it is addressed only to S. Peter. He who wishes to have this honour of being one of Our Lordā€™s sheep must acknowledge S. Peter, or him who takes Peterā€™s place, as his shepherd. " If thou lovest me "-I quote S. Bernard (De Consid. ii. 8.) - ā€œfeed my sheep. Which sheep ? The people of this or that city or region or even kingdom? My sheep, Christ says. Is it not clear to everybody that he did not mean some, but handed over all. There is no exception where there is no distinction. And perhaps the others, his fellow-disciples, were present when, giving a charge to one, he commended unity to all in one flock with one pastor, according to that (Cant. vi.): One is my dove, my beautiful one, my perfect one. Where unity is there is perfection.ā€ When Our Lord said: I know my sheep, he spoke of all; when he said feed my sheep, he still means it of all; for Our Lord has but one fold and one flock. And what else is it to say: feed my sheep, but: Take care of my flock, of my pastures, or of my sheep and my sheepfold? It is then entirely under the charge of S. Peter. For if he said to him: Feed my sheep, either he recommended all to him or some only; if he only recommended some-which? I ask. Were it not to recommend to him none, to recommend to him some only without specifying which, and to put him in charge of unknown sheep? If all, as the Word expresses it, then he was the general pastor of the whole Church. *

Good reading. šŸ™‚

Bless you.

P7
Click to expand...
P7:

Isnā€™t it true that Peter was chosen by God to be shepherd of the sheep of Rome, Paul was chosen by God to be shepherd of the sheep in present-day Greece and Turkey, and James was chosen by God to be shepherd of the the sheep in Jerusalem and Judea?
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
prov-e-nance

/Ėˆprɒvhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngnəns, -ĖŒnɑns/ cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif Show Spelled Pronunciation prov-uh-nuhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngns, -nahns] cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif Show IPA
Use Provenance in a Sentence

***ā€“noun ***place or source of origin: *The provenance of the ancient manuscript has never been determined. *

**Origin: **
1860ā€“65; < F, deriv. of provenant, prp. of provenir < L prōvenÄ«re to come forth; see pro-1 , convene, -ant http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, Ā© Random House, Inc. 2009.

When i think of the Provenance (or origin) of the church, i think of Jesus:
In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

(Hebrews 1:1-2)

Isnā€™t He the origin of the church?

šŸ¤·
Click to expand...
A provenance [in practical terms] does not exist unless it physically exists. Think of a provenance for Dickens writing desk. Unless there is some physical reference recorded and preserved stating that, yes, this is indeed Dickensā€™ desk, then the desk does not have a provenence and cannot be sold as Dickensā€™ desk.
If a friend of Dickens, a contemporary of his, writes about Dickensā€™ desk, with a discription of it, and if Dickens scratches ā€˜Dickens woz ā€˜ereā€™ into the wooden top, and if all the stately homes which owned it record the desk with a description in their annual inventories, then, the Dickens desk has a provenance.
Its always Dickensā€™ desk with or without a physical provenance; but nobody would buy it without a physical provenance. And who could blame them.
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
Thanks, P7. Please tell me how you would finish these sentences:

Peter is the the papacy as Moses is to ______________ .

or

Peter is to the papacy as Abraham is to _______________ .
Click to expand...
Dear Soc,

i see you are more interested in the issue of succession now, than on petrine primacy as such, wich was what i was dealing with specifically. Am I getting your attitude, as perceivable through this question of yours ?

Moses was a prophet, the greatest one ever in Israel. Did he have a line of successors as ā€œgreatest prophets everā€ ? Did the other prophets including John Baptists have a line of successors ? You and I would answer with a ā€œNOā€, I guess.
Why donā€™t propehts have lines of successors ?
Because theirs is not an office.

Abraham was the father of the believers ? is there a line of succession of ā€œfathers of the believersā€. No, I suppose we agree. Is being father of the believers an office ? I donā€™t think so . Do you ?

Did Aaron receive an office ? Yes, he did, we likely agree.
Did he have a line of successors in this office ? Sure.

Back to us, now, if what above sounds reasonable.

Is ā€œGeneral Pastor of Jesusā€™ flockā€ an office ? Sure it is. šŸ™‚
Should we expect this office could and should be passed ?

Bless you.
 
Thing said:
A provenance [in practical terms] does not exist unless it physically exists. Think of a provenance for Dickens writing desk. Unless there is some physical reference recorded and preserved stating that, yes, this is indeed Dickensā€™ desk, then the desk does not have a provenence and cannot be sold as Dickensā€™ desk.
If a friend of Dickens, a contemporary of his, writes about Dickensā€™ desk, with a discription of it, and if Dickens scratches ā€˜Dickens woz ā€˜ereā€™ into the wooden top, and if all the stately homes which owned it record the desk with a description in their annual inventories, then, the Dickens desk has a provenance.
Its always Dickensā€™ desk with or without a physical provenance; but nobody would buy it without a physical provenance. And who could blame them.
Click to expand...
Yes, i think i see. So the answer to my question, ā€œIsnā€™t Christ the origin of the church?ā€ is this:

ā€œNo, He is the originator of the church! The origin of the church is recorded in Acts. That is the beginning of Christā€™s church.ā€

So what makes Dickenā€™s desk his desk is his ownership of it. What makes the Christian Church Christā€™s church is His ownership of it. Is this what you are getting at?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top