T
Thing
Guest
I have a reason to be right. Which is probably the crux of the argument.
- Status
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
T
Thing
Guest
I have told you.Please tell me: What reason is that?
A church was built. Prophesied to continue from St. Peters day till the end of time. If I was to look for that church… well, I would find it, its still here and its old and it is visable.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
And the prophecy, is it found only in Christ’s words here?I have told you.
A church was built. Prophesied to continue from St. Peters day till the end of time. If I was to look for that church… well, I would find it, its still here and its old and it is visable.
“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”
(Matthew 16:18)
Or is it found elsewhere?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Oops, i meant to post this:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Q.1.
When Jesus said, “I tell you that
you are Peter, and on this rock
I will build my church,” was He
trying to be ambiguous?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Q.1.
When Jesus said, “I tell you that
you are Peter, and on this rock
I will build my church,” was He
trying to be ambiguous?
T
Thing
Guest
He could have said I will build My church (here/where/somewhere?) because I am the Son of God.
Instead, He said He would build His Church on the Apostle St. Peter, so where-ever St. Peter is there is the church.
And, as you say the gates of hades cannot/has not/will not overcome it. Prophetic. Very good, thank you Thing.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Yes, and instead of this,
a.
“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”
(Matthew 16:18)
your Lord and mine could have said this,
a7.
“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on **[you Peter and those who come after you] **I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome **[my church] **.”
(Matthew 16:18)
If Jesus had said (a7) instead of (a), you and i might not be having this conversation, for it would be obvious that you are closer to the truth than the Protestants i know. The truth would be clear as crystal. But instead He chose to make His words clear as mud and open to different interpretations. So i wonder why. Why make it so easy to misunderstand?
T
Thing
Guest
Perhaps there would always be people like Frank, who will do it their way; and other people like Jesus who prayed that all would be one as He and the Father were one.Yes, and instead of this,
a.
“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”
(Matthew 16:18)
your Lord and mine could have said this,
a7.
“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on **[you Peter and those who come after you] **I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome **[my church] **.”
(Matthew 16:18)
If Jesus had said (a7) instead of (a), you and i might not be having this conversation, for it would be obvious that you are closer to the truth than the Protestants i know. The truth would be clear as crystal. But instead He chose to make His words clear as mud and open to different interpretations. So i wonder why. Why make it so easy to misunderstand?
Then, not forgetting, there is still that matter of the church He built, the church of the Apostles - surely that ship was to be One and all who sailed in it would be One.
I cannot imagine the Apostles each being like Frank. That was not the way.
P
Pax
Guest
This argument has some real problems with it. The language in the passage was not set up to mean “little stone” vs “a large rock.” Petros vs petra is in the Greek solely to give Peter a masculine name as opposed to petra which is the feminine form. This comes through most clearly and emphatically by way of the early manuscripts in Aramaic which read “kepha” and “kepha.” There is no distinction. Likewise, French translations, which of course are much later, use “pierre” and “pierre.”
I would also refer you to this link where Jimmy Akin explains the grammatical structure of Matthew 16:18: catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9811chap.asp
I hope this helps.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Then again, perhaps the ambiguity was an expression of His mercy. Do you know what i mean, or should i explain?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Hey, Pax. Glad you came to add to the conversation. I think i’d add that the English translation is rock and rock. However, unless i’m mistaken, the Greek translations are much earlier than the English and French and Aramaic.
Still, it’s all Greek to me, for i’m no expert in the ancient Greek language! Is Jimmy Akin an scholar of ancient Greek?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Thank you, Pax for the link. It did help. However, i found this link to an article by Robert A. Sungenis to make an even more persausive argument for the Catholic position:
stjohn17v20-21.com/peter01.htm
Specifically these words i found compelling:
Even though Greek may not have been the original language in which Matthew penned his Gospel, it can be shown from the scriptural usage of Greek that petra does not refer exclusively to a huge rock. It also can refer to a stone or small rock. For example, in Romans 9:33 and 1 Peter 2:8, the Greek word lithos (a small stone,) is coupled with petra in the imagery of making a man stumble and fall. The verse in the Old Testament from which these verses are quoted is Isaiah 8:14: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble, and a rock that makes them fall.” The image is of a man walking on his way and stumbling over a stone or small rock so that he falls to the ground. It is not the picture of a big boulder appearing in his way or coming down from the sky and crushing him under its weight. Paul only refers to stumbling in Romans 9:32, and one cannot stumble and fall over a petra if it is a huge, massive rock.
Yet, it was this source (by an author named John Engler, who is ironically not Catholic) who made an even more compelling argument for Peter being the rock of whom Jesus spoke:
greatcommission.com/Matthew161720.html
Figures of speech need to be understood in their contexts, for the New Testament writers used similar figures of speech in different contexts and with different meanings. For instance, Jesus is the Firstborn , but so are Christians (Colossians 1:15,18, Hebrews 12:23). Jesus is the Light, and so are his disciples (John 8:12, Matthew 5:14). Jesus is the Son of God, but Christians are sons of God (Mark 1:1 Galatians 3:26). Jesus is an apostle, but so are Christians (Hebrews 3:1, Romans 1:5). Jesus is the Lamb of God, but his followers are sheep (John 1:29, John 10:8). Jesus is the builder of the church, but so was Paul (Matthew 16:18, 1 Corinthians 3:10).
What is the point? Does the Scripture contradict itself? No! But figures of speech must be understood in their context; apart from its context, a figure of speech means nothing. Just because the idea of the “foundation” of the church is spoken of in one passage, the details of the metaphor do not necessarily “transfer” to other passages. Plainly, the ideas taught by 1 Corinthians 3:11, Ephesians 2:20 and 1 Peter 2:7-8 don’t have anything to do with the exegesis of Matthew 16:18.
Based on the preceding discussion of the meaning of petros, how Matthew uses petros in Matthew 16:18, the exegetical difficulties with other alternatives, and the nature of figures of speech, we may conclude that Simon Peter is the rock-foundation of the church in Matthew 16:18.
And, although i have not made up my mind, i’m beginning to see the strenght of the premise that Peter is the rock about whom Jesus spoke.
stjohn17v20-21.com/peter01.htm
Specifically these words i found compelling:
Even though Greek may not have been the original language in which Matthew penned his Gospel, it can be shown from the scriptural usage of Greek that petra does not refer exclusively to a huge rock. It also can refer to a stone or small rock. For example, in Romans 9:33 and 1 Peter 2:8, the Greek word lithos (a small stone,) is coupled with petra in the imagery of making a man stumble and fall. The verse in the Old Testament from which these verses are quoted is Isaiah 8:14: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble, and a rock that makes them fall.” The image is of a man walking on his way and stumbling over a stone or small rock so that he falls to the ground. It is not the picture of a big boulder appearing in his way or coming down from the sky and crushing him under its weight. Paul only refers to stumbling in Romans 9:32, and one cannot stumble and fall over a petra if it is a huge, massive rock.
Yet, it was this source (by an author named John Engler, who is ironically not Catholic) who made an even more compelling argument for Peter being the rock of whom Jesus spoke:
greatcommission.com/Matthew161720.html
Figures of speech need to be understood in their contexts, for the New Testament writers used similar figures of speech in different contexts and with different meanings. For instance, Jesus is the Firstborn , but so are Christians (Colossians 1:15,18, Hebrews 12:23). Jesus is the Light, and so are his disciples (John 8:12, Matthew 5:14). Jesus is the Son of God, but Christians are sons of God (Mark 1:1 Galatians 3:26). Jesus is an apostle, but so are Christians (Hebrews 3:1, Romans 1:5). Jesus is the Lamb of God, but his followers are sheep (John 1:29, John 10:8). Jesus is the builder of the church, but so was Paul (Matthew 16:18, 1 Corinthians 3:10).
What is the point? Does the Scripture contradict itself? No! But figures of speech must be understood in their context; apart from its context, a figure of speech means nothing. Just because the idea of the “foundation” of the church is spoken of in one passage, the details of the metaphor do not necessarily “transfer” to other passages. Plainly, the ideas taught by 1 Corinthians 3:11, Ephesians 2:20 and 1 Peter 2:7-8 don’t have anything to do with the exegesis of Matthew 16:18.
Based on the preceding discussion of the meaning of petros, how Matthew uses petros in Matthew 16:18, the exegetical difficulties with other alternatives, and the nature of figures of speech, we may conclude that Simon Peter is the rock-foundation of the church in Matthew 16:18.
And, although i have not made up my mind, i’m beginning to see the strenght of the premise that Peter is the rock about whom Jesus spoke.
T
Thing
Guest
Since it is your own idea then you have the authority to explain it, I won’t impose my own explanation on your idea.
His desire and prayer, for the Apostles, disciples, and so for the church He founded, was that it be one. How people can be one without being one has never been fully explained to me. Perhaps the end is near, and we face the final curtain…
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
I’m nearly certain i cannot claim credit for it, but instead, as Socrates said,Since it is your own idea then you have the authority to explain it, I won’t impose my own explanation on your idea.
…
Now, I am certain that this idea is not an invention of my own, since I am well aware that I know nothing. Therefore, I can only infer that I have been filled through the ears, like a pitcher, from the waters of another, though I have actually forgotten in my stupidity how this occurred, and who my informant was.
(Phaedrus, 235)
And the idea takes a little time to explain, but i’ve given it much thought. Let me give you one premise at a time, and please tell me what you think.
The first premise is this:
Premise 1.
Christ’s words make it easy for others to get the wrong idea about important doctrines regarding His church, His mother and His person.
As mentioned, if He had said this,
a7.
“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on **[you Peter and those who come after you] **I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome **[my church] **.”
instead of what He actually said, which is this,
a.
“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”
(Matthew 16:18)
then thoughtful people would have more reason to become or remain Catholic, for they’d be more likely to accept the authority of the papacy.
And as suggested in a recent discussion thread, if He had said this,
b2.
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my [actual] body.”
(Matthew 26:26)
instead of this,
b.
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
(Matthew 26:26)
then Protestants would have more reason to accept the idea that the Catholic Church is correct, and would have good reason to become Catholic.
And if He had also said this,
c2.
Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother [and the mother of all believers].” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
(John 19:25-27)
rather than this,
c.
Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
(John 19:25-27)
then there would be little question about the significance of the Blessed Mary. The upshot is that the ambiguity of Jesus’ words make it easier for those who interpret them to commit the fallacy of equivocation. That is, they unintentionally take His words to mean something different than Christ intended.
My Question:
Do you see how Protestants get the wrong idea about these important doctrines based on the lack of clarity of these texts?
T
Thing
Guest
I’ll give you half an answer now because I want to go fishing.
I like the one about eating His flesh. The crowd stood around with thir mouths open, agast, at the thought of eating human flesh.
They actually reacted badly to the thought as well as expressing their reaction. This tells me what they understood the saying to mean. They must eat His flesh.
But as many people in the past have said, Jesus did not cough and apologise for being ambiguous. He said again in even more forceful terms, (now that they understood that eating flesh was eating flesh), that unless they ate His flesh they would not have life in them. Instead of explainig things away to the crowd He challenges them even further to accept exactly what they had heard. He does not even spare the poor Apostles, and they stood about without relief until they decided to trust Him and accept just what He said, - that they must eat His flesh if they wanted life.
As your friend Socrates might have said; your can keep explaining things but whats the point. Flesh is flesh. Eating is eating. Water is water. Wine is wine. Building a church is building a church.
If He builds a church on a rock, regardless of your own interpretation of the word rock, should’nt the church built on the rock exist from that point onwards. He builds the church on a rock to preserve the church. And if the gates of hades cannot overcome the rock then that is why He builds the church on the rock. So that the gates of hades cannot overcome the church He has built.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
But a rock is not a rock, unless Peter’s flesh was made of stone. And Christ does NOT say:
a8.
“And I tell you that you are Peter, and **[you are like a rock on which] **I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome **[my church] **.”
(Matthew 16:18)
In the case of Jesus’ words in Matthew 16, rock is obviously a figure of speech. The meaning of the figure of speech is a matter of interpretation. In the case of your going fishing, whether you are using a figure of speech is not so obvious, but it is not impossible that you are speaking figuratively. You might, for example, be actually saying that you want to go fishing for an answer to some question you want to ask me next. Your statement is ambiguous and requires explanation to clear up whether you were speaking literally or figuratively; the same appears to be true regarding Jesus’ words at the last supper before His crucifixion.
That His words are ambiguous is seen by the different interpretations of what He said. What the correct interpretation is, in each case, is a matter of opinion. That the evidence supporting the Catholic interpretation is stronger than the evidence supporting any Protestant interpretation is a matter for thoughtful seekers of the truth to decide for themselves. That’s what i’m trying to do–examine the evidence and decide for myself.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Good question! The answer, i suppose, depends on the meaning of the word church. By church, do you mean a religious organization that has a succession of leaders in the same continuing government? or do you mean a continuing collection of people who believe in the same essential truths, even though they are members of different governments? or do you mean something else?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Q.2.
Do Christ’s words make it easy for others
to get the wrong idea about important doctrines
regarding His church, His mother and His person?
Q.2.
Do Christ’s words make it easy for others
to get the wrong idea about important doctrines
regarding His church, His mother and His person?
T
Thing
Guest
Lets see. He did’nt just say the words, He also acted them out. He took bread blessed it and said This Is My Flesh. Take it and eat it.
So the blessed bread is actually now His flesh. And that is how they will eat His flesh.
Perhaps the Apostle can help clear up any explanations by telling you that the church is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth…
Perhaps he means us to look to the church if we want to see the truth.
P
pneuma07
Guest
Dear Soc,P7:
The answer many Protestants give to (5) is, “…the catholic church.” Of course, they spell catholic with a small c.
Regarding the incarnation, doesn’t the word incarnation refer to the Son of God taking on human flesh in the person of Jesus Christ?
Code:
those protestant brothers, of course, speak that way about an invisible church.since they would not want to jettison the Nicene Creed with its “I believe the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic”. There could be one and catholic church, in their systems, only by postulating its invisibility.
IMHO as an answer to point 5 in post , ie “(5) Where are these ( legitimate) successors ( of the Apostles) in the western world ?”, as referred to the locus of christian legitimate authority, the “small c” catholic invisible church has, for one, a big problem:
an invisible ( ie undetectable) entity, as such is not ( cannot exercise) an authority
.a third frequent objection is :
“I acknowledge no religious authority but God”.
A catholic FULLY agrees, and this is precisely why all should try to detect where the legitimate ministers of the one authority are. ( which is what the present thread is trying to do, if I get correctly).
I can subscribe your definition of Incarnation. I am looking forward to seeing what follows from this answer.
- Status