Prodigal's Isle

[Socrates4Jesus]

If you read what I posted before, I mentioned that I do realise I am arguing from silence, and I do know that this is a fallacy, but with historical reasoning, one usually bases ones arguments on facts. Therefore, although it is not possible to rule out the big rock little rock argument, from a historical perspective, there is no evidence to support the claim, and very much evidence to support other claims. …

To sum it up, there is a linguistic possibility of a distinction between the size of the rocks, but this possibility is not supported by historical evidence. There is ample historical evidence to support other conclusions, such as 1-Peter is the rock, and 2- Peter’s faith is the rock.

Like most protestants, (and I hope you will not be upset by my saying this, I am not trying to provoke you), you jettison historical reasoning because it does not support your conclusions.

God bless,
Ut

No provocation (of offense) taken. I should also add that i appreciate your taking my criticism graciously!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Just to illustrate what I mean by preponderance of evidence,

In the criminal court, you must prove a person guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence.

In a civil court, there is a lower standard of evidence required to prove someone guilty of a crime.

These two courts both analyze historical and logical arguments, and the evidence is weighed. No lawyer would make an argument without evidence.

Given claim 1 is supported by linguistical evidence, and claim 2 has both linguistical and historical evidence, claim 2 would usually win out in a court battle because of the preponderance of evidence supporting it.

Being a programmer, I can see why you would dislike this kind of fuzzy reasoning. Its not C++ !

God bless,
Ut

LOL! Yeah, get one punctuation mark wrong in a line of code and the software blows up. I tend to look at the biblical text the same way!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Those who lived in new testament times had even less certainty of the truth of what they heard than we do.

Agreed.

We have Sacred Scripture canonized by the Church, & a Church established by Christ to continue the Apostles role of teaching and preaching.

Agreed.

And we have the traditions of the Apostles passed down through the Church to tells us both what the canon was and the sacred traditions are.

Agreed, insofar as the tradition of which you speak is that of determining what texts should be considered scripture. I’d add that you or i, with the help of the Holy Spirit, would be able to do the same by considering whether two texts contradict one another. If they do, one must not be Sacred Scripture.

To the majority living in the new testament days after Christs death, they had not written material to consult, they had to trust to what they heard by word of mouth, and the Church was so young demand within the church laiety for information must have outstripped supply.

They had Paul’s letters, which were copied and sent to the churches and read aloud to the people at each. But, yes, i also agree they had authorities sent to them to resolve disputes over doctrine, such as Timothy who was sent by Paul to some of the churches.

Most had no choice but to simply trust what they *heard *from the Apostles, by way of their disciples, and their disciples, and their disciples.
And that is the Church we now trust for everything we know, written or unwritten.
Everyone knows its true *Only *because the Catholic Church tells you its true.

But what they heard was not said in a vacuum. It was said in the light of what Jesus already said. It was said in the light of what God said in the Old Testament. I have no doubt that some blindly trusted others. This is perhaps one reason why Paul had to spend so much of his time writing against heresies, for example:

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?

(Galatians 3:1-5)

The noble thing for a Christian to do is to question (though not rebel against) her religious authority:

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

(Acts 17:11)

The noble Christians did not blindly believe what even Paul said, but they tested the validity of what he taught in the light of the Sacred Scriptures.

This makes sense, doesn’t it? God is not going to contradict Himself. What He says through an authority will not contradict what He said through a ancient Jewish prophet. If what an authority says clearly contradicts what the church agrees was the word of God spoken though a prophet, then the authority, on that one thing he said, must not be speaking for God.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I’m not. I’m still a medical student - one step below Intern. I’m still paying to learn, and jumping from branch to branch to branch of medicine (so far, I’ve experienced Surgery, Family Medicine, and now Neurology), while Interns are in their first year of Residency, are in the process of specializing (so they don’t jump quite as much), and are paid to learn. So I’m pretty much the lowest on the totem pole.

As for the accuracy of ER - I used to like that show too. But it’s not a whole lot like real medicine. I tend to not watch most of those shows because they’re, for the most part, annoying because of their inaccuracy. I do, however, like House, not because its particularly accurate (most docs don’t walk around on drugs, and I have no idea what House’s underlings are) but because they tackle tricky diseases and their process of making a list of likely diagnoses (generating a differential) on the whiteboard is similar to what most doctors do in their head. So its kind of fun. …

House. Great show!

http://static.desktopnexus.com/wallpapers/7334-bigthumbnail.jpg



But i agree that having a new medical mystery every week is a bit far fetched.



BTW, i saw a great Nova Science Now episode recently where geneticists have found a way to take skin cells from a person and manipulate the genes to turn them into functioning stem cells, thus eliminating the need to destroy embryos to harvest stem cells. On researcher gave mice sickle cell anemia, and then used new the technique to create stem cells from the skin of the mice, turn the stem cells into healthy blood cells, and inject them into the mice. It cured the disease in all of the mice.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… But… back to topic… have you gone and prayerfully meditated on those passages? What are your thoughts?

That depends, Doc. What are the passages?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc in Christ,

There are a number of scholars that argue for Aramaic primacy over the Greek for many books of the NT. The Aramaic Peshitta is quite ancient and it is argued that it is not a translation from the Greek. I have not made up my mind on the issue of Greek vs. Aramaic primacy, but I put a great deal of confidence in the Aramaic “kepha” and “kepha” in Matthew 16:18 because it is, indeed, a very ancient text and there is no compelling reason to believe that it deviates from the original words of Jesus.

God Bless…

Thank you, Pax. To the point and compelling. Baring any new evidence, i’d have to say this new information about Aramaic having just one word to represent pebble, stone, rock and bolder makes a strong argument. Seems odd to me that people who live in one of the rockiest places on earth would only have one word to describe every rock they meet. Eskimos, for example, have dozens of words for snow:

ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/varia/snow.html

But i’m no Aramaic scholar.

 

[utunumsint]

Thank you, Ut. I should apologize, for i seem to have misunderstood that you were saying that our Lord was advocating the institution of the papacy when He said,

“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)

I now understand that this was not your purpose. So, if Matthew 16 does not teach us that the papacy is a legitimate authority i should trust, then what does? What is the body of evidence you mention? Is it biblical, or extra-biblical, or both?

Taken in isolation, this text is not enough. It suggest multiple different interpretations, one of which is that Peter was given authority over the church if you interpret it from a Catholic perspective.

Based on my reading of the church fathers, this text is interpreted as 1-the rock is Peter’s faith, and 2-Peter himself is the rock. Sometimes both these meanings are used.

As the church became more and more aware of the role of the bishop of Rome, these Petrine texts and passages became associated with his ministry.

These are the very broad historical strokes for this development. The Gospel of Matthew, depending on who you talk to, was written sometime at the end of the first century, capturing the text of Matthew 16, and reporting what would have been floating around as an oral tradition.

Before that time, we have the concept of pillars. I’ll break it down

1-Paul, in Galations talks about Peter and James as Pillars “9 and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars.”

2-Then in 1 Timothy chapter 3, Paul says “15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” So he uses the word Pillar as the foundation of the truth. You question whether this should be applied to God alone, or to the Church.

3-Finally, we have Clement’s quote concerning Paul and Peter as pillars of the church in chapter 5.

So here we have the concept of Pillar in Gallations that predates Timothy, and the same concept of Pillar that comes after Galations and Timothy with Clement’s quote. From a historical basis, it seems safe to say that when the word “pillar” is used, it is referring to a group of persons, (e.g. James, Peter, and Paul), and this would suggest that what Paul was saying in Timothy chapter 3, is that the Apostles and their successors were pillars and foundations of the truth. The context of 1 Timothy makes it necessary to include successors in this understanding of Pillar because by the time 1st Timothy was being written, the apostles were dieing off, and Paul was giving final instructions to Timothy on how to carry on. The church would remain the pillar and foundation of the truth.

The Protestant argument against this is that the word of God, or God himself is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and I can’t argue this claim, except to say that God chose men, like Peter, James, and Paul, to give us the word of God. So in a very real sense, the word of God depends on them, and the metaphor of pillar can be safely ascribed to the apostles.

Now, iuf you agree with this concept, that there was a group of people that God chose to be foundations and pillars for his church, then question of authority amongst that group can be addressed and now we can return to Matthew 16.

Given the historical evidence for the two interpretations of the text of Matthew 16, (that excludes big rock, little rock because there is no historical evidence for it), and given our clarified understanding of the structure of the church, we have the following facts to work with.

1a-Peter himself is the rock on which Christ will found his church,
1b-Peter’s faith is the rock on which Christ will found his church,
2-the the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth,
3-the leaders of this church are the apostles, who are also called pillars.
4-Paul consults with these pillars to determine the truth of his Gospel to the Gentiles.

Can we agree to some or all of these facts.

God bless,
Ut

 

[davidv]

Thanks for giving me your opinion, David. You might be right, as i’ve often been wrong! Let’s see:

If i were to say to my son the night of his middle school play, “Break a leg!” and someone were to accuse me of wishing him bodily harm, would i be guilty of deception?

Maybe. Did you mean it literally when saying it? How would I know if you were?

 

[Thing]

The noble thing for a Christian to do is to question (though not rebel against) her religious authority:

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

(Acts 17:11)
The noble Christians did not blindly believe what even Paul said, but they tested the validity of what he taught in the light of the Sacred Scriptures.

This makes sense, doesn’t it? God is not going to contradict Himself. What He says through an authority will not contradict what He said through a ancient Jewish prophet. If what an authority says clearly contradicts what the church agrees was the word of God spoken though a prophet, then the authority, on that one thing he said, must not be speaking for God.

Bearing in mind that the Bereans could read the Scriptures already, but just reading the Scriptures was not enough, as they did not ‘get it’ until St. Paul [the Authority of the Church] told them the Churchs’ 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.

 

[DrPiano]

House. Great show!

http://static.desktopnexus.com/wallpapers/7334-bigthumbnail.jpg



But i agree that having a new medical mystery every week is a bit far fetched.



BTW, i saw a great Nova Science Now episode recently where geneticists have found a way to take skin cells from a person and manipulate the genes to turn them into functioning stem cells, thus eliminating the need to destroy embryos to harvest stem cells. On researcher gave mice sickle cell anemia, and then used new the technique to create stem cells from the skin of the mice, turn the stem cells into healthy blood cells, and inject them into the mice. It cured the disease in all of the mice.

Aye, its very exciting. I’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. But that’s another conversation for another thread.

That depends, Doc. What are the passages?

I can’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.

 

[pneuma07]

So, if Matthew 16 does not teach us that the papacy is a legitimate authority i should trust, then what does? What is the body of evidence you mention? Is it biblical, or extra-biblical, or both?

Dear Soc,

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

I’d like to remain a little on petrine primacy, and more in particular its scriptural case.

This has multiple “pillars” 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 “petra”), 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 “aut aut” 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. ( i’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 Peter’s prominency, besides these key passages, througout the Gospels and Acts, and in the Corpus Paulinum too.

 

[pneuma07]

Here is S. Francis de Sales’ expositions on the passages I was referring to.

They are within his work “The catholic controversy”, (which you could find eg here:

www.goodcatholicbooks.org/francis/catholic-controversy.html ), written more than four centuries ago.

CHAPTER IV. FOURTH PROOF. OF THE THIRD PROMISE MADE TO S. PETER: I HAVE PRAYED FOR THEE, &C.* To which of the others was it ever said: I have prayed or thee Peter, that thy faith fail not, and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren (Luke xxii. 32)? Truly they are two privileges of great importance, these. Our Lord, when about to establish the faith in his Church, did not pray for the faith of any of the others in particular, but only of S. Peter as head. For what could be the object of this prerogative ? Satan hath sought you (vos)-you all; but I have prayed for thee Peter,-is not this to place him alone as responsible for all, as head and guide of the whole flock? But who sees not how pregnant this passage is for our purpose?
Let us consider what precedes, and we shall find that Our Lord had declared to his Apostles that there was one of them greater than the others: He, who is the greatest among you… and he that is the leader,- and immediately Our Lord goes on to say to him that the adversary was seeking to sift them, all of them, as wheat, but that still he had prayed for him in particular that his faith should not fail. I pray you, does not this grace which was so peculiar to him, and which was not common to the others, according to S. Thomas, show that S. Peter was that one who was greatest among them? All are tempted, and prayer is made for one alone. But the words following render all this quite evident. For some Protestant might say that he prayed for S. Peter in particular on account of some other reason that might be imagined (for the imagination ever furnishes support enough for obstinacy), not because he was head of the others or because the faith of the others was maintained in their pastor. On the contrary, gentlemen, it is in order that being once converted he might confirm his brethren.
He prays for S. Peter as for the confirmer and support of the others; and what is this but to declare him head of the others? Truly one could not give S. Peter the command to confirm the Apostles without charging him to have care of them. For how could he put this command in practice without paying regard to the weakness or the strength of the others in order to strengthen or confirm them? Is this not to again call him foundation of the Church? If he supports, secures, strengthens the very foundation-stones, how shall he not confirm all the rest? If he has the charge of supporting the columns of the Church, how shall he not support all the rest of the building? If he has the charge of feeding the pastors, must he not be sovereign pastor himself?
The gardener who sees the young plant exposed to the continual rays of the sun, and wishes to preserve it from the drought which threatens it, does not pour water on each branch, but having well steeped the root considers that all the rest is safe, because the root continues to distribute the moisture to the rest of the plant. Our Lord also, having planted this holy assembly of the disciples, prayed for the head and the root, in order that the water of faith might not fail to him who was therewith to supply all the rest, and in order that through the head the faith might always be preserved in the Church.*

 

[pneuma07]

And here is Francis de Sales on the Lord’s words to Peter in John 21

CHAPTER V. FIFTH PROOF. THE FULFILMENT OF THESE: FEED MY SHEEP. *[IWE know that Our Lord gave a most ample procuration and commission to his Apostles to treat with the world concerning its salvation, when he said to them (John xx.) : As the Father hath sent me I also send you . . receive ye the Holy Ghost whose sins you shall forgive, &c. It was the execution of that promise of his which had been made them in general: Whatsoever you shall bind, &c. But it was never said to any one of the other Apostles in particular: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, nor was it ever said to one of the others: Feed my sheep (John xxi. 17). S. Peter alone had this charge. They were equal in the Apostolate, but into to the pastoral dignity S. Peter alone was instituted: Feed my sheep.

There are other pastors in the Church; each must feed the flock which is under him as S. Peter says (I. Ep. v. 2), or that over which h the Holy Ghost hath placed him bishop, according to S. Paul (Acts xx. 28). But, “to which of the others,” says S. Bernard, (De Consid. ii. 8.)" were ever the sheep so absolutely, so universally committed: Feed my sheep?" And to prove that it is truly S. Peter to whom these words are addressed, I betake myself to the holy Word. It is S. Peter only who is called Simon son of John, or of Jona (for one is the same as the other, and Jona is but the short of Joannah); and in order that we may know that this Simon son of John is really S. Peter, S. John bears witness that it was Simon Peter- Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? It is then S. Peter to whom in particular Our Lord says: Feed my sheep. And Our Lord puts S, Peter apart from the others in that place where he compares him with them: Lovest thou me- there is S. Peter on the one side- more than these- there are the Apostles on the other. And although all the Apostles were not present, yet the principal ones were: S. James, S. John, S. Thomas and others. It is only S. Peter who is grieved, it, is: only S. Peter whose death is foretold. What room is there then for doubting that it was to him alone that this word feed my sheep is addressed, a word which is united to all these others ?

Now that to feed the sheep includes the charge of them, appears clearly. For what is it to have the charge of feeding the sheep, but to be pastor and shepherd; and shepherds have full charge of the sheep, and not only lead them to pasture, but bring them back, fold them, guide them, rule them, keep them in fear, chastise them and guard them. In Scripture to rule and to feed the people is taken as the same thing, which is easy to see in Ezekiel (xxxiv.); in the second Book of Kings (v.2) and in several places of the Psalms, where, according to the original there is to feed, and we have to rule: and in fact, between ruling and pasturing the sheep with iron crook there is no difference. In Psalm xxii., verse I, The Lord ruleth me, i.e., as shepherd governeth me, and when it is said that David had been elected to feed Jacob his servant and Israel his inheritance: and he fed them in the innocence of his (Ps. lxxvii.,71,72) it is just the same as if he said to rule, to govern, to preside over. And it is after the same figure of speech that the people are called sheep of the pasture of Our Lord (Ps. xcix. 3) so that, to have the commandment of feeding the Christian sheep is no other thing than to be their ruler and pastor.

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 Lord’s sheep must acknowledge S. Peter, or him who takes Peter’s place, as his shepherd. " If thou lovest me "-I quote S. Bernard (De Consid. ii. 8.) - “feed 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.” 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.

Bless you.

P7*

 

[Pax]

Thank you, Pax. To the point and compelling. Baring any new evidence, i’d have to say this new information about Aramaic having just one word to represent pebble, stone, rock and bolder makes a strong argument. Seems odd to me that people who live in one of the rockiest places on earth would only have one word to describe every rock they meet. Eskimos, for example, have dozens of words for snow:

ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/varia/snow.html

But i’m no Aramaic scholar.

Actually there are several words in Aramaic for rock. You can get an appreciation for this on the following thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=506

The bottom line is, however, that the Aramaic translation of scripture is kepha and kepha in Matthew 16:18.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Actually there are several words in Aramaic for rock. You can get an appreciation for this on the following thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=506

The bottom line is, however, that the Aramaic translation of scripture is kepha and kepha in Matthew 16:18.

Thank you for clearing that up, Pax.



I see that i was misunderstanding. I thought you and others were saying this:
a1. There is only one Aramaic word used for both stone and rock.

b1. Jesus spoke in Aramaic.

d1. Jesus could not have used a different word for rock and Peter, but the same word for both.

Therefore,

1a. Jesus meant that Peter was the one on whom He would build the His church when He said, “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).

Now i see my mistake, for the logical argument you are actually making is this:
a2. There is only one Aramaic word in the Aramaic translation for Matthew’s gospel used for both Peter and rock.

c1. There are some scholars who claim that the Aramaic translations we have of Matthew’s gospel are actually older than the Greek translations of the gospel.

d1. Jesus could not have used a different word for rock and Peter, but the same word for both.

Therefore,

1a. Jesus meant that Peter was the one on whom He would build the His church when He said, “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).
Now, this is a much weaker argument, for it relies heavily on (c1). Premise (c1), we appear to agree, is one for which scholars have not reached a consensus. In fact, a majority of scholars believe that the oldest translations of Matthew’s gospel are in Greek, and that all other translations, including those in Aramaic, were penned after (and translated from) the original Greek. Change premise (c1) and the argument reaches the opposite conclusion:
a2. There is only one Aramaic word in the Aramaic translation for Matthew’s gospel used for both Peter and rock.

c2. There are a majority of scholars who say that the Aramaic translations we have of Matthew’s gospel were translated from the original Greek manuscripts of the gospel.

d2. The original Greek manuscripts of the Matthew’s gospel use different words for rock and Peter (meaning a little stone).

Therefore,

1b. Jesus could not have meant that Peter was the one on whom He would build the His church when He said, “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).

Since (c2) has more support than (c1) reason tells me to trust conclusion (1b) more than conclusion (1a). However, neither argument is conclusive. It’s possible that either conclusion might be the truth.

 

[utunumsint]

The weakness for your second argument is the lack of evidence for D2 and the fact that most scholars, catholic or otherwise, do not believe there was a difference between petros and petra. They base these arguments on the common usage of these words in the time of Christ, and the Koine greek used in those days. (Not to mention the total lack of evidence from patristic, and Gnostic sources.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Taken in isolation, this text is not enough. It suggest multiple different interpretations, one of which is that Peter was given authority over the church if you interpret it from a Catholic perspective.

Agreed (please see my reply to Pax in post 155).

Based on my reading of the church fathers, this text is interpreted as 1-the rock is Peter’s faith, and 2-Peter himself is the rock. Sometimes both these meanings are used.

Thank you for being intellectually honest. It seems the Protestants and Catholics are having the same debate the early church fathers were having regarding the text!

As the church became more and more aware of the role of the bishop of Rome, these Petrine texts and passages became associated with his ministry.

And Protestants argue that as the Catholic church strayed from Christ’s original teaching.

… Before that time, we have the concept of pillars. I’ll break it down

1-Paul, in Galations talks about Peter and James as Pillars “9 and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars.”

James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.

(Galatians 2:9)
Agreed. The apostles James, Peter and John were reputed (or believed) to be pillars.

2-Then in 1 Timothy chapter 3, Paul says “15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” So he uses the word Pillar as the foundation of the truth. You question whether this should be applied to God alone, or to the Church.

Yes, as suggested in another discussion, the grammar of this passage allows for “the pillar and foundation of truth” to be God, rather than the church. The upshot: 1 Timothy 3:15 is as ambiguous as Matthew 16; both offer little help in resolving the question or whether the Catholic Church is an authority in which i should place my full trust.

3-Finally, we have Clement’s quote concerning Paul and Peter as pillars of the church in chapter 5.

And as you pointed out, Clement’s comment is supported by Sacred Scripture. Any Bible-thumping, sincere Protestant (or Protestant-used-to-be, like me) should appreciate that!

…The Protestant argument against this is that the word of God, or God himself is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and I can’t argue this claim, except to say that God chose men, like Peter, James, and Paul, to give us the word of God. So in a very real sense, the word of God depends on them, and the metaphor of pillar can be safely ascribed to the apostles.

Now, if you agree with this concept, that there was a group of people that God chose to be foundations and pillars for his church, then question of authority amongst that group can be addressed and now we can return to Matthew 16.

Given the historical evidence for the two interpretations of the text of Matthew 16, (that excludes big rock, little rock because there is no historical evidence for it), and given our clarified understanding of the structure of the church, we have the following facts to work with.

1a-Peter himself is the rock on which Christ will found his church,
1b-Peter’s faith is the rock on which Christ will found his church,
2-the the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth,
3-the leaders of this church are the apostles, who are also called pillars.
4-Paul consults with these pillars to determine the truth of his Gospel to the Gentiles.

Can we agree to some or all of these facts.

God bless,
Ut

Of the four, (3) is the only one thus far that is without question. You and i agree that another is an unquestionable truth:

1. God is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Starting with (3) and (5) as common ground, how do you think we should proceed, Ut?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

The weakness for your second argument is the lack of evidence for D2 and the fact that most scholars, catholic or otherwise, do not believe there was a difference between petros and petra. They base these arguments on the common usage of these words in the time of Christ, and the Koine greek used in those days. (Not to mention the total lack of evidence from patristic, and Gnostic sources.

God bless,
Ut

I thought someone mentioned that in Greek poetry, petros is used to mean a small stone and petra is used to mean a large rock. Are you saying this is not the case?

 

[utunumsint]

I thought someone mentioned that in Greek poetry, petros is used to mean a small stone and petra is used to mean a large rock. Are you saying this is not the case?

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

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Maybe. Did you mean it literally when saying it? How would I know if you were?

Well, David, you would have to examine what i said in context:

First, there is the cultural context: “Break a leg” is a modern idiom that is used, especially when referring to actors, to mean, “I hope you will do well in your performance.”

Second, there is the immediate context: What kind of expression did i have on my face when i said it? How did the person react? Did i say anything to explain my meaning?

In the case of Matthew 16, there is the cultural context: In Greek poetry (of which Hellenistic Jewish people would be aware) the word petra means big rock and the word petros means little stone.

In the case of Matthew 16, we have no answers to the immediate context. There is no explanation of Jesus, no gestures of Jesus, and no reaction of Peter, that is recorded by the author as evidence as to the meaning of Jesus’ words. Is there?



The result is that you and i are left guessing as to the meaning He intended, and we need to look elsewhere to resolve the issue of the trustworthiness of the Catholic Church.