Prodigal's Isle

[Thing]

Well, i don’t want to commit the fallacy of begging the question.

I’m asking, “How do i know the Catholic Church is an authority i should trust?”

You and others are saying, “Because Jesus says Peter is the rock on which He will build His church.”

So, i ask, “How do i know Peter is the rock?”

And you answer, “Because the Catholic Church says He is!”

In effect, you are asking me to revert to Catholicism for this reason:

The Catholic Church claims it is an authority i should trust, therefore, the Catholic Church is an authority i should trust.

That’s begging the question, and not a good reason to become a Catholic. I need a better reason than that to believe.

Well, you ask the Catholic Church if it is an Authority you can trust.

And the Catholic Church answers; yes, it is an Authority you can trust.

I don’t see what else one can expect from it.

No other Christian organization has existed for the 2000 years since Christ founded the Church.

Perhaps it is just an issue of trust, not of history, evidence, Authority, Doctrines, etc.

How can the Church help you to trust her?

 

[utunumsint]

That being said, i want to see what the logical conclusion of your inference might be. The ancient Greek MSS of Matthew’s gospel are written in the koine dialect and have Jesus using the word petros for Peter and petra for rock. So i’ll ask you a question similar to the one i asked Ut in post 164:

Please tell me, my friend: Which is your opinion?

1. 
   *]The ancient scribes botched the translation or transmission of the original text of Matthew 16.
   *]Matthew was careless in recalling Christ’s words in Matthew 16.
   *]Christ was careless in choosing His words in Matthew 16.
   *]Christ intentionally chose those words stone and rock for a reason in Matthew 16.
   
   I gather you hold (1) to be true, or is there another logical conclusion i have not considered?

1. 
   Greek along with latin is an inflected language, so depending on how a word is used in a sentense, the ending of the word will change.
   
   Nouns also have gender associated with them. Petra is feminine, but Peter is a man. It would be innapropriated to call him Petra. It would be like calling him pierrette.
   
   This would have been self evident to the greeks, so the translators did not err. It would have been a bigger gaff to use petra petra, and Petros was not the proper spelling for a real rock (petra) to which peter was being compared to.
   
   Lithos was never the name chosen for Peter, From the start, we had the name petros along with its translation, Cephas. Matthew could have used adjectives to modify the second petra, but he did not.
   
   God bless,
   Ut

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Well, you ask the Catholic Church if it is an Authority you can trust.

And the Catholic Church answers; yes, it is an Authority you can trust.

I don’t see what else one can expect from it.

No other Christian organization has existed for the 2000 years since Christ founded the Church.

Perhaps it is just an issue of trust, not of history, evidence, Authority, Doctrines, etc.

How can the Church help you to trust her?

Perhaps that’s a good point:
a. The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years.

b. No other Christian organization has existed for as long.

Therefore,

1. The Catholic Church is trustworthy.

It’s certainly true that there is no truth error involved in your inference. Both (a) and (b) certainly appear to be true. But i wonder if i’d be committing a logical error by accepting (1) on the basis of inductive reasoning. If there is another conclusion that can be drawn by (a) and (b) then i’d be in error to say that the logical argument proves (1). Can you think of any other conclusion to which (a) and (b) might lead?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Greek along with latin is an inflected language, so depending on how a word is used in a sentense, the ending of the word will change.

Nouns also have gender associated with them. Petra is feminine, but Peter is a man. It would be innapropriated to call him Petra. It would be like calling him pierrette.

This would have been self evident to the greeks, so the translators did not err. It would have been a bigger gaff to use petra petra, and Petros was not the proper spelling for a real rock (petra) to which peter was being compared to.

Lithos was never the name chosen for Peter, From the start, we had the name petros along with its translation, Cephas. Matthew could have used adjectives to modify the second petra, but he did not.

God bless,
Ut

Ut:

Then, why not just say this?

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this [stone] I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

(Matthew 16:18)

That is, why did Christ not say this?
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Petros, and upon this** petros]** I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Or better yet, He could have ended this controversy before it began by saying this:
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon** [you]** I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

This alternative is crystal clear, rather than clear as mud! So, i keep asking a second question: Was Christ being intentionally ambiguous? Please tell me whether you think He was.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

And i want to say to both of you that i appreciate your putting up with my tough questions. I know that i have the effect on people that Socrates himself professed:

Those of the world in general have not found me out, and therefore they only say of me that I am the strangest of mortals and drive men to their wit’s end.

(Theaetetus, 149)

Though whether this is a positive or adverse effect is, i suppose, a matter for each of you to decide. My hope is that by weeding out all that is logically weak, we’ll end up with a harvest that produces strong reason to believe the truth.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc in Christ,

Originally Posted by Socrates4Jesus

Pax:

Thanks, but i’m more interested in talking with you about what you think, for i value your opinion. In response to my question, i’d say that there is no way to fill in the blanks, wouldn’t you?

 

[Thing]

Though whether this is a positive or adverse effect is, i suppose, a matter for each of you to decide. My hope is that by weeding out all that is logically weak, we’ll end up with a harvest that produces strong reason to believe the truth.

Ok… if you won’t ask the question the other way around, then I will.

So, Christ did not leave a Church. What *did *He do, what did He *leave *us?
No writings came from His hand. Only the Catholic Church selected, and preserved, what it tells you is Sacred Scripture.
So we have done away with the Catholic Church. It no longer exists. It never worked from the beginning, it was never going to work from the beginning either, [lets ignore the fact that its still here, for the moment]. St’s. Paul, Peter, James etc. never really got it together anyway. They went around without any real purpose and preached and then just died, and anything which might have begun to resemble a Church, or something ordered, just died quietly. Christianity died a sad quiet death with the Apostles.

And now a bright new morning has come upon us; we have no Sacred Scriptures we can trust, because the Apostles went off the rails from the start, and besides, there was really no Church for them to write to or speak in anyway nor any Church to preserve their writings or thoughts for us.
Excellent! Did Jesus exist, even, we ask ourselves. We only have the Churches word for that. But if He did, what does it mean. He came to Earth to die… and then what…
…, well, maybe, if SOME, of the New Testament as recorded by the Church IS true then maybe we can make up some…thing… to fill the gap, a sort of synopsis of God, but something which we decide on, regarding content, and we must resolve this story perhaps with a feel good ending and then be done with it. Or perhaps we can just agree to let everyone decide what it all means for themselves, if indeed it means anything at all. If the whole thing is real in the first place… that is, if we can trust the Church which never really existed in the first place…

…and on and on we go…

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Well, you ask the Catholic Church if it is an Authority you can trust.

And the Catholic Church answers; yes, it is an Authority you can trust.

I don’t see what else one can expect from it.

…

Thing:

Sorry for taking so long, but this is an extremely good question that deserves a thoughtful answer!



So, i tried to find something to which i could compare it. I came up with this:

One of my teenage sons is into questioning authority, and has often asked me, “Why should i do what you say?”

The question is essentially the same i’m asking about the Catholic Church: “Why is the Catholic Church the Christian authority i should trust?”

My answer to my son might be this:
a. You should trust me because God says that you should; He has made me an authority over you.

If my son asks why God made me an authority, i might say this:
b. Because you are not mature or experienced enough to make every decision for yourself; my job is to guide you until you become a man who can decide for himself.

Applying this analogy, i come up with this:
c. If it can be demonstrated that God says i should trust the Catholic Church but not some Protestant authority, then i should do so.

or
d. If it can be demonstrated that i don’t have the maturity or mental capacity to correctly decide what God’s will is for me, then i should trust some other authority to make that decision for me. That is, if i’m not capable of figuring out whether the Catholic Church is an authority i should trust, then i should find out who is capable of making that decision for me and do what she says.

Now, (c) is what i’ve been trying to determine by most of the questions i’ve asked. I think my asking the Catholic Church to prove (c) is a legitimate request. Don’t you?

However, should (d) be probable, i think we should explore this idea, as i have not considered that (d) might be true. If you have any reason to think that i’m incapable of deciding for myself that the Catholic Church is trustworthy, please tell me why.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Ok… if you won’t ask the question the other way around, then I will.

So, Christ did not leave a Church. What *did *He do, what did He *leave *us?
No writings came from His hand. Only the Catholic Church selected, and preserved, what it tells you is Sacred Scripture.
So we have done away with the Catholic Church. It no longer exists. It never worked from the beginning, it was never going to work from the beginning either, [lets ignore the fact that its still here, for the moment]. St’s. Paul, Peter, James etc. never really got it together anyway. They went around without any real purpose and preached and then just died, and anything which might have begun to resemble a Church, or something ordered, just died quietly. Christianity died a sad quiet death with the Apostles.

And now a bright new morning has come upon us; we have no Sacred Scriptures we can trust, because the Apostles went off the rails from the start, and besides, there was really no Church for them to write to or speak in anyway nor any Church to preserve their writings or thoughts for us.
Excellent! Did Jesus exist, even, we ask ourselves. We only have the Churches word for that. But if He did, what does it mean. He came to Earth to die… and then what…
…, well, maybe, if SOME, of the New Testament as recorded by the Church IS true then maybe we can make up some…thing… to fill the gap, a sort of synopsis of God, but something which we decide on, regarding content, and we must resolve this story perhaps with a feel good ending and then be done with it. Or perhaps we can just agree to let everyone decide what it all means for themselves, if indeed it means anything at all. If the whole thing is real in the first place… that is, if we can trust the Church which never really existed in the first place…

…and on and on we go…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

But aren’t you using the straw man fallacy, Thing? You’re creating (unintentionally, i’m sure) a weak argument that i’ve never intended and then knocking it down.

 

[Thing]

http://www.greatdreams.com/oz/dorothy_scarecrow.gif

But aren’t you using the straw man fallacy, Thing? You’re creating (unintentionally, i’m sure) a weak argument that i’ve never intended and then knocking it down.

But thats great. You did not intend that. So you need the Catholic Church? But you cannot trust it? But you have to trust it. And are there no alternatives at all?

Is any of that short post correct? What exactly are you asking for? Perhaps somebody will have it if you just ask.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

But thats great. You did not intend that. So you need the Catholic Church? But you cannot trust it? But you have to trust it. And are there no alternatives at all?

Is any of that short post correct? What exactly are you asking for? Perhaps somebody will have it if you just ask.

Heading out with my wife, but i’ll check in later.

Why not start with common ground, and then move me to uncommon ground? We both agree the Sacred Scriptures are authoritative. Let’s talk about biblical passages you believe point to the authority of the Catholic Church.

I think you (or others) were on the right track quoting biblical passages other than Matthew 16:18 that talk about Peter being a pillar of the church. The words of that one verse look great in ginormous gold letters near the ceiling of St. Peter’s Cathedral, but they are too ambiguous to make a conclusive argument.

 

[Pax]

Pax:

Thanks, but i’m more interested in talking with you about what you think, for i value your opinion. In response to my question, i’d say that there is no way to fill in the blanks, wouldn’t you?

My problem with filling in the blanks is answered by the lengthy response I gave by way of the arguments developed by StevenG. My impression is that the analogy that your questions look for are not as good as the parallels developed by StevenG.

Nevertheless, I’ll fill in the blanks with some amplification:

Peter is to the papacy as Moses is to authoritatively leading the people of Israel.

or

Peter is to the papacy as Abraham is to fathering the people of Israel.

The answer to the first question should be self explanatory. Moses was protected from teaching the people of Israel in error and he taught them and led them with authority. Moses was not impeccable and neither was Peter.

The second question is answered in terms of fatherhood. Abraham is as Paul puts it “the father of us all.” Jesus words in Matthew 16:18 echo Isaiah 22 and the keys. In this passage it is stated that Eliakim will be a father to his people. The pope is “papa” and is a a father to God’s people.

Although your question with fill in the blanks has merit, I’m not sure that it is as direct as that of StevenG’s presentation. All of these things do, of course, shed light on the issue.

 

[Pax]

True, that statement about Paul, Pax! Had he continued his education under the great rabbi Gamaliel, he might have been one of the most famous of members of the Sanhedrin.

…
…

That being said, i want to see what the logical conclusion of your inference might be. The ancient Greek MSS of Matthew’s gospel are written in the koine dialect and have Jesus using the word petros for Peter and petra for rock. So i’ll ask you a question similar to the one i asked Ut in post 164:

Please tell me, my friend: Which is your opinion?

1. 
   *]The ancient scribes botched the translation or transmission of the original text of Matthew 16.
   *]Matthew was careless in recalling Christ’s words in Matthew 16.
   *]Christ was careless in choosing His words in Matthew 16.
   *]Christ intentionally chose those words stone and rock for a reason in Matthew 16.
   
   I gather you hold (1) to be true, or is there another logical conclusion i have not considered?

1. 
   Soc in Christ,
   
   I do not believe that the ancient scribes botched the translation or transmission of the original text. I believe that Jesus spoke in Aramaic most of the time and that he used the Aramaic word “kepha” twice in Matthew 16:18. I find strong evidence to this effect, when I read the words of Paul, a fluent greek speaking Jew, calling Peter “Cephas” instead of “Petros.”
   
   Likewise, I do not think Matthew was careless in recalling Christ’s words in Matthew 16.
   
   Likewise, Jesus was not careless with his words either.
   
   I do believe that Jesus deliberately chose the word “kepha” and “kepha” in Matthew 16:18.
   
   The translation into Greek from Aramaic necessitates “petros” and “petra” to satisfy the linguistic rules of gender. That is all that is happening in the Greek. Those that have argued to the contrary have done so out of a bias against the papacy. Many non-Catholic scholars agree with all of this even though they may not agree with the Catholic conclusion that there is succession in the papacy.
   
   James Akin makes a very good argument concerning the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 which goes as follows:
   
   Grammatically and exegetically Peter is the rock. Catholic apologist, James Akin, rightly argues: “In Matthew 16:17-19, Jesus makes three statements. All three begin with an assertion concerning Peter. Each assertion is then followed by a two-part elaboration consisting of a contrast (human/divine revelation, Christ’s/Satan’s activity, heavenly ratification of earthly binding/loosing). This elaboration develops the meaning of the principal assertion.
   The exegetical structure of Matthew 16:17-19
   
   Statement/Assertion 1
   17 "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!
   Elaboration # 1 For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you,
   Elaboration # 2 but my Father who is in heaven.
   
   Statement/Assertion 2
   18 And I tell you, you are Peter,
   Elaboration #1 and on this rock I will build my church,
   Elaboration # 2 and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
   
   Statement/Assertion 3
   19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,
   Elaboration #1 and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,
   Elaboration # 2 and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
   
   The exegetical structure of the passage demands that Peter be the rock:
   
   Statements 1 and 3 have Peter as their principal subject, therefore statement 2 does as well.
   
   Statements 1 and 3 are blessings on Peter, therefore statement 2 is as well. The elaborations in statements 1 and 3 develop the meaning of the assertions in those statements, therefore the elaborations in statement 2 develop the meaning of statement 2.
   
   Faced with these facts, as well as others … I was forced to conclude that Peter is, indeed the rock that Jesus was speaking of. Many Evangelical exegetes admit the same thing. However, they immediately try to block any implications being drawn from this fact. They try to shut down the chain of inference and isolate the datum so that it cannot give rise to any ecclesiological inferences."
   
   I agree with Akin on this one and think that the linguistic argument is very strong.
   
   God bless.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc in Christ,

I do not believe that the ancient scribes botched the translation or transmission of the original text. I believe that Jesus spoke in Aramaic most of the time and that he used the Aramaic word “kepha” twice in Matthew 16:18. I find strong evidence to this effect, when I read the words of Paul, a fluent greek speaking Jew, calling Peter “Cephas” instead of “Petros.”

Likewise, I do not think Matthew was careless in recalling Christ’s words in Matthew 16.

Likewise, Jesus was not careless with his words either.

I do believe that Jesus deliberately chose the word “kepha” and “kepha” in Matthew 16:18.

The translation into Greek from Aramaic necessitates “petros” and “petra” to satisfy the linguistic rules of gender. That is all that is happening in the Greek. Those that have argued to the contrary have done so out of a bias against the papacy. Many non-Catholic scholars agree with all of this even though they may not agree with the Catholic conclusion that there is succession in the papacy.

James Akin makes a very good argument concerning the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 which goes as follows:

Grammatically and exegetically Peter is the rock. Catholic apologist, James Akin, rightly argues: “In Matthew 16:17-19, Jesus makes three statements. All three begin with an assertion concerning Peter. Each assertion is then followed by a two-part elaboration consisting of a contrast (human/divine revelation, Christ’s/Satan’s activity, heavenly ratification of earthly binding/loosing). This elaboration develops the meaning of the principal assertion.
The exegetical structure of Matthew 16:17-19

Statement/Assertion 1
17 "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!
Elaboration # 1 For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you,
Elaboration # 2 but my Father who is in heaven.

Statement/Assertion 2
18 And I tell you, you are Peter,
Elaboration #1 and on this rock I will build my church,
Elaboration # 2 and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Statement/Assertion 3
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,
Elaboration #1 and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,
Elaboration # 2 and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The exegetical structure of the passage demands that Peter be the rock:

Statements 1 and 3 have Peter as their principal subject, therefore statement 2 does as well.

Statements 1 and 3 are blessings on Peter, therefore statement 2 is as well. The elaborations in statements 1 and 3 develop the meaning of the assertions in those statements, therefore the elaborations in statement 2 develop the meaning of statement 2.

Faced with these facts, as well as others … I was forced to conclude that Peter is, indeed the rock that Jesus was speaking of. Many Evangelical exegetes admit the same thing. However, they immediately try to block any implications being drawn from this fact. They try to shut down the chain of inference and isolate the datum so that it cannot give rise to any ecclesiological inferences."

I agree with Akin on this one and think that the linguistic argument is very strong.

God bless.

Thank you for taking the time to give such a thorough and thoughtful answer, Pax. Although i find it astonishing that Jesus would use the word rock instead of stone or foundation (for He surely would have known the controversy it would later cause) i for the moment agree that there is good evidence supporting the idea that Peter is (as His new name suggests) the rock of whom Jesus spoke.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

My problem with filling in the blanks is answered by the lengthy response I gave by way of the arguments developed by StevenG. My impression is that the analogy that your questions look for are not as good as the parallels developed by StevenG.

Nevertheless, I’ll fill in the blanks with some amplification:

Peter is to the papacy as Moses is to authoritatively leading the people of Israel.

or

Peter is to the papacy as Abraham is to fathering the people of Israel.

The answer to the first question should be self explanatory. Moses was protected from teaching the people of Israel in error and he taught them and led them with authority. Moses was not impeccable and neither was Peter.

The second question is answered in terms of fatherhood. Abraham is as Paul puts it “the father of us all.” Jesus words in Matthew 16:18 echo Isaiah 22 and the keys. In this passage it is stated that Eliakim will be a father to his people. The pope is “papa” and is a a father to God’s people.

Although your question with fill in the blanks has merit, I’m not sure that it is as direct as that of StevenG’s presentation. All of these things do, of course, shed light on the issue.

Indeed they do shed light!



Let’s see what they illuminate. Would you say that Abraham, “the father of us all” is a pillar and foundation of the Jewish faith?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

But thats great. You did not intend that. So you need the Catholic Church? But you cannot trust it? But you have to trust it. And are there no alternatives at all? Is any of that short post correct? What exactly are you asking for? Perhaps somebody will have it if you just ask.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Skipper: (Talking about Gilligan) I don’t dislike him. I mean, it’s just that I’d like to kill him every now and then.

 

[Pax]

Thank you for taking the time to give such a thorough and thoughtful answer, Pax. Although i find it astonishing that Jesus would use the word rock instead of stone or foundation (for He surely would have known the controversy it would later cause) i for the moment agree that there is good evidence supporting the idea that Peter is (as His new name suggests) the rock of whom Jesus spoke.

Soc in Christ,

There is a very good reason for Jesus to use the word “rock.” In Matthew 16:13 we are given the setting for what is stated by Jesus in Matthew 16:18. The verse says:

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?”

In Caesarea Philippi there is a huge rock formation. Herod’s son Philip changed the name of the city from Paneas to Caesarea Philippi. Today the place is called Banyas. Herod built a magnificent temple on top of the rock formation in honor of Caesar. The site was an important pagan place of worship and it included a large cave with an extremely deep pool of water inside. The people of that time had no idea just how deep the waters were. This cave was known as the “gates of Hades.” People were sometimes sacrificed by drowning in the pool. It was an important place for pagans, and Jesus was going to conquer all through his Church by way of the merits of his passion, death, and resurrection.

Jesus used this as the “back ground scene” for his statement in Matthew 16:18. The contrast is powerful and it gives more meaning to Jesus words. You can look up Paneas on the net. The place was a site of pagan worship chiefly dedicated to the pagan god Pan. Atop this site was a temple built in honor of Caesar who thought himself to be a god.

I hope this helps.

 

[Pax]

Indeed they do shed light!



Let’s see what they illuminate. Would you say that Abraham, “the father of us all” is a pillar and foundation of the Jewish faith?

That is a fair and reasonable statement.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc in Christ,

There is a very good reason for Jesus to use the word “rock.” In Matthew 16:13 we are given the setting for what is stated by Jesus in Matthew 16:18. The verse says:

In Caesarea Philippi there is a huge rock formation. Herod’s son Philip changed the name of the city from Paneas to Caesarea Philippi. Today the place is called Banyas. Herod built a magnificent temple on top of the rock formation in honor of Caesar. The site was an important pagan place of worship and it included a large cave with an extremely deep pool of water inside. The people of that time had no idea just how deep the waters were. This cave was known as the “gates of Hades.” People were sometimes sacrificed by drowning in the pool. It was an important place for pagans, and Jesus was going to conquer all through his Church by way of the merits of his passion, death, and resurrection.

Jesus used this as the “back ground scene” for his statement in Matthew 16:18. The contrast is powerful and it gives more meaning to Jesus words. You can look up Paneas on the net. The place was a site of pagan worship chiefly dedicated to the pagan god Pan. Atop this site was a temple built in honor of Caesar who thought himself to be a god.

I hope this helps.

Yes, i’ve been there and walked through the excavated ruins, years ago. I never made the connection to Christ’s words. Thanks.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

That is a fair and reasonable statement.

Yes, i think so, too. And what about Moses? Would you also think it fair to say he is a pillar and foundation of the Jewish faith?