Question on Matthew 5:29

[Cathoholic]

tgGodsway . . .

" and I ALSO say to you…v18 " is a response to Peter’s answer to “who do men say I am?”
you are petros, =peter … (In the same way that Peter said, “You are the Christ…” Jesus said you are(now) petros, =rock. ) … and on this ROCK = Petra= larger foundational rock in a neutered form, suggesting a significant change in thought!.. I will build …

What makes you think Jesus was speaking in Greek to His Apostles here tgGodsway?

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[tgGodsway]

I am pro Christian tradition as long as it does not alter divine scripture. If it speak beyond the perameters of N.T. doctrine, then tradition is of men and not of God. For instance, the N.T. writers all agree with Paul who said “all have sinned and fall short…” tradition came along years later to say, outside of Christ there is another who had no sin. Mary. She was born without sin it is said. Did Paul make a mistake or the pope who decreed it in 1959? It is a gross departure from the holy Spirit’s teaching.

 

[De_Maria]

I am pro Christian tradition as long as it does not alter divine scripture.

Then why do you adhere to Sola Scriptura?

If it speak beyond the perameters of N.T. doctrine, then tradition is of men and not of God.

Same question.

For instance, the N.T. writers all agree with Paul who said “all have sinned and fall short…” tradition came along years later to say, outside of Christ there is another who had no sin.

First of all, if you are reading that literally, as in “all means all without exception”, then you are including Jesus Christ. That would make your interpretation false.

In addition, if you think that “all means all without exception”, you are also including children who have died in the womb, those who have died in childbirth, those who have died at an early age before they could have committed any sins and many more.

Second, you also are contradicting Romans 5:14, which says, "14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

Third, you also don’t realize that St. Paul is making a direct reference to a very particular kind of human being which is mentioned in the Psalms.

Psalm 14:1[ Psalm 14 ] [ For the director of music. Of David. ] The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.

Mary. She was born without sin it is said.

Scripture says that she is Kecharitomene. Ever filled with grace. And therefore, if she was always filled with grace, there is no room for sin. Oh and she was CONCEIVED without sin and perpetually remained without sin.

Did Paul make a mistake or the pope who decreed it in 1959? It is a gross departure from the holy Spirit’s teaching.

Neither made a mistake. It is your interpretive paradigm which is at fault.

 

[tgGodsway]

No. Jesus Christ did not tell you to appeal to the Scriptures. He appointed the Church to Teach you His commands and the Scriptures instruct you to listen to your rulers in the Church. There is no instruction from Jesus Christ for you to appeal to the Scriptures alone. There is no instruction from the Scriptures for you to appeal to Scripture alone. You disobey Christ when you do so.

De_Maria. Agreed. Traditions which originated from Jesus Christ and/or the Apostles all jell with holy scripture. There is no problem with that. This is why I say the traditions are only carbon copies of their doctrine. But you know as well as I do that much of the CC doctrine today, came centuries later and flatly contradict those biblical traditions and scriptures, as I mentioned in an earlier post about Mary.

Secondly, you are mistaken. Jesus DID appeal to the scriptures on many occasions. It is irrelevant they didn’t know their own letters would be chosen by God to also be scripture. The scriptures itself make the claim of inspiration when Paul said, “ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God and profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction. etc…2nd. Tim.3:16” Notice what Paul didn’t say. He didn’t say all doctrines taught to the Church from the Church, contrary to, or in addition to, the Apostles doctrine, should be obeyed. To the contrary!

Christian Doctrine originated from the Apostles and Jesus Christ the chief Apostle. Eph. 2:20,
The foundation has been laid and so everyone outside of the Apostolic circle must “… TAKE HEED HOW HE BUILDS…” 1st. Cor. 3:10b This command includes the Catholic Church! You want to cozy up to the Apostolic circle as to say, we are all apart of their group. No way Hose’! Earlier Paul just rebuked this Church for saying, "I am of Paul!, and another, I am of Apollos!..I am of Cephas (Peter!) It was a rebuke against their childish debates over people in the ministry.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria. Agreed. Traditions which originated from Jesus Christ and/or the Apostles all jell with holy scripture. There is no problem with that. This is why I say the traditions are only carbon copies of their doctrine. But you know as well as I do that much of the CC doctrine today, came centuries later and flatly contradict those biblical traditions and scriptures, as I mentioned in an earlier post about Mary.

None do. All Catholic Doctrines are in line with Scripture. I’ve responded to your post about Mary.

Secondly, you are mistaken. Jesus DID appeal to the scriptures on many occasions.

When did I say that He didn’t appeal to the Scriptures? Please quote me. There’s no need for me to address this paragraph since you’re mistaken on it’s premise.

Christian Doctrine originated from the Apostles and Jesus Christ the chief Apostle. Eph. 2:20, …

That was a discussion over who baptized whom. This paragraph also does not address the challenge I gave you to show me where Scripture says that you are to adhere to Scripture alone.

 

[tgGodsway]

No. Jesus Christ did not tell you to appeal to the Scriptures. He appointed the Church to Teach you His commands and the Scriptures instruct you to listen to your rulers in the Church.

Here it is.

 

[tgGodsway]

This paragraph also does not address the challenge I gave you to show me where Scripture says that you are to adhere to Scripture alone.

De_Maria. I don’t make the claim the bible says scripture alone. It just says all scripture is inspired by God given for doctrine… etc. Here is what it doesn’t say, It doesn’t say all scripture and tradition is given by God for doctrine. The traditions were an outflow of the Apostles doctrine and practice, but not all traditions today come from the Apostles doctrine as you claim. Most of them in the CC came centuries later by people far removed from the Apostolic circle.

Surely, whether it is O.T. or New, the books of the bible were given to preserve in each generation without error. Oral traditions unrelated to Christian doctrine, on the other hand, were subject to society’s customs based on what area a church may have been planted. But doctrine taught in any Church given, via “tradition” must have its roots in the doctrines of the Apostolic circle.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria. I don’t make the claim the bible says scripture alone.

Ok.

It just says all scripture is inspired by God given for doctrine… etc.

Ok.

Here is what it doesn’t say, It doesn’t say all scripture and tradition is given by God for doctrine.

Yes. It does. Let’s look at the words “all scripture”. Does that mean that the words we are writing right now, are inspired by God? Yes or no? How about a school textbook. Is it inspired by God?

Obviously, the answer is, “no”.

So, not all Scripture is inspired by God. So, then, which Scripture is inspired by God?

Well, what does “inspired by God” mean? Does it mean that God breathed the words out and they fell into a book which we call the Bible? No.

It means that Holy men of God were inspired to write the Scriptures. But what else does Scripture reveal about this process? Let me show you:

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

First, the Holy Spirit inspired the Holy men to SPEAK. Then, to write down all that they were inspired to speak. Therefore, God inspired men to pass down Tradition by speaking. Then, later, to write down those Traditions.

Therefore, the “all Scripture” which St. Paul is talking about, is that which God inspired Holy men to pass down first as Tradition and then to write down into Scripture.

The traditions were an outflow of the Apostles doctrine and practice, but not all traditions today come from the Apostles doctrine as you claim.

Yes, they do. If you have faith in the Holy Spirit, you would believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church into all truth, just as Jesus proclaimed it would.

Most of them in the CC came centuries later by people far removed from the Apostolic circle.

No. What you are witnessing is the depths to which the Holy Spirit has taken the understanding of the Church. They seem far removed to you, because your man made tradition ditched the Traditions of Jesus Christ, long ago. Therefore, you don’t see the connection.

Surely, whether it is O.T. or New, the books of the bible were given to preserve in each generation without error.

Sure. But as should be obvious to a person in the midst of a man made tradition where false interpretations of Scripture run amok, it takes more than an inerrant book to pass on the Word of God without error. It also takes an infallible Teacher.

Oral traditions unrelated to Christian doctrine, on the other hand, were subject to society’s customs based on what area a church may have been planted. But doctrine taught in any Church given, via “tradition” must have its roots in the doctrines of the Apostolic circle.

Only the Catholic Church has its roots in the Apostolic Circle. And Her Doctrines bear witness to that fact.

 

[Gorgias]

The Matthew passage does not say "… you are petros and upon this petros I will build my Church!..
This is what it needs to say in order for your position to be valid. It does not and there is no Greek text that says it does.

Hang on a second – you’re contradicting yourself here! Do you realize what you just stepped into?

You claim that in Koine Greek, names of men are always in the masculine. That’s true (AFAIK)! What that means is that they take non-masculine foreign names and force Greek masculine endings on them. For example, look at Acts 18. The man mentioned there is ‘Aquila’. It’s a Latin name, which means ‘eagle’, and it’s feminine in case. In Latin, that’s no big deal. However, in Koine Greek, you have to make it masculine, so they slap a masculine ending on it: the name in Greek is Ἀκύλας (that is, ‘Akulas’).

Now, they didn’t translate it (otherwise, the guy’s name would have been presented as Ἀετός, right?) – instead, they simply made it fit to Greek conventions. Male guy, feminine word – change the feminine word to masculine, and you’re all set! No confusion – ‘Akulas’ is the Greek form of the feminine ‘aquila’.

How does this help the Catholic position, and harm yours? Because the same dynamic is in play in Mt 16:18!!! Jesus is renaming Simon, and He names him “the Rock”. But, since ‘rock’ is feminine (‘petra’) in Greek, the Greek version of the conversation cannot name Peter ‘Petra’! Therefore, using the same Greek convention, ‘petra’ becomes ‘Petros’! No confusion, no sleight-of-hand, no reference to this-thing-over-here-that’s-feminine and this-other-guy-over-there-who’s-masculine! One and the same… but using the Greek convention, the guy’s name has to take on a masculine ending.

Reflect on that tg… and see if your conclusions aren’t based on the text, but rather, on your preconceived doctrinal leanings.

Blessings!
G.

I will tell you why these arguments are all false claims. Jesus was speaking Aramaic when he spoke this verse. He called Peter Kepha. Kepha means rock. Cephas is the transliterated word Kepha from Aramaic into Greek.

(p.s., to @irenaeuslyons: regardless which language Jesus spoke, the text is in Greek, and therefore, it conforms to Greek standards of orthography. In Greek, you simply spell men’s names with masculine grammatical endings. It’s just that simple.)

 

[tgGodsway]

Yes, they do. If you have faith in the Holy Spirit, you would believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church into all truth, just as Jesus proclaimed it would.

Your statement here almost sounds like you believe the Church cannot be in error. Of course it can!.. If “Church leaders” were unable to be in error, then they wouldn’t have spent so much time making corrections inside the Church. Paul, John, Peter and others were all found correcting people and doctrine in the Church. Why? Because members of the Church were in error. But those Apostles had the authority to correct the Church, why?.. because they were the very founders of the Church.

Ephesians 2:20 tells us all teaching came from the Apostles and Jesus Christ because they were chosen to be the foundation. Yes the Holy Spirit is guiding His Church into all the truth. Agreed!.. and that divine truth comes only from it’s foundation, not any so-called father who lived centuries later and decreed matters contrary to what has already been established by the first century founders. There is no succession of apostolic voice evolving over generations of time. Those voices have spoken and the N.T. message has been completed. All that is left is to preach that message as a completed work!

 

[Gorgias]

Your statement here almost sounds like you believe the Church cannot be in error.

I think that any thoughtful, knowledgeable Catholic would only make the claim that the Catholic Church cannot be in error in matters of faith and doctrine. Other than that? Humans in the Catholic Church are just as prone to error as any other person.

 

[De_Maria]

Your statement here almost sounds like you believe the Church cannot be in error. Of course it can!..

Before we change topic, let’s go back to what were discussing.

Here is what it doesn’t say, It doesn’t say all scripture and tradition is given by God for doctrine.

Do you agree, that first men were inspired to pass down Sacred Tradition by speaking and afterwards to write those Teachings down in Scripture? Yes or no.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

Now, let me backtrack a bit so we can get the full context of your objection.

You said:

The traditions were an outflow of the Apostles doctrine and practice, but not all traditions today come from the Apostles doctrine as you claim.

I replied:
Yes, they do. If you have faith in the Holy Spirit, you would believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church into all truth, just as Jesus proclaimed it would.

Now, you object very strongly:

Your statement here almost sounds like you believe the Church cannot be in error.

I believe the Holy Spirit is leading the Church.

Of course it can!..

You don’t believe that the Holy Spirit can guide the Church into all truth?

If “Church leaders” were unable to be in error, then they wouldn’t have spent so much time making corrections inside the Church.

The Holy Spirit guided the corrections and prevented the errors from overcoming the Church.

Paul, John, Peter and others were all found correcting people and doctrine in the Church. Why?

Because the Holy Spirit inspired them to do so.

Because members of the Church were in error.

Yeah. I believe we see that also mentioned in Scripture.

1 Corinthians 11:19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

But, what does that have to do with the Holy Spirit guiding the Church into all truth?

But those Apostles had the authority to correct the Church, why?.. because they were the very founders of the Church.

Lol! Really? You think they could have done it without God? We believe it is because of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Ephesians 2:20 tells us all teaching came from the Apostles and Jesus Christ because they were chosen to be the foundation. Yes the Holy Spirit is guiding His Church into all the truth. Agreed!..

You don’t sound like it. At which point do you think the Holy Spirit stopped leading the Church into all truth and Luther had to step in to help the Holy Spirit?

and that divine truth comes only from it’s foundation, not any so-called father who lived centuries later and decreed matters contrary to what has already been established by the first century founders.

Oh, so, the Holy Spirit was not guiding the Church Fathers, in your opinion. Why? Were they not good enough?

There is no succession of apostolic voice evolving over generations of time.

Why? Because you say so? Scripture says that there is succession.

John 17:20Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

So, when do you say that it stopped?

Those voices have spoken and the N.T. message has been completed. All that is left is to preach that message as a completed work!

So, you reject the idea that the Holy Spirit will guide and is guiding the Church into all truth?

 

[tgGodsway]

There are too many points to cover at once. I begin to cover one and five more need to be addressed. So I give short and shallow answers. Then others chime in with more of the same.
Let me just say, I do not see “Church” as an institution as much as a collection of believers out in the public with their faith. The Church is a set of people who come out into the public from within the mystical universal body.

The Holy Spirit does lead the Church into the truth, but some more than others. We are not all receptive to His word at all times. Not every believer handles the truth well, mostly because of hardened hearts in some cases.

As an institution God will give a group or a denomination of people a set of truths like He did with Martin Luther on salvation. He saw how eternal salvation is a free gift apart from good works. This truth was always there right in front of him in his bible, but he was blinded to it as a Catholic. But one day, the Holy Spirit gave Him a N.T. revelation.

But that doesn’t mean the Lutherans all have all the truth. To the contrary, most of them have drifted back to a more legalistic form of salvation. Many of the protestant denominations have drifted back toward a Catholic view of salvation, at least in its essence.

The point is, truth comes to individual people, and, to groups of like mind, as the Holy Spirit draws them. And not all agree to every point, even the Catholics. I know you have a standard answer sent down from the CC. But human nature isn’t as unified as you claim, at least not yet this side of heaven. Catholics are just as diverse amongst yourselves on certain topics as any other. And the doctrines you are willing to defend, you do so only because of the many threats of hell if you don’t believe it exactly the way the official position is. Fear and intimidation keep all of you in line doctrinally.

I know this first hand. I have three siblings all raised in Catholic school. My oldest sister is an atheist today because of what the Nuns did to her. But bless God, the rules were all kept so that no one is in danger of hell. But my sister felt she couldn’t measure up to the perceived standard, so she married an atheist.

Over the next few days I will go back over each of your points De_Maria. Not today. Blessings to you.

 

[De_Maria]

Over the next few days I will go back over each of your points De_Maria. Not today. Blessings to you.

See you then. Blessings to you, as well.

 

[tgGodsway]

Hey De_Maria.

I’ve been doing a little homework from a web site called Christian History for Every Man. They have a video series on the subject of Pope. I thought of you because of our conversations. Actually the video series are quite challenging to both the Protestant and Catholic points of view on the pope. I’m inviting you to find this web site and look for a series of teachings on the Pope. It is a study of 1st. and 2nd. century history. Click each video to hear both biblical and historical records of that time. I hope you will find it.
Blessings to you

 

[De_Maria]

Hey De_Maria.

I’ve been doing a little homework from a web site called Christian History for Every Man. They have a video series on the subject of Pope. I thought of you because of our conversations. Actually the video series are quite challenging to both the Protestant and Catholic points of view on the pope. I’m inviting you to find this web site and look for a series of teachings on the Pope. It is a study of 1st. and 2nd. century history. Click each video to hear both biblical and historical records of that time. I hope you will find it.
Blessings to you

No thanks, tg, I found the pearl of great price. I’m not looking to trade it in for something else.

Blessings to you, as well.

 

[tgGodsway]

Okay De_Maria. You wouldn’t want historical facts to support and back up what you believe now would you? I was always taught, that All truth is God’s Truth. … but okay… Blessings.

 

[tgGodsway]

Gorgius,. Thank you for your perspective. But even if you were right on the gender issue of Matthew, it still does not make the case for Peter to be, as you call it, the vicar of Christ. Here is why. Doctrine is not developed with one verse of scripture from one supposed witness. I would think you know this. Ephesians 2:20 clearly teaches that the church is built upon the Apostles with Jesus Christ as chief. Your take on Matthew contradicts. Who else in the Apostolic circle agrees with you and backed it up by their inspired writings?

 

[tgGodsway]

Then why do you adhere to Sola Scriptura?

If it speak beyond the perameters of N.T. doctrine, then tradition is of men and not of God.

Same question.

For instance, the N.T. writers all a
De_Maria, the word of God exhorts us to practice obeying the truth as the Apostles taught it. This is do. If there is a tradition that further validates the word, I’m in!