What Theological Contributions Have Protestants Made?

[Padrej]

The most fashionable ones, perhaps. And Barth is arguably more important than any modern Catholic theologian (by “important” I mean that his ideas are, and ought to be, taken more seriously and studied more intensely). But next to Barth, the theologians I’d name as most valuable of the past couple centuries are at least as likely to be Catholic as Protestant. Just off the top of my head, I’d name Newman, Von Balthasar, Ratzinger, Dulles (besides Rahner, with whose work I am not very familiar but who is of course very influential). On the Protestant side there’s Bonhoeffer Moltmann, Pannenberg, Yoder. There are a lot of good Protestant theologians in the generation just before mine (people in their 50s and 60s today): Rowan Williams, Oliver O’Donovan, Ephraim Radner, possbly John Millbank and Catherine Pickstock though I know those (and mostly know O’Donovan as well) just by reputation, Stanley Hauerwas, Robert Jenson, Miroslav Volf, N. T. Wright (and yes, most of these are Anglicans, I admit!), just to name a few. I can’t think of Catholic theologians of that generation whose work has deeply impacted me or for whom I have a really high regard based on their reputation, unless we count church historians such as Robert Louis Wilken and Brian Daley (this may say something rather sad about the immediate post-Vatican-II generation, or just about my own prejudices). But among my own contemporaries–the “rising stars”–there’s Telford Work on the one hand and Matthew Levering on the other (sticking to folks I know personally from grad school!).

Agreed, although there are some big Catholic names as well, such as Raymond Brown. Of course you may not like him, but he’s very influential. I actually find that Catholic scholars are often more responsible and sensitive in their use of the historical-critical method. We could put it crudely by saying that they have the Magisterium breathing down their necks, but the more positive way of putting it is that they do scholarship in the context of a rich tradition rather than being seen as themselves the foundation for theology, which is too heavy a burden to put on a mere scholar.

I’d put it the other way round, but maybe I’m not thinking of “popular” books. Or maybe my definition of “solid” is different than yours (perhaps you don’t consider Merton either solid or popular!) I’m not sure what books you have in mind (please not Rick Warren!). I’d put Fr. Benedict Groeschel up against nearly any Protestant devotional writer I can think of, although I want to read Eugene Peterson and my wife loves Dallas Willard, and Richard Foster is pretty good as well.

Or arguably, in some cases, for the worse

Edwin

Curiosity question: What is your beef with Rick Warren? Is it because he uses various translations and paraphrases in his book/books to make a point that most Christians would agree on in the first place? Is it because his church is one of the largest and fastest growing Protestant churches? I have heard Warren attacked “because he changed the Bible in his book The Purpose Driven Life” When asked how, these people usually respond, “because he did not use the King James.” When asked did they even read the book for themselves to see if they agreed with it, 99% of the time the answer was “NO.”
He does explain in his books that he uses all translations to make his points and footnotes which one he uses, so I have NEVER figured out the argument of how “Rick Warren changed the Bible” other than it being pure gossip and bigotry from Satan.

You bring up, Eugene Peterson’s paraphrase of the Bible called the Message, although an excellent work tends to be way off in points of translation as do other paraphrase translations like the Living Bible. I do not doubt his writing ability as I have many of his books and I must say that he writes like a professor that he is. Warren writes like a simple preacher that he is. Who do you think is going to reach more? It will be the simple message.

 

[Contarini]

Curiosity question: What is your beef with Rick Warren?

I don’t particularly have a “beef” with him. I just can’t see that he’s made theological contributions, which is the subject of the thread.

Is it because his church is one of the largest and fastest growing Protestant churches?

I try not to hold it against him, but it’s certainly not a point in his favor.

I am not a Warren basher. There are a lot of things I like about him. It’s not that he’s bad–just a light-weight. If he’s the most Protestants have to offer in terms of theological contributions, then I think we would have to conclude that Protestantism doesn’t amount to much theologically. I appreciate his charitable work immensely, though.

He does explain in his books that he uses all translations to make his points and footnotes which one he uses, so I have NEVER figured out the argument of how “Rick Warren changed the Bible” other than it being pure gossip and bigotry from Satan.

That does sound like a silly accusation. It’s not one I have heard, and it’s certainly not one I would make.

You bring up, Eugene Peterson’s paraphrase of the Bible called the Message,

Actually no, I didn’t. I am familiar with the Message, but I did not mention it here. What I was saying is that I would like to read some of Peterson’s original writings, which I have not yet done. I like the essays I’ve read by him, and I’ve glanced at his books.

I do not doubt his writing ability as I have many of his books and I must say that he writes like a professor that he is. Warren writes like a simple preacher that he is. Who do you think is going to reach more? It will be the simple message.

If you oversimplify Christianity, you may reach a lot of people, but what’s the point of that? If what you are reaching them with is not the strange and deep fullness of the Gospel, then you are shortchanging them.

American evangelicals are the heirs of 2000 years of Christian tradition, 500 years of a form of Christianity dedicated to renewing Christianity through a renewed focus on Scripture and a concentration on the message of salvation through faith in Christ, and more than 200 years of a further renewal movement emphasizing personal experience and conversion. If after all of this, the best evangelicals can do is repeat the “simple message” to themselves over and over, then something is badly wrong. I’m not talking about new converts. I’m talking about people who have spent their lives in the Faith and who supposedly have a living, vibrant relationship with Christ that is somehow lacking or less emphasized in other versions of Christianity. If Rick Warren is the preferred spiritual food of such people, and if a writer as accessible as Peterson is considered too deep and complicated, then maybe evangelicals need to rethink some of their premises about the basis of the Christian Faith.

Perhaps evangelicals need to take Paul’s language about renewal of the *mind *and Jesus’ command to love the Lord with the mindmore seriously, and meditate more deeply on 1 Cor. 3:1ff and Heb. 6:1ff.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Earlier than that–see Romans 6, John 3, etc. Even if you think the Catholic interpretations of these passages are unconvincing, the fact is that there is not one shred of evidence for anything *other *than a salvific view of baptism–so this example is not an example of change at all.

Tertullian’s On Baptism, which refers to the practice disapprovingly but with no indication that it was a new one, probably dates from closer to 200. So we can be quite confident that the practice predated 200.

One could put the shoe on the other foot and ask for the first evidence of the children of Christians being baptized in adulthood or adolescence (rather than infancy). I am not aware of any such evidence before the fourth century. The evidence we have is fully compatible with the theory that Christian children were always baptized as infants, with Tertullian representing a growing discontent with the practice, which culminated in the post-Constantinian era in a widespread habit of delaying baptism. I think the truth is probably somewhere in between–probably both practices can be found quite early. But there’s no way to be sure in the present state of the evidence.

Whatever the heck an “elaborate sacramental sacrifice” is. Have you even bothered to think about these terms you are using, or did you just copy this list from somewhere? This one is too vague even to address. But if you are claiming that the idea of the Eucharist as a sacrifice only started then, you have to deal with the clear parallels 1 Clement draws between OT sacrifices and Christian worship.

The martyrdom account of Perpetua, written around 200, describes prayer for the dead. This is assuming that the prayer for Onesiphorus found in 2 Timothy is not a prayer for the dead. Again, there’s no way to be sure either way. I think the language points toward Onesiphorus being dead, but I admit that this is highly speculative. The question here as with your other examples is: why assume that the practices you prefer must be the earlier ones? If you go into the evidence with that assumption, you will of course be able to make the evidence fit your assumptions.

Tertullian refers to it, again around 200.

That is silly. Christians had been worshiping in Latin since about the second century. It’s as if Protestant propagandists forget that Latin was a living language!

I will not go through the rest of your examples, but you aren’t batting a very good average so far. You need better sources.

Edwin

Sources are mainly pp. 7-9. You know the book.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

Sources are mainly pp. 7-9. You know the book.

GKC

Yes, but he probably didn’t get it directly from Boettner, and I think it’s disconcerting and not very convincing for new folks to be told “you just got this from Boettner” when they probably haven’t even heard of him. Tiresome as it is, it’s probably a good idea to prove first that the “facts” are inaccurate, and then explain how they came to be spread all over cyberspace like a virus.

But no one should be required to do this more than once a year. So for the rest of 2010, someone else can do it!

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Yes, but he probably didn’t get it directly from Boettner, and I think it’s disconcerting and not very convincing for new folks to be told “you just got this from Boettner” when they probably haven’t even heard of him. Tiresome as it is, it’s probably a good idea to prove first that the “facts” are inaccurate, and then explain how they came to be spread all over cyberspace like a virus.

But no one should be required to do this more than once a year. So for the rest of 2010, someone else can do it!

Edwin

No, it is likely a paraphrase of Boettner, and it has a date or so earlier than Boettner’s list.

You’ve done your share, I agree.

GKC

 

[Dokimas]

I can’t think of any theological contributions that Protestants have made to Christianity as a whole.

Can you?

If true, then why is this the case?

I can only speak for myself: I don’t think I’ve made any theological contributions to Christianity as a whole.

 

[LilyM]

Jesus said you are Petros (Gk - a stone) and on this Petra (Gk Rock) I will build my Church. Prior to this Peter had acknowledged Christ as the Son of the living God by revelation of the Father.

Uh, no.

Jesus did NOT speak to the uneducated Jewish fisherman Simon-Peter in Greek - Peter wouldn’t have understood Him.

He DID speak in Aramaic, the common language of Galilee. So what He actually said was ‘you are Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build my Church’. Same word repeated, same gender, same meaning, unlike the Greek translation of it. Changes the significance.

By the way - what’s with the name change if Peter was in no way meant to be ‘Rock’? Why did Jesus so pointedly change his name to ‘Rock’ directly before making a statement about ‘the Rock’ being the foundation of His Church.

Which, by the way, doesn’t mean that Christ isn’t ALSO the Rock any more than Christ’s humanity meant He was any the less divine. It’s not a case of either/or (Peter or Christ, but not both) here.

Thanks for playing, though.

 

[FrJohnB]

I don’t particularly have a “beef” with him. I just can’t see that he’s made theological contributions, which is the subject of the thread.

I try not to hold it against him, but it’s certainly not a point in his favor.

I am not a Warren basher. There are a lot of things I like about him. It’s not that he’s bad–just a light-weight. If he’s the most Protestants have to offer in terms of theological contributions, then I think we would have to conclude that Protestantism doesn’t amount to much theologically. I appreciate his charitable work immensely, though.

That does sound like a silly accusation. It’s not one I have heard, and it’s certainly not one I would make.

Actually no, I didn’t. I am familiar with the Message, but I did not mention it here. What I was saying is that I would like to read some of Peterson’s original writings, which I have not yet done. I like the essays I’ve read by him, and I’ve glanced at his books.

If you oversimplify Christianity, you may reach a lot of people, but what’s the point of that? If what you are reaching them with is not the strange and deep fullness of the Gospel, then you are shortchanging them.
American evangelicals are the heirs of 2000 years of Christian tradition, 500 years of a form of Christianity dedicated to renewing Christianity through a renewed focus on Scripture and a concentration on the message of salvation through faith in Christ, and more than 200 years of a further renewal movement emphasizing personal experience and conversion. If after all of this, the best evangelicals can do is repeat the “simple message” to themselves over and over, then something is badly wrong. I’m not talking about new converts. I’m talking about people who have spent their lives in the Faith and who supposedly have a living, vibrant relationship with Christ that is somehow lacking or less emphasized in other versions of Christianity. If Rick Warren is the preferred spiritual food of such people, and if a writer as accessible as Peterson is considered too deep and complicated, then maybe evangelicals need to rethink some of their premises about the basis of the Christian Faith.

Perhaps evangelicals need to take Paul’s language about renewal of the *mind *and Jesus’ command to love the Lord with the mindmore seriously, and meditate more deeply on 1 Cor. 3:1ff and Heb. 6:1ff.Edwin

First of all renewal of the mind IS about experience. If you only worship God though complication and ritual you have totally missed the point of Christianity. Christianity is at its very core a simple faith; WE are the ones who go out and add to it to make it hard and complex. Maybe a course in basic New Testament Greek would allow you to see St. Paul’s words in clearer light.
Jesus said very SIMPLY, “If I be lited up, I will draw all men unto me.” Kindly tell me how this requires the great theological debates, and complications to reach the masses as you seem to be advocating. Jesus also said, “By this all will know you are my disciples if you have love for one another.” This statement also sounds very simple and non complex. There is nothing “strange” or “deep” about the Gospel unless you make it so in order that a person cannot come to Christ but by YOUR standards.

 

[FrJohnB]

Uh, no.

Jesus did NOT speak to the uneducated Jewish fisherman Simon-Peter in Greek - Peter wouldn’t have understood Him.

He DID speak in Aramaic, the common language of Galilee. So what He actually said was ‘you are Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build my Church’. Same word repeated, same gender, same meaning, unlike the Greek translation of it. Changes the significance.

By the way - what’s with the name change if Peter was in no way meant to be ‘Rock’? Why did Jesus so pointedly change his name to ‘Rock’ directly before making a statement about ‘the Rock’ being the foundation of His Church.

Which, by the way, doesn’t mean that Christ isn’t ALSO the Rock any more than Christ’s humanity meant He was any the less divine. It’s not a case of either/or (Peter or Christ, but not both) here.

Thanks for playing, though.

Correction Lilly
Jesus you can tell by the Greek Manuscripts was speaking BOTH Greek AND Aramaic. He starts out “Blessed are you Simon Bar Jonah” a phrase only used in Aramaic and then changes the name to Petros (Peter) only a Greek word and then uses the Greek word petra for “upon this rock I will build my church.” In Aramaic using Your analogy it would literally read “you are stone and upon this stone I will build my Church” Your interpretation of the Catholic Church’s primacy of Peter from that point on is good.

It is a common misconception that Jesus would have only spoken Aramaic, Greek was the language of commerce, and being trained as a carpenter he would have known that language. He would have also needed to know Hebrew to read the Torah, and Latin if he spoke directly to Pilate. It is interesting that Pilate knew several languages when he wrote the inscription over Christ’s head in 3 languages.

 

[FrJohnB]

I can only speak for myself: I don’t think I’ve made any theological contributions to Christianity as a whole.

Originally Posted by Randy Carson
I can’t think of any theological contributions that Protestants have made to Christianity as a whole.

Can you?

If true, then why is this the case?

If you ask me the original question posted by Randy is a rather “loaded” question. If you think about it, we Catholics are going to counter with, “well they only added on our thought to start with” when a Protestant would not view the matter that way. The point I am making is that we all in our own way make up the Body of Christ and to say that one person’s contribution is not important is wrong in my mind, and wrong in the eyes of St. Paul when he wrote the words, SO I would dare say wrong in the eyes of God.

 

[Contarini]

First of all renewal of the mind IS about experience.

Where in my post did you find me disparaging experience?

If you only worship God though complication and ritual you have totally missed the point of Christianity.

And if you only speak to other people using stereotypes and caricatures you will never communicate with them at all. No one worships God through complication. And as a Catholic priest you of all people should know that ritual is experience–it’s just experience that embraces the whole person (and indeed the whole community) rather than trying to jump straight to the feelings.

Christianity is at its very core a simple faith; WE are the ones who go out and add to it to make it hard and complex.

Christianity is at its core faith in a human being who was also God, which is not a simple concept; and who related to God as his Father while also being one with God. All the “complications” of Christianity come from this. The only way you can get a Christianity that is “simple at its core” is to abandon the Incarnation and the Trinity and become a Unitarian.

Compare Christianity to Islam and you see how complex at its core Christianity is. That’s one of the reasons Christians sometimes convert to Islam–they find the Christian doctrine of God just too darn confusing.

Maybe a course in basic New Testament Greek would allow you to see St. Paul’s words in clearer light.

Maybe you should not make assumptions about what other people do and do not know.

Jesus said very SIMPLY, “If I be lited up, I will draw all men unto me.”

That’s English, not New Testament Greek. I’m not sure where your gratuitous reference to New Testament Greek comes in. And the saying you quote is by no means simple, as is evident from the fact that St. John has to add a little commentary to tell us what it means. It’s a rather bad example for your purpose, because the saying in itself (kago ean hupsotho ek tes ges, pantas elkuso pros hemauton, if you really want to talk about NT Greek), without commentary or explanation, is highly ambiguous (on the face of it, it seems to be a reference to exaltation, but St. John tells us that it is talking about the Cross–which implies the paradox that Jesus’ crucifixion *was *His exaltation).

Kindly tell me how this requires the great theological debates, and complications to reach the masses as you seem to be advocating

I find it astounding that you made it through a Catholic seminary and still need to be informed of this.

In what way is Jesus’ death a “lifting up” that causes people to be “drawn”? What about Jesus’ death “draws” people? Why is *Jesus’ *death so much more important than that of other holy people who have been unjustly killed? How does this “drawing” take place? What role does human free will play in this “drawing”?

These are just a few of the questions raised by the one saying that you misguidedly refer to as “simple.” And all of these questions have huge implications for how we live out the Christain faith. They aren’t dispensable.

Furthermore, the phrase “reach the masses” is not mine. It’s an arrogant and elitist phrase in the first place. Who is to say that the masses need to be reached, rather than sometimes doing the reaching?

The whole concept of “reaching the masses” is flawed from the start.

Jesus also said, “By this all will know you are my disciples if you have love for one another.” This statement also sounds very simple and non complex.

That one is relatively simple, although in the context of the whole Christian faith it’s not without its difficulties (how, for instance, does it apply to the relationship between Catholics and Mormons?).

There is nothing “strange” or “deep” about the Gospel unless you make it so in order that a person cannot come to Christ but by YOUR standards.

Do you believe that Jesus is divine? Do you believe in one God? If you believe both, then you have a very strange and deep faith, as I do, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

And I have said nothing about “standards” governing people coming to Christ. People can come to Christ in all sorts of ways. Precisely because the Gospel is so “strange” and “deep,” a full understanding of it isn’t even possible, let alone necessary for salvation.

An unlearned person can be a great saint, and may have much to teach those of us who have a lot of formal education. It is the simplifiers of Christianity who are elitists, because they make the arrogant assumption that they are the sophisticated ones who need to put the Gospel in a way that people who lack their intelligence can understand. I, on the other hand, assume that I only grasp a tiny bit of the Gospel, if that, and that people without a fraction of my formal education may understand a lot more of it than I do. For that reason, I’m not going to assume that any of my brothers and sisters in Christ is too dumb to understand the richness and complexity of the Christian Faith.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Deconi]

Actually, Christianity is a simple faith. Once you accept the God-man, all explanations become illuminations of the depth of the faith.

The Christ is a carpenter and the son of one. The Apostles were fishermen, leather workers and tax collectors, among other similar trades. Of them all, it is evident that Matt and Luke were perhaps more astute and can be ‘accused’ of being intellects.

Scholars and theologians, in their examinations of Our Lord’s words and ministry, are efforts to illuminate what we understand on faith, not confound us. Yet, we have voluminous treatments of Christianity, devided in understanding, as well as opposers of such a faith. I am not for a moment suggesting that theological thought and treatise is a negative. By no means. But IMO, it should be remembered that we emulate ‘the average bloke’ and not scholars and, in and of itself, is a lesson that scholastic thought or knowledge is one way to reach a decision of following The Carpenter, but is unnecessary to embrace the faith IN Him.

Among The Apostles and early Christians, no scholar can be found, albeit, it can be argued that some of the Jewish priests who may have converted to Christianity were learned compared to the rest. As evident by The Apostles themselves, it is the ‘unlearned’ that understand Him best!

 

[Padrej]

Where in my post did you find me disparaging experience?

 

[Padrej]

FrJohnB Jesus also said, “By this all will know you are my disciples if you have love for one another.” This statement also sounds very simple and non complex

That one is relatively simple, although in the context of the whole Christian faith it’s not without its difficulties (how, for instance, does it apply to the relationship between Catholics and Mormons?).

So now you think that we are NOT supposed to love everyone? OK I thought the Church was “Inclusive” OR does that only apply to those who think with liberal thoughts and not conservative ones when it comes to matters of who do we allow into the church?

Do you believe that Jesus is divine? Do you believe in one God? If you believe both, then you have a very strange and deep faith, as I do, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

IF you have read ANY of Fr John’s other posts you would never make such an inflamatory comment.

And I have said nothing about “standards” governing people coming to Christ. People can come to Christ in all sorts of ways. Precisely because the Gospel is so “strange” and “deep,” a full understanding of it isn’t even possible, let alone necessary for salvation.

An unlearned person can be a great saint, and may have much to teach those of us who have a lot of formal education. It is the simplifiers of Christianity who are elitists, because they make the arrogant assumption that they are the sophisticated ones who need to put the Gospel in a way that people who lack their intelligence can understand.

Oh so you would call Jesus Christ an “elitist” would you? He went after the Pharisees for making the Law so complicated and burdensome on people when it was so simple to begin with.

I, on the other hand, assume that I only grasp a tiny bit of the Gospel, if that, and that people without a fraction of my formal education may understand a lot more of it than I do. For that reason, I’m not going to assume that any of my brothers and sisters in Christ is too dumb to understand the richness and complexity of the Christian Faith.

1 Corinthians 3 speaks to persons such as yourself who only grasps a tiny bit of the Gospel; it refers to them as “babes” and “carnal,” and “ignorant.” I would encourage you to move beyond this.
In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Padrej]

Actually, Christianity is a simple faith. Once you accept the God-man, all explanations become illuminations of the depth of the faith.

The Christ is a carpenter and the son of one. The Apostles were fishermen, leather workers and tax collectors, among other similar trades. Of them all, it is evident that Matt and Luke were perhaps more astute and can be ‘accused’ of being intellects.

Scholars and theologians, in their examinations of Our Lord’s words and ministry, are efforts to illuminate what we understand on faith, not confound us. Yet, we have voluminous treatments of Christianity, devided in understanding, as well as opposers of such a faith. I am not for a moment suggesting that theological thought and treatise is a negative. By no means. But IMO, it should be remembered that we emulate ‘the average bloke’ and not scholars and, in and of itself, is a lesson that scholastic thought or knowledge is one way to reach a decision of following The Carpenter, but is unnecessary to embrace the faith IN Him.

Among The Apostles and early Christians, no scholar can be found, albeit, it can be argued that some of the Jewish priests who may have converted to Christianity were learned compared to the rest. As evident by The Apostles themselves, it is the ‘unlearned’ that understand Him best!

AMEN
could not have said it better.

 

[jmcrae]

Correction Lilly
Jesus you can tell by the Greek Manuscripts was speaking BOTH Greek AND Aramaic. He starts out “Blessed are you Simon Bar Jonah” a phrase only used in Aramaic and then changes the name to Petros (Peter) only a Greek word and then uses the Greek word petra for “upon this rock I will build my church.” In Aramaic using Your analogy it would literally read “you are stone and upon this stone I will build my Church” Your interpretation of the Catholic Church’s primacy of Peter from that point on is good.

It is a common misconception that Jesus would have only spoken Aramaic, Greek was the language of commerce, and being trained as a carpenter he would have known that language. He would have also needed to know Hebrew to read the Torah, and Latin if he spoke directly to Pilate. It is interesting that Pilate knew several languages when he wrote the inscription over Christ’s head in 3 languages.

We see St. Peter referred to as “Kepha” or “Cephas” in the Book of Acts - St. Luke, therefore, had been introduced to him as “Kepha” - the Aramaic word for rock - so it seems to follow that what Jesus had named him was in fact Kepha; not Petros.

We call him “Peter” because, being English-speakers, we learned his name from King James’ translation from the Greek edition of the Gospel of Matthew, which has “Petros”.

 

[LilyM]

We see St. Peter referred to as “Kepha” or “Cephas” in the Book of Acts - St. Luke, therefore, had been introduced to him as “Kepha” - the Aramaic word for rock - so it seems to follow that what Jesus had named him was in fact Kepha; not Petros.

We call him “Peter” because, being English-speakers, we learned his name from King James’ translation from the Greek edition of the Gospel of Matthew, which has “Petros”.

Exactly. Paul, I think, uses Cephas at some times and Peter at others - which is understandable, as he was a highly educated man and was sometimes writing to Greeks.

It is a common misconception that Jesus would have only spoken Aramaic, Greek was the language of commerce, and being trained as a carpenter he would have known that language. He would have also needed to know Hebrew to read the Torah, and Latin if he spoke directly to Pilate. It is interesting that Pilate knew several languages when he wrote the inscription over Christ’s head in 3 languages.

I never said Jesus spoke only Aramaic - but He certainly wouldn’t have spoken anything else with Simon! For one thing Simon wasn’t a tradesman, but a fisherman.

For another - I can best put it this way. I know some French, my father knows quite a bit more. But my native language is English, and he’s much more fluent in English than French as he’s lived in an English-speaking country for 40 years. The logical result is that even though we COULD possibly speak some French to each other, we don’t. Ever. Simply because for both of us English is far easier and more natural.

‘The language of commerce’? Sure - when you’re engaging in commerce with foreigners. English is the language of commerce in the same way today, but do you imagine any native Italian speaker, even in a business context, is going to speak anything other than Italian to any other native Italian speaker?

Pilate knew several languages? Based on the sign placed over Jesus’ head? It’s more than possible that he either didn’t write the sign personally or didn’t do so alone. He DID have scribes and secretaries for the purpose of doing such things, undoubtedly. Even St Paul makes a point of boasting that one of his letters was written with his own hands, and only one among all that he wrote.

 

[FrJohnB]

We see St. Peter referred to as “Kepha” or “Cephas” in the Book of Acts - St. Luke, therefore, had been introduced to him as “Kepha” - the Aramaic word for rock - so it seems to follow that what Jesus had named him was in fact Kepha; not Petros.

We call him “Peter” because, being English-speakers, we learned his name from King James’ translation from the Greek edition of the Gospel of Matthew, which has “Petros”.

It is TRUE in the Book of Acts that Peter is refered to as “Cephas”, his Aramaic name, that does not take away from the fact that in the Matthew passage that it DOES NOT use the Aramaic words for Peter but only the Greek as Jesus was doing this to make the emphasis. Matthew uses Simon bar Jonah followed by the Greek words. Notice we Catholics DO NOT establish the primacy of Peter from Luke it is because of the emphasis of the Matthew passage. The Matthew passage in question does not use that Cephas or Kepha in it, that is why I wrote a note of correction in the first place.

To LilyM I never said you claimed that Jesus only spoke Aramaic, I said it is a common misconception. Please do not read into that more than is there. But to say Peter never spoke Greek woul also be wrong as his epistles are clearly in a Greek style and to be a fisherman you had to trade with other people in a commerce situation, hence the need to speak Greek

BTW it was translated Peter long before the King James also so it would be a misconception to blame the King James for our calling him Peter today…

 

[FrJohnB]

Actually, Christianity is a simple faith. Once you accept the God-man, all explanations become illuminations of the depth of the faith.

The Christ is a carpenter and the son of one. The Apostles were fishermen, leather workers and tax collectors, among other similar trades. Of them all, it is evident that Matt and Luke were perhaps more astute and can be ‘accused’ of being intellects.

Scholars and theologians, in their examinations of Our Lord’s words and ministry, are efforts to illuminate what we understand on faith, not confound us. Yet, we have voluminous treatments of Christianity, devided in understanding, as well as opposers of such a faith. I am not for a moment suggesting that theological thought and treatise is a negative. By no means. But IMO, it should be remembered that we emulate ‘the average bloke’ and not scholars and, in and of itself, is a lesson that scholastic thought or knowledge is one way to reach a decision of following The Carpenter, but is unnecessary to embrace the faith IN Him.

Among The Apostles and early Christians, no scholar can be found, albeit, it can be argued that some of the Jewish priests who may have converted to Christianity were learned compared to the rest. As evident by The Apostles themselves, it is the ‘unlearned’ that understand Him best!

Great answer!!! Christianity is so simple. Why else would Jesus say, “become as a litle child” if He didn’t think the faith could’t be so simplistic.

Thank you also to Padrej for answering Edwin for me. I was about to see if he knew about the hymn “Lift Him Up” to see if he was being totally inclusive in his acceptance of the African American faith practices. Now that you have let the proverbial cat out of the bag I can see by his responce that he is unfamilar with African American Faith practices and more concerned with the intelectual side of faith. If he was a person who experienced faith he would have not urgued intelectually on the point that he thought I misquoted a peice of scripture and on how hard it is to understand the complexities of John’s gospel.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Uh, no.

Jesus did NOT speak to the uneducated Jewish fisherman Simon-Peter in Greek - Peter wouldn’t have understood Him.

He DID speak in Aramaic, the common language of Galilee. So what He actually said was ‘you are Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build my Church’. Same word repeated, same gender, same meaning, unlike the Greek translation of it. Changes the significance.

By the way - what’s with the name change if Peter was in no way meant to be ‘Rock’? Why did Jesus so pointedly change his name to ‘Rock’ directly before making a statement about ‘the Rock’ being the foundation of His Church.

Which, by the way, doesn’t mean that Christ isn’t ALSO the Rock any more than Christ’s humanity meant He was any the less divine. It’s not a case of either/or (Peter or Christ, but not both) here.

Thanks for playing, though.

sorry, i dont remember ever have posted this.

**“Without truth, charity ends up in sentimentalism. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled arbitrarily. It is the fatal risk of love in a culture without truth. It falls prey to the emotions and contingent opinions of the individuals, an abused and distorted word, to the point of signifying the contrary.” BXVI **