What Theological Contributions Have Protestants Made?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tweetymom said:
I am thankful everyday for Gods word the Bible.
Click to expand...
One would think that even Catholics with English Bibles would be. And even all those very poor Catholics who have access to cheaply printed Bibles in their own languages.
 
Your post is must uncharitable
Padrej said:
jmcrae;6251277:
** But if you wish to live in your happy world believing what you are and not what the Catholic Church has been teaching or 90% or Protestants be my guest.**
Click to expand...
Maybe this link from a catholic apologetics site would help you
catholicapologetics.org/ap050200.htm

This remark was totally unnecessary to your point.
From your link
Jesus renamed Simon bar-Jonah for a purpose. The literalness of the play on words–a linguistic pun–is made clear. A pun is a pun because of the literalness of the play on words. This was precisely what Jesus was saying. “You are Rocky and on this rock I will build my church.” His intent becomes clear when we examine the Aramaic in which language Jesus addressed Peter.
Click to expand...
.Note that the word for Peter, ke’pha’, is the same word for rock. The words are equated: Peter is the rock.

The core of the meaning appears to rest in the two words for a “rock.” If Matthew recorded that Christ used the same word both for (1) the proper name of Peter and (2) the foundation on which Christ says he will build the church, then an interpretation follows that the foundation of the church is Peter.

Because the Word of God as recorded in Matthew had to be intelligible in its literalness for all people including the more simple people of the early centuries of the Church, a more involved interpretation demanding extensive hermeneutics and linguistic acumen would be unwarranted. Ultimately, when there are differing interpretations, the principle question then becomes, “by what authority is the truth appealed.”
Click to expand...
 
Oh, and did I mention the crafting of the Constitution of the United States?
 
adrift said:
Your post is must uncharitable
Click to expand...
Jesus renamed Simon bar-Jonah for a purpose. The literalness of the play on words–a linguistic pun–is made clear. A pun is a pun because of the literalness of the play on words. This was precisely what Jesus was saying. “You are Rocky and on this rock I will build my church.” His intent becomes clear when we examine the Aramaic in which language Jesus addressed Peter.
.Note that the word for Peter, ke’pha’, is the same word for rock. The words are equated: Peter is the rock.
Click to expand...
The core of the meaning appears to rest in the two words for a “rock.” If Matthew recorded that Christ used the same word both for (1) the proper name of Peter and (2) the foundation on which Christ says he will build the church, then an interpretation follows that the foundation of the church is Peter.
Click to expand...
Because the Word of God as recorded in Matthew had to be intelligible in its literalness for all people including the more simple people of the early centuries of the Church, a more involved interpretation demanding extensive hermeneutics and linguistic acumen would be unwarranted. Ultimately, when there are differing interpretations, the principle question then becomes, “by what authority is the truth appealed.”
Click to expand...
The last line and paragraph is what makes the point. The Problem is we do not know 100% that Jesus DID speak Aramaic here. It stands to reason because of the Greek manuscripts that he did not only at this moment. This was the point that both Padrej and I had been trying to hammer home. To say there were NO Greek speakers around (as jmcrea believes) would be ludicrous as Phillip would certainly have been one. Greek was the language of commerce of the day and if you wanted to be successful in ANY business you needed to know the language so it would stand to reason that Peter and Andrew being fisherman would know the language as well. Matthew being a Tax collector would probably know the language. The point is there were enough disciples around that spoke the language to make those words relevant.

In the first part of the article cited it uses the Greek that Matthew uses. This is unique to Matthew and the Catholic church uses this to establish the Primacy of Peter. it would not have the bite that it does IF it was written in Aramaic as the words are basically the same. Peter in his epistles, goes on to use these same words of “Petra” and “Petros.” When he speaks of the church being made up of “living stones” he uses the words “petra” indicated that he understood that Christ was using words that were NOT Aramaic. **Peter in his epistles did not use “Cephas” or “Kepha” in these areas, he mirrored what was in the Matthew passage, **so it is far likelier that Jesus DID speak Greek at THAT moment. When you look at the Matthew passage and its mirror passages in Peter’s Epistles the wording is almost identical, while other places Peter is given his Aramaic name, by this was CAN conclude that Jesus DID speak Greek to Peter at that point.

I hope this makes it clearer. These were the points that Padrej and I were both trying to drive home. When you study the original Greek you must also take the passages and study them as part of the whole to get their deeper meaning. When you look at 1 Peter 2 in the light of the Matthew passage they mirror one another. They do not have the Aramaic wording that lingers in other areas. This makes the argument to Jesus speaking Greek in Matthew 16 all the stronger.

Neither Padrej or I disagree with anyone that Jesus spoke Aramaic, our point was, because of the wording here, he spoke Greek. Because of this people went ballistic claiming that no Greek speakers were around when we know that several of the Disciples could speak the language as proven by other Gospels and church tradition. They claimed Matthew was only written to Greeks when the book clearly had a Jewish audience as proven by a Catholic apologetics site and yet we are the ones getting called out as being uncharitable and making comments on this thread unbecoming of a priest of the Catholic church. Nobody has EVER been able to answer the question that if Matthew’s Gospel was supposedly written in Aramaic first why does it have so strong of a Greek influence only in this one area of Matthew 16? The answer lies in that the Aramaic text would have used Greek also. Nobody has ever answered this question as long as I have ever been on this thread or others similar when this subject comes up. But yet they will argue took and nail that Jesus was not a Greek speaker. Can you tell me where the charity is in that??? Correct me if I am wrong but if Jesus being both Divine AND Human, if He could speak one human language it stands to reason that He could communicate in all. For some odd reason we have a hard time grasping this.

Kindly tell me adrift the answer to all this as you have brought forth the “uncharitable” lines again. Or in light of all this that I have just put forth are you going to accuse me of conduct unbecoming a Priest of the Catholic Church also?
Click to expand...
 
tweetymom said:
I am thankful everyday for Gods word the Bible.
Click to expand...
which translation? can all of it be correct? how about the ‘‘politically correct translation’’ we choose whatever will fit our theology making ourselves subject to human error?
 
Another Set-up thread to bash the stupid Protestants courtesy of CAF. Thank you Randy Carson, op author!
 
FrJohnB said:
frjohnb;6252794:
And his have been? It is hard to tell in writing when charity comes through and when it does not, it is all in how something is read by the person at the time. Even love letters that are read when in a bad mood can come across as being uncharitable. If this was an oral forum we would not have such a problem.

The last line and paragraph is what makes the point. The Problem is we do not know 100% that Jesus DID speak Aramaic here. It stands to reason because of the Greek manuscripts that he did not only at this moment. This was the point that both Padrej and I had been trying to hammer home. To say there were NO Greek speakers around (as jmcrea believes) would be ludicrous as Phillip would certainly have been one. Greek was the language of commerce of the day and if you wanted to be successful in ANY business you needed to know the language so it would stand to reason that Peter and Andrew being fisherman would know the language as well. Matthew being a Tax collector would probably know the language. The point is there were enough disciples around that spoke the language to make those words relevant.

In the first part of the article cited it uses the Greek that Matthew uses. This is unique to Matthew and the Catholic church uses this to establish the Primacy of Peter. it would not have the bite that it does IF it was written in Aramaic as the words are basically the same. Peter in his epistles, goes on to use these same words
Click to expand...
of “Petra” and “Petros.” When he speaks of the church being made up of “living stones” he uses the words “petra” indicated that he understood that Christ was using words that were NOT Aramaic. **Peter in his epistles did not use “Cephas” or “Kepha” in these areas, he mirrored what was in the Matthew passage, **so it is far likelier that Jesus DID speak Greek at THAT moment. When you look at the Matthew passage and its mirror passages in Peter’s Epistles the wording is almost identical, while other places Peter is given his Aramaic name, by this was CAN conclude that Jesus DID speak Greek to Peter at that point.

I hope this makes it clearer. These were the points that Padrej and I were both trying to drive home. When you study the original Greek you must also take the passages and study them as part of the whole to get their deeper meaning. When you look at 1 Peter 2 in the light of the Matthew passage they mirror one another. They do not have the Aramaic wording that lingers in other areas. This makes the argument to Jesus speaking Greek in Matthew 16 all the stronger.

Neither Padrej or I disagree with anyone that Jesus spoke Aramaic, our point was, because of the wording here, he spoke Greek. Because of this people went ballistic claiming that no Greek speakers were around when we know that several of the Disciples could speak the language as proven by other Gospels and church tradition. They claimed Matthew was only written to Greeks when the book clearly had a Jewish audience as proven by a Catholic apologetics site and yet we are the ones getting called out as being uncharitable and making comments on this thread unbecoming of a priest of the Catholic church. Nobody has EVER been able to answer the question that if Matthew’s Gospel was supposedly written in Aramaic first why does it have so strong of a Greek influence only in this one area of Matthew 16? The answer lies in that the Aramaic text would have used Greek also. Nobody has ever answered this question as long as I have ever been on this thread or others similar when this subject comes up. But yet they will argue took and nail that Jesus was not a Greek speaker. Can you tell me where the charity is in that??? Correct me if I am wrong but if Jesus being both Divine AND Human, if He could speak one human language it stands to reason that He could communicate in all. For some odd reason we have a hard time grasping this.

Kindly tell me adrift the answer to all this as you have brought forth the “uncharitable” lines again. Or in light of all this that I have just put forth are you going to accuse me of conduct unbecoming a Priest of the Catholic Church also?

We get the same kinds on Protestant blogs too. You can present to them fact after fact and be called uncharitable and every other name in the book and they will still stay on the one point till the proverbial cows come home. I agree with you that the written word does not come across the same as with the spoken so even words written with no intention of malice as mine were seem to be taken otherwise. If you took them that way that was not my intention.
Click to expand...
 
rovimax said:
which translation? can all of it be correct? how about the ‘‘politically correct translation’’ we choose whatever will fit our theology making ourselves subject to human error?
Click to expand...
I tend to personally stay away from translations that sway towards being “politically correct” or “gender inclusive” because changing the Bible to suit our needs is not worship of God but worship of SELF.
Even in the older translations both Catholic and Protestant you can see both Feminine and Masculine attributes of God. For example, every time the wisdom of God is ever mentioned it is always followed by “she” The masculine side of God is always found in the defender and shield followed by “he.”
There are some translations that the language is dated like the King James and the Douay but are good translations for both Catholic and Protestant. But there are other translations out there on both sides of the aisle that are just as good. The CAF has a a translations guide that may be of help.
catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp
Here is another Catholic site for choosing a Bible
americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0704.asp

When i do Bible study I like to have many translations.
I hope this helps
 
rovimax said:
which translation? can all of it be correct? how about the ‘‘politically correct translation’’ we choose whatever will fit our theology making ourselves subject to human error?
Click to expand...
👍👍
not counting the disecration of God’s Word. taking the Word of God in vain. and the Name of God in vain. have we become this blind? that is the dangerous of mixed Faith. the weak is at loss.
 
O.S.Luke said:
Another Set-up thread to bash the stupid Protestants courtesy of CAF. Thank you Randy Carson, op author!
Click to expand...
Come on you are listed as United Methodist.
You should know that the Catholic Church cannot claim the old Methodist Camp meeting or the Wesley brothers contributions to evangelism.
BUT one thing I have not seen mentioned that was started by the Methodists in early America was Sunday School. The Sunday School was originally set up to educate poor people in the 3R’s in addition to the Bible as Sunday was the only day that many colonial farmers had free. Sunday School also offered women the first opportunities for education that were not afforded elsewhere. Today we only think of Sunday School as an hour of extra Bible study but originally it was not that way, it was for total education thanks to the Methodists who last I checked were definitely Protestant.
 
rovimax said:
which translation? can all of it be correct? how about the ‘‘politically correct translation’’ we choose whatever will fit our theology making ourselves subject to human error?
Click to expand...
I myself choose the Holy Spirit to give me the understanding that is needed.
 
wisdomseeker said:
it was done based on the Teachings of the CC.
Click to expand...
If only 3 THREE of the founding fathers were Roman Catholic and 88 were Anglican/ Episcopal how can you get that the Constitution is based on the teaching of the Catholic Church. Actually only TWO (2) signers of the Constitution were Roman Catholic Daniel Carroll of Maryland and Thomas Fitzsimons of Pennsylvania. The only one of the 13 colonies that was set up as a palatinate that I can recollect was Maryland because of the founders of Maryland being Roman Catholic.

Are you getting this from the fact that all other Protestants were a break away from the Roman Catholic Church? Can you cite the source of your claims that America was founded on Catholic teachings?
 
Padrej said:
If only 3 THREE of the founding fathers were Roman Catholic and 88 were Anglican/ Episcopal how can you get that the Constitution is based on the teaching of the Catholic Church. Actually only TWO (2) signers of the Constitution were Roman Catholic Daniel Carroll of Maryland and Thomas Fitzsimons of Pennsylvania. The only one of the 13 colonies that was set up as a palatinate that I can recollect was Maryland because of the founders of Maryland being Roman Catholic.

Are you getting this from the fact that all other Protestants were a break away from the Roman Catholic Church? Can you cite the source of your claims that America was founded on Catholic teachings?
Click to expand...
I would be curious to know the answer to those questions as well. To my knowledge The Governmental structure of the US was set up on the structure more akin to that of the Church of England to start with, but without the National Church that England had. The Carroll family of Maryland were heavy into politics but that hardly makes them the means to call them the source of Catholic teachings being behind the Constitution.
From my research, Governor Morris of Pennsylvania (Episcopalian) was put in charge of the committee to draft the final copy of the Constitution. Other men who had much to do with writing the new Constitution included John Dickinson DE (Quaker, Episcopalian), Edmund Randolph VA (Episcopalian), Roger Sherman CT (Congregationalist), James Wilson PA (Presbyterian, Episcopalian), and George Wythe VA (Episcopalian). Morris was given the task of putting all the convention’s resolutions and decisions into polished form. Morris actually “wrote” the Constitution. Seeing the religious views of these “Gentlemen” I could not see how anyone could make the claim that the US constitution could have Roman Catholic teachings.
 
FrJohnB said:
I would be curious to know the answer to those questions as well. To my knowledge The Governmental structure of the US was set up on the structure more akin to that of the Church of England to start with, but without the National Church that England had. The Carroll family of Maryland were heavy into politics but that hardly makes them the means to call them the source of Catholic teachings being behind the Constitution.
From my research, Governor Morris of Pennsylvania (Episcopalian) was put in charge of the committee to draft the final copy of the Constitution. Other men who had much to do with writing the new Constitution included John Dickinson DE (Quaker, Episcopalian), Edmund Randolph VA (Episcopalian), Roger Sherman CT (Congregationalist), James Wilson PA (Presbyterian, Episcopalian), and George Wythe VA (Episcopalian). Morris was given the task of putting all the convention’s resolutions and decisions into polished form. Morris actually “wrote” the Constitution. Seeing the religious views of these “Gentlemen” I could not see how anyone could make the claim that the US constitution could have Roman Catholic teachings.
Click to expand...
And let us not forget Madison’s central role, and he was certainly no Catholic…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top