Who was the Rock in Matthew 16:18?

[Prodigal_Son1]

Never heard of any of these scholars and if this is the most prominent on your list, then the other 15 would be of little use or authority to me.

Also, I asked you a few questions in previous posts that have not been addressed, I thought maybe you may have left the thread, but I see you have not. Start on post #583 on page 39 than move forward.

I’m not sure who denies that “Petros” is a small stone or rock. That would show a blindness beyond understanding given the tools we have to look at the actual Greek meaning of the word.

So, since you have never heard of any of these scholars, they have no authority? Are you presenting yourself to be an authority? This brings to mind your explanation of a correct interpretation of scriptures. You have assumed an authority by asserting your interpretation is correct over the Church, or anyone else that disagrees with you, haven’t you?

If you ‘studied’ the Greek, you’d realize the Greeks used ‘gender nouns’, as has already been explained previously in this thread. I mention previously in this thread, hoping you will take your own advice and read through the thread. Petra is the feminine sense and Petros is the masculine sense of the word. Do you think, considering the cultures and times, that Matthew would have referred to Peter in a feminine sense? It shows a ‘blindness’ towards the cultures and times that Matthew authored the Gospel to think he would have referred to Peter in a feminine sense.

It becomes a moot argument when one considers that Christ renamed Peter to Cephas, which is Aramaic and there is only ONE word for rock in Aramaic.

**Joh 1:42

(DRB) And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona. Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.

(Etheridge) and he brought him to Jeshu. And Jeshu saw him, and said, Thou art Shemun bar Jona; thou shalt be called Kipha.[Pronounced Kepha.]

(IGNT+) καιG2532 AND ηγαγενG71 [G5627] HE LED αυτονG846 HIM προςG4314 τονG3588 TO ιησουνG2424 JESUS. εμβλεψαςG1689 [G5660] δεG1161 AND LOOKING AT αυτωG846 οG3588 HIM ιησουςG2424 JESUS ειπενG2036 [G5627] SAID, συG4771 THOU ειG1488 [G5748] ART σιμωνG4613 SIMON οG3588 THE υιοςG5207 SON ιωναG2495 OF JONAH; συG4771 THOU κληθησηG2564 [G5701] SHALT BE CALLED κηφαςG2786 CEPHAS, οG3739 WHICH ερμηνευεταιG2059 [G5743] IS INTERPRETED πετροςG4074 STONE.

(KJV+) AndG2532 he broughtG71 himG846 toG4314 Jesus.G2424 AndG1161 when JesusG2424 beheldG1689 him,G846 he said,G2036 ThouG4771 artG1488 SimonG4613 theG3588 sonG5207 of Jona:G2495 thouG4771 shalt be calledG2564 Cephas,G2786 whichG3739 is by interpretation,G2059 A stone.G4074

(KJVA) And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

(Murdock) And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looked upon him, and said Thou art Simon the son of Jona; thou shalt be called Cephas.

(NJB) and he took Simon to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon son of John; you are to be called Cephas’ – which means Rock.

(RSV) He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).

(Vulgate) et adduxit eum ad Iesum intuitus autem eum Iesus dixit tu es Simon filius Iohanna tu vocaberis Cephas quod interpretatur Petrus**

Now why did Christ refer to Peter as ‘rock’ upon meeting him, with no distinction between little or massive? If He meant for Peter to be a ‘little’ rock, wouldn’t our Lord have said, ‘…little Cephas’, knowing he would be building His Church and referring to Simon yet again as rock?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The bold in blue above is rather disturbing and accusatory in nature and is baseless on anything I have stated since I have been here. I am not assigned to the judgment seat of God, that is Jesus. I do not know anyone here and the only way I can know the truth from error is in a doctrinal sense, but for each individual you can point to a sin being c omitted, but not condemnation judgment in any sense.

Let’s review your statements. Few will be saved and those who are not saved will offer an incorrect interpretation of scriptures…oh yea, and Catholics have an incorrect interpretation of scriptures, based on your arguments.

It seems to me, that is judging…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What do you want explained?

tweetymom,

You’ve left the discussion without explaining the points and questions I raised in post #564. I have linked it again in hopes you will respond with your explanation as the questions and points are sincere on my part.

I am also quoting that post below, so you don’t have to look back through this thread to find it.

Jesus knows all men (mankind) and He knows our weaknesses. The Apostles continously questioned His teachings, Peter denied Him three times, Judas betrayed Him, Paul persecuted ‘Him’ and Thomas doubted Him. He knew, and knows, there were and would not any who would be perfect. Yet, He ordained the Apostles and He gave them the keys to the kingdom of heaven, He gave them the authority to bind and loose on earth, He sent them out to preach the Gospel and He told Peter to feed His lambs.

How is it one can consider the scriptures ‘perfect’ when it was written by men who made mistakes, yet doubt the Church Christ built because of men who were not and would not be perfect?

It seems to limit the power of the Holy Spirit to only have the ability to do one task and only be able to protect the inspired written word of God through the canonization process, the many years, with just as many translations and , now, the multiple interpretations of scriptures, all by less than perfect men.

Why is it that some people don’t believe God could protect His truth through a Church He, Himself, started?

Christ did not write anything Himself, nor did He command anything transcibed, but we know He started a Church. Yet again, people believe totally in the one Christ never did or ordered done and doubt His ability to protect the one we know He started. As I said, both involved less than perfect people, as there is only one that is perfect…

This was in response to your insinuation the Church cannot be an authority because of fallible men, even though fallible men authored the New Testament, defined the canon of the New Testament and preserved the New Testament for 1500+ years so the Protestant have it as well as Catholics.

 

[rovimax]

How is it determined in Catholicism that the Holy Spirit is the guide as compared to other Christian religions? Is there a Biblical references or some other reference I can look at to support your answer?

John 14 and John 16 clearly explained the role of the Holy Spirit. The HS will guide us into Truth. Since we believe that our Church was founded by Christ we believe we are guided by the HS.

Ask yourself the same question. For sure other churches history will not go beyond Martin Luther, John Calvin et al…

 

[YADA]

People have been stating all they need is the Bible, some of whom have also stated that there was no authority given to anyone by Christ. Isn’t private interpretation of scriptures, with the authority to tell everyone else their interpretation is wrong, assuming an authority similar to what they reject?

your post …

In reality, Portestants tell the Catholics that they are wrong in their practice of the Christian faith [when there is no unity in various non-catholic christian faith; how the worship services are conducted vary in dramatic ways, the core beliefs on Baptism, Communion, use of musical instruments or not, etc], mis-understand and mis-interpret the Scriptures [when the variety of biblical intepretations amoung the non-cathlics covers the entire spetrum of ideas], that we are wrong to follow the teachings of the Church and Pope [while they can follow the teachings of any Church - shop around and find the Chruch that conforms to their indvidual needs and bias - in fact each person is their own Pope being guided by the Holy Spirit - each understanding the Spirit in his own way.

Though I have always wondered why the holy Spirit would reveal one truth to this person and a completely different truth to another through the same scriptures … that alwys seems to make Jesus the Lord of Confused Truth ?

If the Protestants can be their own arbitor of what is revealed by the Holy Spirit, seek the Church and its leadership [selecting and hiring their Pastors] and understanding the Scriptures each in their own way … and that is how they come to Christ be it through Baptism or the “sinners Prayer” … Altar calls etc …

THEN

Why can’t we [Catholics] come to our fuller life in Christ by choosing to follow the Pope and our Bishops and Priests, accept the precepts of the Church, read the Scriptures and follow the interpretations each of us guided by the Holy Spirit to follow the Catholic Church …

 

[YADA]

Peter 156 times Paul 160 times

Well - yes,

But thinking of context now and in which scriptures:

How many of those references to “Paul” were written by Paul himself?

How many of the references to Peter [or Simon or Kephas] were written by Peter himself?

And how many times is Paul mentioned in the Four Gospels?

How many times was Peter mentioned in the Gospels?

Did Jesus change Paul’s name?

Did Jesus change Simon’s name to Peter and if so in what context?

Now - clearly - you would not use a writer of Letters [Paul] referring to himsef and weigh those self- references against the type references where Peter is mentioned by Jesus in writings written by a third party

 

[luckyfredsdad]

You are members of the Roman Catholic Church, which is a subsection of the One, True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Your constant reiteration of the term,’ Catholic,’ isn’t going to change anything! You might influence a few of the weaker and less mentally agile outside your own sect, but on the whole you’r fighting a losing battle. Your church is called the Catholic and Apostolic Romane, Church, because that is the name the papacy chose at the Council of Trent. The fact that many of you resent that name is understandable, but it is your name and you have to understand that you’r stuck with it. Roman Catholic!.

Now, for what must be the 15/16th, time on this thread, will you explain to us, HOW, the Petrine Priviliges were bestowed on the papacy.? Where is it in Scripture or Tradition? Or where is it in the early years of the Church? For people with so much confidence, you are lurching about, twisting and evading what for you is an immense problem. The fact is, the Pope’s claims are a dream, or nightmare, depends on where you stand. . Will you answer , why the Pope’s claims didn’t surface for 400yrs? Was the organisation asleep?
You cannot evade tradition, it will surface constantly.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You are members of the Roman Catholic Church, which is a subsection of the One, True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Your constant reiteration of the term,’ Catholic,’ isn’t going to change anything! You might influence a few of the weaker and less mentally agile outside your own sect, but on the whole you’r fighting a losing battle. Your church is called the Catholic and Apostolic Romane, Church, because that is the name the papacy chose at the Council of Trent. The fact that many of you resent that name is understandable, but it is your name and you have to understand that you’r stuck with it. Roman Catholic!.

I, for one, do not resent the name Roman Catholic Church. Rome was the city of the ruling power that was most antithetical to Christianity. Roman’s practiced many pagan rituals, the Caesar’s viewed themselves as gods and persecuted Christians for many, many years. Christ and His Church overcame all that Rome represented to such degree that Rome became home to His Church and His truth. Those that cast slurs upon the Roman Catholic Church, whether knowingly or unknowingly, cast slurs on that which Christ accomplished, through His Church on earth.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Now, for what must be the 15/16th, time on this thread, will you explain to us, HOW, the Petrine Priviliges were bestowed on the papacy.? Where is it in Scripture or Tradition? Or where is it in the early years of the Church? For people with so much confidence, you are lurching about, twisting and evading what for you is an immense problem. The fact is, the Pope’s claims are a dream, or nightmare, depends on where you stand. . Will you answer , why the Pope’s claims didn’t surface for 400yrs? Was the organisation asleep?
You cannot evade tradition, it will surface constantly.

‘Petrine privileges’, as you call it, is known to Christians as Apostolic succession. Read Acts 1. If one of the Apostles was to be replaced by another, it’s only common sense to recognize that even the leader of those was to be replaced by another.

Contrary to your claims, Apostolic succession is documented in scriptures and by the early Church fathers.

**2Ch 19:11 And Amarias the priest your high priest shall be chief in the things which regard God: and Zabadias the son of Ismahel, who is ruler in the house of Juda, shall be over those matters which belong to the king’s office: and you have before you the Levites for masters, take courage and do diligently, and the Lord will be with you in good things.

Mal 2:7 For the lips of the priests shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth: because he is the angel of the Lord of hosts.

Eph 2:20 Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

Eph 4:11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors:

1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.
1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors?

Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

Act 1:25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.
Act 1:26 And they gave them lot, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

1Ti 3:1 A faithful saying: If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth good work.

1Ti 3:8 Deacons in like manner: chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre:

1Ti 5:17 Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.

1Ti 5:22 Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins. Keep thyself chaste.

Act 14:23 (14:22) And when they had ordained to them priests in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.

2Ti 2:2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also.

Tit 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete: that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:**

The early Church father’s view of Apostolic succession.

**Clement of Rome

Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry (Letter to the Corinthians 44:1 [A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch

You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus

It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 180-199]).
It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion (ibid 4:26:2).**

 

[Masters_Servant]

W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann
[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. “To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter,” Albright says, “among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles.” (CUT
Edit19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter. (Ibid.)
Donald A. Carson (Baptist)“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . CUT. In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, CUT Oscar Cullman (Protestant Scholar)
“But what does Jesus mean when He says: ‘On this rock I will build my church’? The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story. For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia [church]. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich), [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1968], 6:108).

Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)
"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).
David Hill (Presbyterian)

“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (CUT
I have quotes like these from 15 more Protestant scholars if you need them.
I have looked into these people/books via ChristianBook.com to see if any of these are still published and what kind of comments or ratings; the results were as I suspected. Most have no comments or ratings, which means few read it. The one that did have 11 reviews in positive manner was D.A. Carson.
Here is one endorsement:
“More than a generation ago, C. H. Dodd and a few other scholars began sowing the seeds of a new and fruitful approach to reading Scripture, by studying the New Testament writers’ use of Old Testament texts. The present commentary thus represents the harvest of decades of research into the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. By carefully observing various factors, ranging from the textual to the theological, each contributor shows how the New Testament writers were not only careful readers of the Old Testament but also profound theologians themselves. The scholars on this superb team assembled by Beale and Carson distill many new and remarkable insights for exegesis and theology, all of which serve to demonstrate the explanatory power of this approach for the present and the future. This landmark volume should prove to be an invaluable resource for both the church and the academy–for pastors, teachers, and students alike, whether Protestant or Catholic–and for anyone wanting to go deeper into the heart of sacred Scripture. Indeed, Edit.”**–Scott Hahn, Pope Benedict XVI Chair of Biblical Theology and Liturgical Proclamation, St. Vincent Seminary; professor of scripture and theology, Franciscan University of Steubenville **

 

[Bill_Pick]

So you do presume to know the mind of God concerning the seriousness of any given sin or you don’t? You presume my missing Mass last Friday was mortal sin, right?

If Jesus is the Rock as some here say then why did Jesus change Peter name,that does not make any cents,spelling this like cents is just kidding,LOL

 

[Worthy5]

The point is that no Aramaic was given and if it had been, then many passages would have contextual meaning changed, which is why the Greek was given because it has so many nuances to enhance what the speaker is saying that it makes things like Matthew 16:18 very easy to understand, but if the NT was given in Aramaic, then it would be rock on rock with no distinction given the context. This is one of many passages that would have its true interpretation in question. That is the point. A secondary point is that because of the nuances in the Greek, it makes translation into other languages easier to keep the proper context, especially on more difficult passages.

Of course with God, if it was given entirely in Aramaic, He would have made it interpretable because the interpreter is God the Holy Spirit. God bless and hope this clarifies.

My friend, it clarifies nothing. It is an epistemological reality----language is indeterminate.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have looked into these people/books via ChristianBook.com to see if any of these are still published and what kind of comments or ratings; the results were as I suspected. Most have no comments or ratings, which means few read it. The one that did have 11 reviews in positive manner was D.A. Carson.
Here is one endorsement:
“More than a generation ago, C. H. Dodd and a few other scholars began sowing the seeds of a new and fruitful approach to reading Scripture, by studying the New Testament writers’ use of Old Testament texts. The present commentary thus represents the harvest of decades of research into the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. By carefully observing various factors, ranging from the textual to the theological, each contributor shows how the New Testament writers were not only careful readers of the Old Testament but also profound theologians themselves. The scholars on this superb team assembled by Beale and Carson distill many new and remarkable insights for exegesis and theology, all of which serve to demonstrate the explanatory power of this approach for the present and the future. This landmark volume should prove to be an invaluable resource for both the church and the academy–for pastors, teachers, and students alike, whether Protestant or Catholic–and for anyone wanting to go deeper into the heart of sacred Scripture. Indeed, Edit.”**–Scott Hahn, Pope Benedict XVI Chair of Biblical Theology and Liturgical Proclamation, St. Vincent Seminary; professor of scripture and theology, Franciscan University of Steubenville **

Hey Masters,

Would you care to share your credentials with us? It seems you reject any other theologians opinion, just as you reject anyone else’s interpretation of scriptures. It has all appearances of one asserting themself to be the ‘authortiy’, over both. That is the same as the authority you’ve referenced in the Catholic Church, only no where in scriptures does it tell us how to know your’s is the correct interpretation. You say with Holy Spirit guidance, as do ALL Christians.

 

[Masters_Servant]

So, since you have never heard of any of these scholars, they have no authority? Are you presenting yourself to be an authority? This brings to mind your explanation of a correct interpretation of scriptures. *** You have assumed an authority by asserting your interpretation is correct over the Church, or anyone else that disagrees with you, haven’t you?***

I could quote scholars that are fundamental with actual high regard in the fundamental evangelical world that would oppose the Catholic arguments, which would prove nothing. Would you give authority to someone you do not know? Then why would I. Concerning the red bold above; this is clearly an unwarranted accusation and the second time you have been very presumptuous without any provocation on my part, which shows me that we cannot have any dialogue; therefore** this is the last post I will dialogue with you; least I should fall into sin on your account.**

If you ‘studied’ the Greek, you’d realize the Greeks used ‘gender nouns’, as has already been explained previously in this thread. I mention previously in this thread, hoping you will take your own advice and read through the thread. Petra is the feminine sense and Petros is the masculine sense of the word. Do you think, considering the cultures and times, that Matthew would have referred to Peter in a feminine sense? It shows a ‘blindness’ towards the cultures and times that Matthew authored the Gospel to think he would have referred to Peter in a feminine sense.

I am positive that Matthew knew exactly what he was writing and why he wrote it that way, which is very noteworthy.

It becomes a moot argument when one considers that Christ renamed Peter to Cephas, which is Aramaic and there is only ONE word for rock in Aramaic.

The argument to use the Aramaic as grounds for a position is fruitless unless one can produce the ancient Aramaic manuscripts of the NT.

 

[Masters_Servant]

Let’s review your statements. Few will be saved and those who are not saved will offer an incorrect interpretation of scriptures…oh yea, and Catholics have an incorrect interpretation of scriptures, based on your arguments.

It seems to me, that is judging…

This is the last…retract the previous post because I did not see this one. A third time now; you are the one imposing and pretending to know my thoughts and passing judgment on baseless presumptions. The statements concerning few are saved and only the Christian has the true interpreter are factual statements presented in Scripture; does that apply to Catholics, Methodists, Baptist et al yes.

May God bless you according to His will.

 

[Masters_Servant]

John 14 and John 16 clearly explained the role of the Holy Spirit. The HS will guide us into Truth. **Since we believe that our Church was founded by Christ we believe we are guided by the HS. **

Ask yourself the same question. For sure other churches history will not go beyond Martin Luther, John Calvin et al…

Bolded above is enchanting. Is there some Biblical foundation for this view or is more of an emotional feeling or something else? Perhaps a Catholic reference to this is available? Thanks for sharing.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I could quote scholars that are fundamental with actual high regard in the fundamental evangelical world that would oppose the Catholic arguments, which would prove nothing. Would you give authority to someone you do not know? Then why would I. Concerning the red bold above; this is clearly an unwarranted accusation and the second time you have been very presumptuous without any provocation on my part, which shows me that we cannot have any dialogue; therefore** this is the last post I will dialogue with you; least I should fall into sin on your account.**

Avoiding an honest discussion takes away from any validity you might have in your arguments. I merely see irony in one stating the Church is wrong and we have a wrong interpretation of scriptures. If you reject an authority, you do so by your own ‘authority’. For us to accept your view, we’d be rejecting an authority and you should be willing to provide on what authority you speak, as well as provide speciifc verse and scripture granting you such an authority. Isn’t that an authority, when one tells others they are wrong and only their interpretation is correct?

I am positive that Matthew knew exactly what he was writing and why he wrote it that way, which is very noteworthy.

The argument to use the Aramaic as grounds for a position is fruitless unless one can produce the ancient Aramaic manuscripts of the NT.

So, you believe that Matthew intentionally referred to Simon’s new name in a feminine sense, even considering the implications of the cultures and times that it was written?

Surely you’re aware that even the Greek manuscript used some Aramaic mixed in? I have provided you translations of the Greek text that used Aramaic mixed in. Specifically when Jesus renamed Simon to Cephas. I provided it in Catholic versions, King James versions, the Greek version and two translations of Aramaic to English versions of the Bible. They ALL state He renamed him, Cephas.

 

[Masters_Servant]

My friend, it clarifies nothing. It is an epistemological reality----language is indeterminate.

If all the translators were in a room with just you; i think you would hear quite the ear-full…a little humor is all.

I tried to clarify what I was pointing out based on the original post to a different person; perhaps if you go back to that post, then move forward you will get my point. If not, then I am sorry I could not communicate any clearer.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Bolded above is enchanting. Is there some Biblical foundation for this view or is more of an emotional feeling or something else? Perhaps a Catholic reference to this is available? Thanks for sharing.

Enchanting?

It comes from an interpretation of scriptures. To use words like ‘enchanting’, ‘emotional feeling’ or ‘something else’ is no more than an ad hominem worded statement, and easy enough to see through. It is also a rejection of authority over the interpretation with your own interpretation…see how that authority thing works?

Jesus told those He appointed and placed in authority over His Church He would be with them until the consummation of the world. These were mortal men, who would eventually die and not be here at the consummation of the world.

He also told them the Father shall give them another Paraclete that would abide with them forever. Again, speaking to His Church which is not like mortal men and will be on earth forever.

Bringing remembrance to all He has said, to His Church.

**Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever:

Joh 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. **

 

[Dokimas]

Jesus knows all men (mankind) and He knows our weaknesses. Good point. The Apostles continously questioned His teachings, Peter denied Him three times, Judas betrayed Him, Paul persecuted ‘Him’ and Thomas doubted Him. Good point. He knew, and knows, there were and would not any who would be perfect. Good point Yet, He ordained the Apostles and He gave them the keys to the kingdom of heaven I thought Peter got the keys, He gave them the authority to bind and loose on earth The specifics of what that means is up for interpretation, He sent them out to preach the Gospel and He told Peter to feed His lambs. Good point.

How is it one can consider the scriptures ‘perfect’** It’s God’s Word** when it was written by men you’ve aready made good points about mankind, don’t go back on the points now who made mistakes, yet doubt the Church Christ built **made up of mistake ridden mankind **because of men who were not and would not be perfect? That’s the nature of inspiration. It’s the One that inspires that is perfect.

It seems to limit the power of the Holy Spirit Not at all to only have the ability to do one task and only be able to protect the inspired written word of God through the canonization process BTW, it was not the canonization that makes the Bible inspired, it’s the original men of God that wrote the words that were inspired by the Holy Spirit. After that, sure the Holy Spirit gave insight for canonization., the many years, with just as many translations and , now, the multiple interpretations of scriptures, all by less than perfect men. Good point

Why is it that some people don’t believe God could protect His truth through a Church He, Himself, started? The truths are protected in His church; the place of disagreement is what is His church called and who makes up that church? The truths of His church that He has preserved often gets mixed in with other beliefs. Look at what happened in Israel and their living out what God expected of them … it got destored by God’s chosen. Why should we be any different? Both are/were God’s chosen.
Christ did not write anything Himself, nor did He command anything transcibed, but we know He started a Church. Yet again, people believe totally in the one Christ never did or ordered done and doubt His ability to protect the one we know He started. As I said, both involved less than perfect people, as there is only one that is perfect. Good point.