Why didn’t the mutual lifting of the 1054 Great Schism excommunications automatically mean reunification?

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Misplaced_Book said:
Swarmed? livingwordunity was not being swarmed, his/her polemical statements were being answered by various Eastern Christians, both Catholic and Orthodox. Rebuttals are hardly “an attack.”
Click to expand...
I don’t think I used the word “attacked” did I? “Swarmed” means “overwhelmed” by a large number of opposing posters.You guys travel in a pack, and I could name everyone of you without stopping to scroll through the thread to write your names down. So, when one Catholic is being barraged with post after post, I could relate having been through it often over the past few months. It’s not a criticism of you personally, btw - it’s just a phenomenon of forums like this. It happens to Protestants all the time in the apologetics forum, so I know what it’s like to be on the swarming side, too.
Argue from Scripture? Again, we don’t read the Scriptures that way. EVERYTHING is taken in context, and the whole is considered. The Liturgy, Hymnology, Scripture, Prayers, The Lives of the Saints…it is all interwoven. Proof Texting is foreign to Orthodox praxis, although you see some Orthodox polemicists attempt to do it (a sad development).
Click to expand...
Yes, but this is what I see as the problem: not all quoting of scripture (or the Fathers) is proof-texting. A verse or passage can be quoted as legitimate evidence in support of a claim. Therefore, when a text is cited by a Catholic, almost without exception, the Orthodox response is to cry, “Proof-text! Proof-text!” and ignore the matter from that point forward. When I see Protestants proof-text, I quote the larger passage to them and demonstrate THOROUGHLY why their proof-text fails. But no one does that with the Fathers that I or livingwordunity or LionHeart77 or many others have quoted over the past few months.

Ironically, Protestants ARE guilty of proof-texting from the Fathers when they try to rip a passage out of context that makes the Father sound as if he is supporting sola scriptura or some other novelty from the Reformation. We can both agree that WOULD be an example of proof-texting since the Fathers are thoroughly Catholic/Orthodox.

But hey, if you Eastern guys are so sharp with regard to these Fathers that we are mis-quoting, why don’t you PROVE that we are proof-texting by quoting the passage in proper context and breaking it down for us? THAT would shut us up once and for all, wouldn’t it? But no one does that, and the reason is pretty obvious: because we are not proof-texting, and the Fathers really are saying what Catholics hold them to be saying. Now, to be fair, it would be silly for me to claim that Catholics NEVER mis-use a quote; there could be SOME proof-texts mixed into the whole. But it’s just as silly to claim that EVERY quote by a Catholic is a proof-text. To do so is simply an excuse to avoid the quote in question. And that is what I see happening again and again. No analysis of the quotes, just the charge of "proof-text’ to end the discussion that is about to go very badly for the one making the charge.
From our POV, The Papal Claims are propped up by a handful of Bible quotes taken out of context.
Click to expand...
Okay, you’ve made an assertion. Now, prove it.

Come on over to the apologetics forum and demonstrate to hundreds of amateur Catholic apologists who are active there how ignorant we are about these “handful of Bible quotes.” We need to be educated about the truth, don’t we? Let’s end the Great Schism once and for all by examining those verses IN CONTEXT and silencing all Catholic argument forever. You’ll get lots of help from the Anglicans, Baptists, Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Episcopalians (I’m going alphabetically), etc. who are eager to take down the faith that you and I largely share because they dislike the papacy just as much as you do.

Heck, start a new thread in this forum, I don’t care. No canons, no councils…just the Word of God and your resolution: “Catholics are propping up the papacy with a handful of Bible quotes taken out of context.” You will argue the affirmative, of course.

Sounds like a hoot. Waddya say? :bounce:
 
To Randy Carson:

“I don’t think I used the word “attacked” did I? “Swarmed” means “overwhelmed” by a large number of opposing posters.You guys travel in a pack, and I could name everyone of you without stopping to scroll through the thread to write them down. So, when one Catholic is being barraged with post after post, I could relate having been through it often over the past few months. It’s not a criticism of you personally, btw - it’s just a phenomenon of forums like this. It happens to Protestants all the time in the apologetics forum, so I know what it’s like to be on the swarming side, too.”

REPLY: We travel in a pack? There are only a handful of threads on this forum related to Orthodoxy…I imagine you would get the same posters contributing to them.

Yes, but this is what I see as the problem: not all quoting of scripture (or the Fathers) is proof-texting. A verse or passage can be quoted as legitimate evidence in support of a claim. Therefore, when a text is cited by a Catholic, almost without exception, the Orthodox response is to cry, “Proof-text! Proof-text!” and ignore the matter from that point forward. When I see Protestants proof-text, I quote the larger passage to them and demonstrate THOROUGHLY why their proof-text fails. But no one does that with the Fathers that I or livingwordunity or LionHeart77 or many others have quoted over the past few months."

REPLY: Go and find Cavaradossi’s profile. click on “Find posts by Cavaradossi” and read them. Or dzheremi, or any of the others. There are tons of Church Fathers discussions and posts by them.

“Ironically, Protestants ARE guilty of proof-texting from the Fathers when they try to rip a passage out of context that makes the Father sound as if he is supporting sola scriptura or some other novelty from the Reformation. We can both agree that WOULD be an example of proof-texting since the Fathers are thoroughly Catholic/Orthodox.”

REPLY: I don’t disagree.

"But hey, if you Eastern guys are so sharp with regard to these Fathers that we are mis-quoting, why don’t you PROVE that we are proof-texting by quoting the passage in proper context and breaking it down for us? THAT would shut us up once and for all, wouldn’t it? But no one does that, and the reason is pretty obvious: because we are not proof-texting, and the Fathers really are saying what Catholics hold them to be saying. Now, to be fair, it would be silly for me to claim that Catholics NEVER mis-use a quote; there could be SOME proof-texts mixed into the whole. But it’s just as silly to claim that EVERY quote by a Catholic is a proof-text. To do so is simply an excuse to avoid the quote in question. And that is what I see happening again and again. No analysis of the quotes, just the charge of “proof-text’ to end the discussion that is about to go very badly for the one making the charge.”

REPLY: Again, see the above about “Find posts by…”

"Okay, you’ve made an assertion. Now, prove it.

Come on over to the apologetics forum and demonstrate to hundreds of amateur Catholic apologists who are active there how ignorant we are about these “handful of Bible quotes.” We need to be educated about the truth, don’t we? Let’s end the Great Schism once and for all by examining those verses IN CONTEXT and silencing all Catholic argument forever. You’ll get lots of help from the Anglicans, Baptists, Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Episcopalians (I’m going alphabetically), etc. who are eager to take down the faith that you and I largely share because they dislike the papacy just as much as you do.

Heck, start a new thread in this forum, I don’t care. No canons, no councils…just the Word of God and your resolution: “Catholics are propping up the papacy with a handful of Bible quotes taken out of context.” You will argue the affirmative, of course."

REPLY: So you are a Sola Scriptura guy now? Why in the world would anyone, Latin or Orthodox jettison over 2000 years of Tradition, Liturgy, and writings of the Saints? This is a very Protestant approach, and I say that not as a slur…your approach to Apologetics is very Protestant, and this is probably a big part of why there is conflict. EVERYTHING that we have from the Faith is formed by the complete deposit, of which Scripture is one part. We view it this way, and the Latins claim the same, although one wouldn’t know it from your post here. I am not afraid of the Apologetics forum, and I do post there, as you very well know.

“Sounds like a hoot. Waddya say? :bounce:”

REPLY: Does it? I would beg to differ. I am trying to stay on the good side of the moderators, and a thread of that nature would only end up closed and likely result in my Banning, possibly you as well. There is plenty of good arguments and information to be found in this forum and the Eastern Catholicism forum (as well as our past exchanges).
 
Randy_Carson said:
Yes, but this is what I see as the problem: not all quoting of scripture (or the Fathers) is proof-texting. A verse or passage can be quoted as legitimate evidence in support of a claim. Therefore, when a text is cited by a Catholic, almost without exception, the Orthodox response is to cry, “Proof-text! Proof-text!” and ignore the matter from that point forward. When I see Protestants proof-text, I quote the larger passage to them and demonstrate THOROUGHLY why their proof-text fails. But no one does that with the Fathers that I or livingwordunity or LionHeart77 or many others have quoted over the past few months.
Click to expand...
I have often suggested that we look to the context of such statements by engaging in rudimentary historical criticism, essentially trying to understand statements in context of the style they are written, in the greater context of what the saint is arguing about, etc. Often I have also remarked that certain prooftexts don’t actually go anywhere to disprove the Orthodox understanding of primacy and the primacy of Peter, suggesting resources on Orthodox ecclesiology that you could read, but then these statements were largely ignored or dismissed on the grounds that investigating scholarship on these topics is too troublesome. But frankly I no longer have very high expectations for such efforts, seeing what fruits they previously have borne. The apologetic strawman version of Orthodoxy shall likely forever be entrenched here among certain posters.
 
Wait, we’re supposed to be traveling in packs? How is this supposed to work for me when I’m the only Oriental Orthodox poster here now that Anastasia stopped posting? Loneliest pack ever. 😦
 
dzheremi said:
Wait, we’re supposed to be traveling in packs? How is this supposed to work for me when I’m the only Oriental Orthodox poster here now that Anastasia stopped posting? Loneliest pack ever. 😦
Click to expand...
It’s ok…you’re an honorary Chalcedonian. When we get to the stuff about the Tome of Leo, I will just tell everybody you went to the bathroom. No worries.
 
Misplaced_Book said:
REPLY: We travel in a pack? There are only a handful of threads on this forum related to Orthodoxy…I imagine you would get the same posters contributing to them.
Click to expand...
No question. This is why I said is was not a criticism…just a fact.
REPLY: Go and find Cavaradossi’s profile. click on “Find posts by Cavaradossi” and read them. Or dzheremi, or any of the others. There are tons of Church Fathers discussions and posts by them.
Click to expand...
Well, gee, that’s not as much fun as a live conversation, is it? To be honest, I think I would rather read a book by an author whose real name is known and whose credentials can be established. I googled Cavaradossi and found nothing that seemed relevant…
REPLY: I don’t disagree.
Click to expand...
Woo-hoo! A possible first. And I agreed with you on the Crusades a few minutes ago, so we’ll be sharing the Eucharist before you know it! 😛
REPLY: Again, see the above about “Find posts by…”
Click to expand...
Or I could by a good book on the Fathers…to add to those that I already own.
REPLY: So you are a Sola Scriptura guy now? Why in the world would anyone, Latin or Orthodox jettison over 2000 years of Tradition, Liturgy, and writings of the Saints? This is a very Protestant approach, and I say that not as a slur…your approach to Apologetics is very Protestant, and this is probably a big part of why there is conflict. EVERYTHING that we have from the Faith is formed by the complete deposit, of which Scripture is one part. We view it this way, and the Latins claim the same, although one wouldn’t know it from your post here. I am not afraid of the Apologetics forum, and I do post there, as you very well know.
Click to expand...
And I commend you for that.

No, I’m not a sola scripturist, but what I do see as an advantage to that approach (aside from the fact that the Bible really does support the papacy :)) is that at least we would have a common basis for discussion. We both have the NT, and we are both interested in knowing with as much certainty as possible what it means for us as Christians. You must know from your observation of Catholic-Protestant discussion in the apologetics forum, that we Catholics are VERY comfortable when discussing our faith from the Bible Alone as Protestants insist. But I don’t think you can actually PROVE your assertion that we are proof-texting when we do.
REPLY: Does it? I would beg to differ. I am trying to stay on the good side of the moderators, and a thread of that nature would only end up closed and likely result in my Banning, possibly you as well. There is plenty of good arguments and information to be found in this forum and the Eastern Catholicism forum (as well as our past exchanges).
Click to expand...
You and me both. 😛

But as you know, discussions on the papacy can get pretty intense with Protestants, and as long as the posts are charitable and not personal, no one gets banned for disagreeing about whether Peter or his confession is the rock.
 
Cavaradossi said:
I have often suggested that we look to the context of such statements by engaging in rudimentary historical criticism, essentially trying to understand statements in context of the style they are written, in the greater context of what the saint is arguing about, etc. Often I have also remarked that certain prooftexts don’t actually go anywhere to disprove the Orthodox understanding of primacy and the primacy of Peter, suggesting resources on Orthodox ecclesiology that you could read, but then these statements were largely ignored or dismissed on the grounds that investigating scholarship on these topics is too troublesome. But frankly I no longer have very high expectations for such efforts, seeing what fruits they previously have borne. The apologetic strawman version of Orthodoxy shall likely forever be entrenched here among certain posters.
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity, is there a Catholic patristics scholar you respect and recommend?
 
dzheremi said:
Wait, we’re supposed to be traveling in packs? How is this supposed to work for me when I’m the only Oriental Orthodox poster here now that Anastasia stopped posting? Loneliest pack ever. 😦
Click to expand...
Aren’t you in communion with Peter J and RyanBlack?
 
Randy_Carson said:
Just out of curiosity, is there a Catholic patristics scholar you respect and recommend?
Click to expand...
I even referenced one right in this very thread (despite the claim that us benighted Orthodox never try to give context), Johannes Quasten. And Hans Urs von Balthasar (though his focus was not strictly patristics) wrote a well regarded study of St. Maximus, though I’ve not read him outside of quotations and paraphrases of his works in works by others.
 
To Randy Carson:

“Well, gee, that’s not as much fun as a live conversation, is it? To be honest, I think I would rather read a book by an author whose real name is known and whose credentials can be established. I googled Cavaradossi and found nothing that seemed relevant…”

REPLY: Cavaradossi provides citations in his posts. You don’t have to take his word for it, engage the sources themselves. Then, comment on the specific passages…that goes for anybody.

“Woo-hoo! A possible first. And I agreed with you on the Crusades a few minutes ago, so we’ll be sharing the Eucharist before you know it! :p”

REPLY: Restablishing Communion would be nice.

"Or I could by a good book on the Fathers…to add to those that I already own. "

REPLY: Perhaps you could engage those works deeper than you have on this forum.

“No, I’m not a sola scripturist, but what I do see as an advantage to that approach (aside from the fact that the Bible really does support the papacy :)) is that at least we would have a common basis for discussion. We both have the NT, and we are both interested in knowing with as much certainty as possible what it means for us as Christians. You must know from your observation of Catholic-Protestant discussion in the apologetics forum, that we Catholics are VERY comfortable when discussing our faith from the Bible Alone as Protestants insist. But I don’t think you can actually PROVE your assertion that we are proof-texting when we do.”

REPLY: We were in Communion for a thousand years. We venerate many of the same saints, and have a common origin. There is no need to use a Sola Scripturist approach, and the fact that Catholics are “comfortable” doing that is in itself troubling…because that was never the way the Faith was viewed in the past. The very idea of divorcing Scripture from the Apostolic Tradition is in itself, absurd.

"You and me both. 😛

But as you know, discussions on the papacy can get pretty intense with Protestants, and as long as the posts are charitable and not personal, no one gets banned for disagreeing about whether Peter or his confession is the rock"

REPLY: I would hope so.
 
Cavaradossi said:
I even referenced one right in this very thread (despite the claim that us benighted Orthodox never try to give context), Johannes Quasten. And Hans Urs von Balthasar (though his focus was not strictly patristics) wrote a well regarded study of St. Maximus, though I’ve not read him outside of quotations and paraphrases of his works in works by others.
Click to expand...
Cav-

You referenced him in post #228; I joined the thread at #262.

You were responding to dzheremi, not me (obviously).

You did not identify him as a Catholic.

Aren’t you asking a bit much of me to have caught that reference?

But, hey…thanks. I will check him out. 👍
 
Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s
nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been
called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’
declaration, “You are Peter,” parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the
Christ,” as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you
are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following
immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16
applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros)
and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus
is about to explain the significance of this identification. (The New American
Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22, (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 251-252.)

David Hill
Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies,
University of Sheffield, England

On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic
tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus
will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of
the community. 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.
(“The Gospel of Matthew,” The New Century Bible Commentary, (London: Marshall,
Morgan & Scott, 1972), 261.)

Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian

The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The
new name contains a promise. “Simon,” the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will,
by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community.
(The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16, (Atlanta: John Knox Press,
1961), 93.)

Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary

The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to
petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the
same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon
which the church is to be built. . . . The frequent attempts that have been
made, largely in the past, to deny this 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.
(“Matthew 14-28,” Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b, (Dallas: Word Books,
1995), 470.)
 
Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter Is the Rock
Quotations from Protestant scholars who agree that Matthew 16:18 refers to Peter
personally

by Gary Hoge

One day, when Jesus was in the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his
disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” (Matt. 16:13). The disciples
gave a variety of answers before Peter finally said, “You are the Christ, the
Son of the living God” (Matt 16:16). What happened next is the subject of some
controversy:

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed
to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter,
and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not
overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you
bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be
loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:17-19).

To whom or to what was Jesus referring when He said, “On this rock I will build
my Church”? What rock was He talking about? Catholics, noting that the name
“Peter” (Greek: Petros) is really just the masculine form of the Greek word for
“rock” (petra), say He was referring to Simon son of Jonah. If they’re right, if
the Church was to be built in some sense on Peter himself, as head of the
apostles, then this supports the Catholic doctrine of the papacy. Naturally,
Protestants aren’t comfortable with that at all, and so historically, they have
claimed that the “rock” to which Jesus referred was Peter’s faith, or perhaps,
Christ Himself.

But as the passions of the Reformation era have cooled, and Protestant scholars
have taken a more dispassionate look at this text, they have come to agree more
and more that Jesus was referring to Peter himself as the rock. Of course, they
disagree with the Catholic interpretation of what this means, but many now agree
that the Catholic explanation of the grammar of the text is correct.

The following quotations, all of which are from Protestant Bible scholars, are
taken from the book Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy
(Scott Butler et al., (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing), 1996).

William Hendriksen
Member of the Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature
at Calvin Seminary

The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on
you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said,
“And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.”
Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I
accept this view. (New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According
to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.)

Gerhard Maier
Leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian

Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which – in accordance with the words of
the text – applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H.
J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree,
as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis. (“The Church in the
Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate,” Biblical
Interpretation and Church Text and Context, (Flemington Markets, NSW:
Paternoster Press, 1984), 58.)

Donald A. Carson III
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary

Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock”
respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry.
Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most
probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”),
since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The P e s h i t t a
(written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction
between the words in the two clauses. 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. (The
Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1984), 368.)
 
The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’
follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of
this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which
Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against
extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would
have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter. (Zondervan NIV
Bible Commentary – New Testament, vol. 2, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994),
78.)

John Peter Lange
German Protestant scholar

The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the
Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal.
ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun. . . .
The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock,” etc.
(Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew,
vol. 8, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 293.)

John A. Broadus
Baptist author

Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and
on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra
would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or
fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is
almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros
being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.

But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has
no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and
masculine petros in Greek]. The Pe****ta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are
kipho, and on this kipho.” The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time
of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on
this kepha.” . . . Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in
French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we
could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.”
(Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886),
355-356.)

J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary

By the words “this rock” Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the
Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately
preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies
himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood
as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this,
whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in
Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote
confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet
stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock
(Gk. petra) I will build my church.” As an apostle, Peter utters the confession
of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus.
(“Matthew,” Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker,
1989), 742.)

Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary
 
GaryTaylor said:
Glad you agree.

catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/pope_is_peter_the_rock.php

There is no disagreement they are simply wrong. And really have no response, but a claim to twisted language. 😉

In fact a good deal of protestant scholars even agree with Rome today.

We’ve debated this point endlessly. There is no way around the above link.
Click to expand...
Is this supposed to be some kind of joke? distorting a quotation from me to support your position?

You then subsequently cut and paste some stuff that has already been posted before in one of the other numerous threads. There are no doubt other Protestant Scholars who disagree with them (Our scholars certainly do). What does that prove? Absolutely nothing. Unsubstantiated snippets taken out of context do not make your case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top