[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< Maybe that’s why Brother Chris doesn’t fully understand what your questions are driving at. Just a thought.[/quote]Trust me friend, I’ve known Brother Chris a long time. He is right at the top of my list of favorite people, not only in this site, but in my life.
He understands what I’m asking him and he knows where I’m going, or at the very least that I’m going somewhere he doesn’t want to be taken. The question on rating his church is tied right in here too along with the canonization process. Look at the following here:[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Source? Of the Reformation? Or Luther’s/protestant’s schism? [/quote]What is this. I can’t get a simple answer to a simple question. Was the protestant reformation God’s will or not?
Chris is a sharp kid and he knows me very well. He knows what I’m asking him. I’m even asking very nicely. I’m the world champion of surgical sarcasm. I have ceased from pointing that weapon at him. At least the way I used to.
[/quote]
I’m not impugning his intelligence, Tirib. The issue isn’t his capability, but rather the relevance of the question. The first targets of Protestant apologetics were Catholics; we define ourselves by the fact that we are not them. Our history extends back a mere five centuries. They, on the other hand, have dealt with various heresies for nearly two millennia, and the rise of another “heretical” movement is probably not that defining for them. Consequently, maybe he simply doesn’t have a developed opinion on the issue, as he has said before. You cannot necessarily assume that Catholics, even this person you know so well, spends as much time thinking about the supposed soteriological plight of Protestants as we do about the supposed soteriological plight of Catholics.
He’s also right - there is a difference between the Reformation (Catholic’s had a reformation too, remember) as a whole, and Luther’s schism.
Also, that question could be answered yes and no. On the one hand, the Reformation could be considered heretical from a Catholic perspective, as it disrupted the unity of the church. On the other hand, it also propelled the church to crack down on the “sale” of indulgences and other forms of corruption and to codify more specifically her doctrines. Consequently, some might argue that it was a God-send.
It’s a software now man, so don’t be impressed. You wanted to get into syntactical data concerning a Greek translation of the OT, and which lexicon we agree to use isn’t pertinent? What, are we going to be putting up Hebrew and Greek on the forum?
I’ll write you a little more of my oddball theory after a bit, although it’s not really that oddball, just not prevailing. The Septuagint is a topic I worked through about 20 yrs ago, and haven’t thought about it much at all since. I’m spending time on it here because it relates to the issue of tradition. But I have some other work first.[/quote]
Are you using Logos or Accordance or BIbleworks? If you only have a Hebrew lexicon, BDB or HALOT, it’s not going to be all that useful for analyzing the Greek Septuagint or syntactical data. For the former, we would need a lexicon for the Septuagint, or at least Liddell-Scott. For the latter, we would need to use one of the reference grammars, like Waltke-O’Connor or Juoun-Muraoka. As far as lexicography goes, the issue I was raising relates to the dating of the use of particular words in the Septuagint. The words Septuagint translators used to translate particular Hebrew words can provide evidence as to the time of the Septuagint’s translation, as certain words fall out of favor over time. A lexicon wouldn’t be much help in that area. For a good treatment of this issue, I’ll refer you to Lee’s “Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch.”
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
Anyway, moving on. Here is a question for Catholic posters. Historically speaking, there do seem to be some significant similarities between the early Christian practice (2nd century AD) of asking saints to speak to God on our behalf and the worship of spiritual beings practiced widely throughout the Greco-Roman world. Greeks and Romans believed spiritual beings inhabited every aspect of reality - trees, rocks, water, etc. - and that they governed their various domains. Consequently, if you wanted a particular type of aid, you would ask the being in charge of it. Since there isn’t an EXPLICIT statement in Scripture describing or clearly supporting the practice of asking saints for aid, what would you say if someone argued that the church adopted a pagan practice (prayer to the spiritual entities governing the various elements of the world) and simply Christianized it?
This is a historical argument. I’d like to hear how Catholics would respond to this one.[/quote]
Actually, it’s two fold. Yes it’s tradition and it’s verified by various miracles performed on behalf of said saint or dead person. Of course, like faith it’s difficult to translate personal experiences to sustainable proof, but I digress.
Second, there is a scriptural precedence in 2 Maccabees. Martyrdom, Resurrection and salvation are all topics explored in 2 Maccabees. I believe it’s in the book of Wisdom as well.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Let’s go back to this one though; you have big problem. And to answer the question of why the issue of the Peter not being the first pope is so important- Of course it’s because this mistaken belief is the foundation of the whole hierarchical structure.
No Jesus didn’t. Simon was already also called Peter when Jesus first met him:
And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. (Mat 4:18)
[/quote]
Ah, we are running into translation problems now:
“While walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon (who is called Peter) and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen.
(Matthew 4:18 ESV)”
In the ESV translation, you see the “who is called Peter” in the present tense while the rest of the sentence is past tense.[/quote]
Do you know which Greek manuscript the ESV is based on? I can tell you that the KJV translators had it available, and rejected it.
Jesus was making a play on words. “thou art Peter[a small stone], and upon this rock[a huge rock] I will build my church;” But you don’t need to go back to the Greek to get this, just note the grammar. If Christ meant Peter is the rock His church was to be built on, he would’ve said- and upon thee I will build my church. One of the reasons the KJV translators used thee, thou, and -th endings, is because this form of English more accurately translates Greek tense. It was not because they lived in Shakespeare’s time, and everybody talked like that. If you read their dedicatory you can see this plainly. It does not contain this type of speech, though it was written during the same time period.
Do you think it’s possible Christ would make Peter the foundation of His church, and then, only a few verses later rebuke him saying- “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” (Mat 16:23KJV)???
[quote]pat wrote: Peter spoke first saying:
“And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
(Acts 15:7 ESV)”
James merely added to it. Acts 15 makes no indication what so ever, that James presided over Peter in the matter. He simply put the exclamation on Peter’s proclamation.
[/quote]
Yes, James let the others give their opinions first, just as anyone heading up a meeting might do, then he made is decision- “my sentence is this”.
[quote]pat and chen wrote: Once Paul even had to rebuke Peter:
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. (Gal 2:11)
Which means nothing. Why wouldn’t Paul or any other apostle be able to rebuke Peter? Peter was just a man after all, nor did he claim to be perfect. Peter did correct his mistake anyway, either by Paul’s rebuke or the dream he had in Acts.
Peter also warned about Paul’s letters being misunderstood and misused:
“as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
(2 Peter 3:16 ESV)”
Peter was the one who replaced Judas among the 12. He was also the first to speak and proclaim Jesus. Who but a person with the authority to do so, could do so?[/quote]
He did not replace Judas, Matthias did, see Acts 1:26.
He was not the first to proclaim Jesus. They all did together at Pentacost in Acts Ch 2:
But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: (Act 2:14 KJV)
Pat, you have made some mistakes that plain reading of the bible would correct. I’m really not trying to gloat at all, it does nothing for me to point out your errors above. I would have just as willingly written this info up for you as a PM that no one else would see. I sincerely recommend you simply read your bible by yourself, and stop reading Roman Catholic websites.
[/quote]
Actually Mr. Chen, in response to your comments to me, your exchange with Pat exemplifies my point. First of all, the KJV translators did NOT have many manuscripts available to them. In fact, they relied primarily on the Textus Receptus, a compilation of a handful of late Greek manuscripts (and even a translation from the Latin Vulgate into Greek). Modern translators (like the ESV committee) have thousands more (and earlier!) manuscripts than those used by the KJV translators, which is why the KJV is now widely recognized as such a poor translation. As an example, take 1 John 5:7, where the KJV reads, “there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and theses three are one.” That entire sentence is a late addition; no early manuscripts have that reading.
More importantly, the proper translation for “called” cannot be determined by text criticism, because there are no significant textual variants for Matthew 4:18 on this issue. The ESV, as Pat noted, is faithful to the Greek - the word translated “called” in the KJV and “who is called” is the ESV is a present participle, meaning that the best translation is actually “who is called.” Furthermore, as Pat noted, it is a parenthetical remark, meaning that Matthew inserted that descriptive phrase (“SImon (who is called Peter)”) in order to distinguish Peter for his audience. Simon was one of the most popular names in the 1st century A.D., so it makes sense that Matthew would add that phrase to make clear which Simon he was referring to. The fact that he didn’t feel the need to add anything more to his description other than Simon’s other name (Peter) actually supports Pat’s argument for Peter’s importance - he was such a prominent, important figure that the mere mention of the name would allow Matthew’s audience to identify him.
Setting aside the discussion of the use of “thee, thou, and -th” endings by the KJV translators, the fact remains that you completely ignored Pat’s point. You did not explain how John 1:42 fits with your theory; to borrow your phrase, the plain meaning of that passage is that Peter got his name from Jesus, not from someone else.
Furthermore, in response to your question ("Do you think it’s possible Christ would make Peter the foundation of His church, and then, only a few verses later rebuke him saying- “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” (Mat 16:23KJV)???), I would argue that Jesus’ rebuke makes PERFECT sense in that context, as it fits in with Matthew’s rhetorical goals. In other words, Matthew juxtaposes Jesus’ elevation of Peter with his rebuke of Peter to show to his audience (for whom Peter is a major figure) that even the great Peter was not always so great, that Jesus loved him despite his sins and died for him too. In reality, it makes perfect sense, and in no way argues against Peter’s authority in the early church.
I think you need to study more Greek before you attack someone based on the wording of the faulty KJV.
[/quote]
Wow King…I could not have said it better. No, I mean I really could not have said it better. I appreciate that you understood what I wrote…
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
pat wrote:
Mr. Chen wrote:
Let’s go back to this one though; you have big problem. And to answer the question of why the issue of the Peter not being the first pope is so important- Of course it’s because this mistaken belief is the foundation of the whole hierarchical structure.
pat wrote: Peter means ‘rock’ Jesus purposely changed his name to that,
No Jesus didn’t. Simon was already also called Peter when Jesus first met him:
And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. (Mat 4:18)
Ah, we are running into translation problems now:
“While walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon (who is called Peter) and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen.
(Matthew 4:18 ESV)”
In the ESV translation, you see the “who is called Peter” in the present tense while the rest of the sentence is past tense.
Do you know which Greek manuscript the ESV is based on? I can tell you that the KJV translators had it available, and rejected it.
[/quote]
They never had it available. A lot of these things are in Rome. The KJV is errant and everybody knows it. It’s falling out of favor because of it’s transitional errors. It existed only because it was the only English translation of scripture for a long time.
Here’s one of millions of articles on that fact… http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/what-are-the-errors-in-king-james-version-bible.html
This is what I call tortured logic! It was a direct statement from Christ, bub. History in turn backs it up. To make this not true, you have to both rewrite scripture and history. The early church is your history, get over it. You didn’t just suddenly get “right” after 1500 years of being wrong.
Have you ever tried to imagine the conversation they we you said it happened? “Hey Simon, congradulations, the Holy Spirit has revealed this fact to you and you are Rock and on this rock, (now pointing to himself) I will build my church” ← That makes no sense on any level.
Then again, you have the historical problem of Peter being the first pope in history as well. Look, if you have to rewrite scripture and rewrite history to make it say what you want to, then the problem isn’t with scripture or history.
Uh, yeah. Peter was a boob. Peter, being an apostle and a student of Christ was, I am sure, corrected a lot. I didn’t see where he said, "Nevermind, you’re a dolt I am picking somebody else to head up the church. The church is about Christ not Peter, or any pope for that matter. The pope serves God.
Are you being serious here? He threw the lot and numbered Matthias among them. That is what is meant by “Peter replaced Judas”. I didn’t think I had to spell it out.
Uh, you don’t see whats wrong with what you just said? Peter spoke first. He stood up with the 11 as their leader.
Not trying to gloat? About what? Trying to rewrite history and scripture? I have read the bible…More of it than you. We have 7 more books…Actually 6 technically (Bel and the Dragon is added to Daniel). I own 3 different translations, all of them more accurate than KJV.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< Maybe that’s why Brother Chris doesn’t fully understand what your questions are driving at. Just a thought.[/quote]Trust me friend, I’ve known Brother Chris a long time. He is right at the top of my list of favorite people, not only in this site, but in my life.
He understands what I’m asking him and he knows where I’m going, or at the very least that I’m going somewhere he doesn’t want to be taken. The question on rating his church is tied right in here too along with the canonization process. Look at the following here:[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Source? Of the Reformation? Or Luther’s/protestant’s schism? [/quote]What is this. I can’t get a simple answer to a simple question. Was the protestant reformation God’s will or not?
Chris is a sharp kid and he knows me very well. He knows what I’m asking him. I’m even asking very nicely. I’m the world champion of surgical sarcasm. I have ceased from pointing that weapon at him. At least the way I used to.
[/quote]
I’m not impugning his intelligence, Tirib. The issue isn’t his capability, but rather the relevance of the question. The first targets of Protestant apologetics were Catholics; we define ourselves by the fact that we are not them. Our history extends back a mere five centuries. They, on the other hand, have dealt with various heresies for nearly two millennia, and the rise of another “heretical” movement is probably not that defining for them. Consequently, maybe he simply doesn’t have a developed opinion on the issue, as he has said before. You cannot necessarily assume that Catholics, even this person you know so well, spends as much time thinking about the supposed soteriological plight of Protestants as we do about the supposed soteriological plight of Catholics.
He’s also right - there is a difference between the Reformation (Catholic’s had a reformation too, remember) as a whole, and Luther’s schism.
Also, that question could be answered yes and no. On the one hand, the Reformation could be considered heretical from a Catholic perspective, as it disrupted the unity of the church. On the other hand, it also propelled the church to crack down on the “sale” of indulgences and other forms of corruption and to codify more specifically her doctrines. Consequently, some might argue that it was a God-send.[/quote]
Hmmm, you may be my favorite Protestant…
At this point in history, though we consider the actual changing of scipture and worship heretical for what he did and at the time, we also consider the fact that at that time we painted Martin Luther into a corner. And the church recognizes that Luther also caused a reformation, and house cleaning, if you will, of the corruption that was permeating the church at various levels. So to some degree, Luther saved the Catholic church… It force them to look inward and get right. In that sense, he could in fact be considered somewhat of a hero of the church. It has not gone unnoticed particularly by modern scholars.
Many of the things in history that people “blame” the church for, was actually the actions of individuals with in the church. The indulgence problem in Germany wasn’t a wide spread practice of the church, it was particularly bad with that Bishop whom Luther was under at the time. Not all diocese sold indulgences and there are many things that people did on behalf of the church that the authority of the church wasn’t aware of until it was to late in many cases…
They didn’t have the internet and stuff back then info moved slow…
What a lot of protestants don’t realize is that we can be brothers in Christ despite our differences. There is no reason to fight, we can celebrate this gift together; even if different.
Of course, I won’t tolerate attacks especially when many are unfounded.
You seem to be well educated…
Tirib, I’m just spitballing here, but maybe Catholics don’t spend quite the same amount of time, either in catechetical instruction or in their general theologizing, thinking about the reasons behind the various schisms (either with the Eastern Orthodox or with Protestants). Historically speaking, it may simply have not been as defining a moment for them as it was for us. Protestant identity, after all, is defined in relation to what is being protested against, i.e., the primary soteriological claims of the Catholic church. In a sense, and however implicitly, our identity is a function of what we are not, that is, Catholics. And for the first several hundred years of our existence, through bloody conflict’s like the Thirty Years War, Protestants had to fight hard to maintain their existence. At least for the last 1500 years, Catholics haven’t had to worry to the same degree about maintaing their identity and existence. I guess I’m just wondering if what was formative for us was much less central for Catholicism.
Maybe that’s why Brother Chris doesn’t fully understand what your questions are driving at. Just a thought.[/quote]
I sense you are an arminianist? You seem to not give much credence to TULIP.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
I can’t wait much longer Mr. Qualified, I’ve got to get to work.
We’ll have to use BDB, as it’s what I have access to.[/quote]
A change in your tone would be of benefit to everyone. If you have counter arguments to presented information you can make them with out the self-inflating ad hominems you are spewing.
The reason I have hung around this forum for as long as I have is the ability to have decent, well meaning intelligent conversation with people here.
You being so defensive without the benefit of being attacked makes me think you are on shaky ground with your reasoning.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Yes, I know, “much study is a weariness of the flesh” (Ecc12:12 KJV). But “The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies” (vs11). None of us can make your conclusions for you. Old guys like Tirib and I can only admonish and say- “Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh” (Ecc 12:1). Because they will Chris; you will get to a place where you must have answers. It’s better to have worked things out beforehand.
[/quote]
So you don’t have an answer for my question? You don’t have a reason to why you believe certain books are in the Bible?
Further, what are you trying to say with these verses?[/quote]
When in doubt, post random scripture versus… That way, you’re not arguing against them, your arguing against the word of God.
I can answer why there are certain books in the Bible. Because the college of bisshops and cardinals as well as the papacy painstakenly assembled the cannon at the Synod of Carthage separating the books that were thought to be divinely inspired from those that weren’t.
I know you didn’t want the answer from me, but I challenge anybody to put my history to task.
Proof:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Yes, I know, “much study is a weariness of the flesh” (Ecc12:12 KJV). But “The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies” (vs11). None of us can make your conclusions for you. Old guys like Tirib and I can only admonish and say- “Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh” (Ecc 12:1). Because they will Chris; you will get to a place where you must have answers. It’s better to have worked things out beforehand.
[/quote]
So you don’t have an answer for my question? You don’t have a reason to why you believe certain books are in the Bible?
Further, what are you trying to say with these verses?[/quote]
When in doubt, post random scripture versus… That way, you’re not arguing against them, your arguing against the word of God.
I can answer why there are certain books in the Bible. Because the college of bisshops and cardinals as well as the papacy painstakenly assembled the cannon at the Synod of Carthage separating the books that were thought to be divinely inspired from those that weren’t.
I know you didn’t want the answer from me, but I challenge anybody to put my history to task.[/quote]
And for anybody who is interested here are the acts of Peter and Paul:
Just because it’s not in the bible, doesn’t mean it’s not an important work. It’s just not a biblical work.
This is were we learned that Peter was crucified upside down… Personally, I think that’s a terrible idea.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
Anyway, moving on. Here is a question for Catholic posters. Historically speaking, there do seem to be some significant similarities between the early Christian practice (2nd century AD) of asking saints to speak to God on our behalf and the worship of spiritual beings practiced widely throughout the Greco-Roman world. Greeks and Romans believed spiritual beings inhabited every aspect of reality - trees, rocks, water, etc. - and that they governed their various domains. Consequently, if you wanted a particular type of aid, you would ask the being in charge of it. Since there isn’t an EXPLICIT statement in Scripture describing or clearly supporting the practice of asking saints for aid, what would you say if someone argued that the church adopted a pagan practice (prayer to the spiritual entities governing the various elements of the world) and simply Christianized it?
This is a historical argument. I’d like to hear how Catholics would respond to this one.[/quote]
Actually, it’s two fold. Yes it’s tradition and it’s verified by various miracles performed on behalf of said saint or dead person. Of course, like faith it’s difficult to translate personal experiences to sustainable proof, but I digress.
Second, there is a scriptural precedence in 2 Maccabees. Martyrdom, Resurrection and salvation are all topics explored in 2 Maccabees. I believe it’s in the book of Wisdom as well.[/quote]
2 Maccabees does mention a deceased priest Onias praying for the nation of Israel (2 Macc 15), but (1) it questionable whether or not Judas’ vision of the priest is actually something taking place in heaven, and (2) it does not mention living individuals petitioning the dead priest for aid. So yes, 2 Maccabees does support the idea of the deceased praying on behalf of the living, but that is not exactly the same thing as explicitly supporting the petitioning of the dead by the living.
I do actually find such arguments based on the miraculous answers to prayer significant, personally, as I do believe that God continues to work powerfully in the world today in response to prayer.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
Anyway, moving on. Here is a question for Catholic posters. Historically speaking, there do seem to be some significant similarities between the early Christian practice (2nd century AD) of asking saints to speak to God on our behalf and the worship of spiritual beings practiced widely throughout the Greco-Roman world. Greeks and Romans believed spiritual beings inhabited every aspect of reality - trees, rocks, water, etc. - and that they governed their various domains. Consequently, if you wanted a particular type of aid, you would ask the being in charge of it. Since there isn’t an EXPLICIT statement in Scripture describing or clearly supporting the practice of asking saints for aid, what would you say if someone argued that the church adopted a pagan practice (prayer to the spiritual entities governing the various elements of the world) and simply Christianized it?
This is a historical argument. I’d like to hear how Catholics would respond to this one.[/quote]
It is fundamental. Looking at it scripturally we can see that we are one Family in Christ in Heaven and on Earth, and we know that God desires and responds to our mediation and intercessory prayers both in the New and Old Testament. We even have specific instructions by God and examples of subordinate mediation in Scripture and we even see the veneration and honor given to Saints and Angels.
Further, historically we see many early Christians to give support of prayers to the Saints and honor to them including John Chrysostom, Augustine, Jerome, Pope Leo the Great, John of Damascene, and even the Nicea Council II.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
Anyway, moving on. Here is a question for Catholic posters. Historically speaking, there do seem to be some significant similarities between the early Christian practice (2nd century AD) of asking saints to speak to God on our behalf and the worship of spiritual beings practiced widely throughout the Greco-Roman world. Greeks and Romans believed spiritual beings inhabited every aspect of reality - trees, rocks, water, etc. - and that they governed their various domains. Consequently, if you wanted a particular type of aid, you would ask the being in charge of it. Since there isn’t an EXPLICIT statement in Scripture describing or clearly supporting the practice of asking saints for aid, what would you say if someone argued that the church adopted a pagan practice (prayer to the spiritual entities governing the various elements of the world) and simply Christianized it?
This is a historical argument. I’d like to hear how Catholics would respond to this one.[/quote]
Actually, it’s two fold. Yes it’s tradition and it’s verified by various miracles performed on behalf of said saint or dead person. Of course, like faith it’s difficult to translate personal experiences to sustainable proof, but I digress.
Second, there is a scriptural precedence in 2 Maccabees. Martyrdom, Resurrection and salvation are all topics explored in 2 Maccabees. I believe it’s in the book of Wisdom as well.[/quote]
2 Maccabees does mention a deceased priest Onias praying for the nation of Israel (2 Macc 15), but (1) it questionable whether or not Judas’ vision of the priest is actually something taking place in heaven, and (2) it does not mention living individuals petitioning the dead priest for aid. So yes, 2 Maccabees does support the idea of the deceased praying on behalf of the living, but that is not exactly the same thing as explicitly supporting the petitioning of the dead by the living.
[/quote]
Ah, yes. I got confused between praying for the dead and praying to the dead, in Maccabees.
But this is reconcilable in other ways as well. For Jesus speaks with Elijah and Moses during the transfiguration…
God is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living.
Then of course you have the 24 elders in Revelation holding the Golden bowls of incense which are the prayers of the saints.
Then of course there is the historical precedent you mentioned.
Then, there is the fact that the intercession of the saints yields effects. I.E. the prayers are answered. Sometimes even verifiably so, which of course is the ultimate litmus test.
[quote]
I do actually find such arguments based on the miraculous answers to prayer significant, personally, as I do believe that God continues to work powerfully in the world today in response to prayer. [/quote]
Which I whole heartily agree and have experienced in very profound ways. Like I said this is the ultimate test. Does it work?
Now it’s important to be understood that this is not necessary to be done. You never ever have to ask a saint’s intercession at any level, at any point in your life for your relationship with God. It’s just a tool. It’s an option, you don’t have to use it.
Which I whole heartily agree and have experienced in very profound ways. Like I said this is the ultimate test. Does it work?
Now it’s important to be understood that this is not necessary to be done. You never ever have to ask a saint’s intercession at any level, at any point in your life for your relationship with God. It’s just a tool. It’s an option, you don’t have to use it. [/quote]
Now I’m glad you pointed that out. So in your view, my sins as a Protestant do not include the absence of requests to the saints? If not prayer, is veneration of the saints necessary for salvation, or am I making a distinction without a difference?
Also, thank you for actually taking the time to answer my questions.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Let’s go back to this one though; you have big problem. And to answer the question of why the issue of the Peter not being the first pope is so important- Of course it’s because this mistaken belief is the foundation of the whole hierarchical structure.
No Jesus didn’t. Simon was already also called Peter when Jesus first met him:
And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. (Mat 4:18)
[/quote]
Ah, we are running into translation problems now:
“While walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon (who is called Peter) and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen.
(Matthew 4:18 ESV)”
In the ESV translation, you see the “who is called Peter” in the present tense while the rest of the sentence is past tense.[/quote]
Do you know which Greek manuscript the ESV is based on? I can tell you that the KJV translators had it available, and rejected it.
Jesus was making a play on words. “thou art Peter[a small stone], and upon this rock[a huge rock] I will build my church;” But you don’t need to go back to the Greek to get this, just note the grammar. If Christ meant Peter is the rock His church was to be built on, he would’ve said- and upon thee I will build my church. One of the reasons the KJV translators used thee, thou, and -th endings, is because this form of English more accurately translates Greek tense. It was not because they lived in Shakespeare’s time, and everybody talked like that. If you read their dedicatory you can see this plainly. It does not contain this type of speech, though it was written during the same time period.
Do you think it’s possible Christ would make Peter the foundation of His church, and then, only a few verses later rebuke him saying- “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” (Mat 16:23KJV)???
[quote]pat wrote: Peter spoke first saying:
“And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
(Acts 15:7 ESV)”
James merely added to it. Acts 15 makes no indication what so ever, that James presided over Peter in the matter. He simply put the exclamation on Peter’s proclamation.
[/quote]
Yes, James let the others give their opinions first, just as anyone heading up a meeting might do, then he made is decision- “my sentence is this”.
[quote]pat and chen wrote: Once Paul even had to rebuke Peter:
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. (Gal 2:11)
Which means nothing. Why wouldn’t Paul or any other apostle be able to rebuke Peter? Peter was just a man after all, nor did he claim to be perfect. Peter did correct his mistake anyway, either by Paul’s rebuke or the dream he had in Acts.
Peter also warned about Paul’s letters being misunderstood and misused:
“as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
(2 Peter 3:16 ESV)”
Peter was the one who replaced Judas among the 12. He was also the first to speak and proclaim Jesus. Who but a person with the authority to do so, could do so?[/quote]
He did not replace Judas, Matthias did, see Acts 1:26.
He was not the first to proclaim Jesus. They all did together at Pentacost in Acts Ch 2:
But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: (Act 2:14 KJV)
Pat, you have made some mistakes that plain reading of the bible would correct. I’m really not trying to gloat at all, it does nothing for me to point out your errors above. I would have just as willingly written this info up for you as a PM that no one else would see. I sincerely recommend you simply read your bible by yourself, and stop reading Roman Catholic websites.
[/quote]
Actually Mr. Chen, in response to your comments to me, your exchange with Pat exemplifies my point. First of all, the KJV translators did NOT have many manuscripts available to them. In fact, they relied primarily on the Textus Receptus, a compilation of a handful of late Greek manuscripts (and even a translation from the Latin Vulgate into Greek). Modern translators (like the ESV committee) have thousands more (and earlier!) manuscripts than those used by the KJV translators, which is why the KJV is now widely recognized as such a poor translation. As an example, take 1 John 5:7, where the KJV reads, “there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and theses three are one.” That entire sentence is a late addition; no early manuscripts have that reading.
More importantly, the proper translation for “called” cannot be determined by text criticism, because there are no significant textual variants for Matthew 4:18 on this issue. The ESV, as Pat noted, is faithful to the Greek - the word translated “called” in the KJV and “who is called” is the ESV is a present participle, meaning that the best translation is actually “who is called.” Furthermore, as Pat noted, it is a parenthetical remark, meaning that Matthew inserted that descriptive phrase (“SImon (who is called Peter)”) in order to distinguish Peter for his audience. Simon was one of the most popular names in the 1st century A.D., so it makes sense that Matthew would add that phrase to make clear which Simon he was referring to. The fact that he didn’t feel the need to add anything more to his description other than Simon’s other name (Peter) actually supports Pat’s argument for Peter’s importance - he was such a prominent, important figure that the mere mention of the name would allow Matthew’s audience to identify him.
Setting aside the discussion of the use of “thee, thou, and -th” endings by the KJV translators, the fact remains that you completely ignored Pat’s point. You did not explain how John 1:42 fits with your theory; to borrow your phrase, the plain meaning of that passage is that Peter got his name from Jesus, not from someone else.
Furthermore, in response to your question ("Do you think it’s possible Christ would make Peter the foundation of His church, and then, only a few verses later rebuke him saying- “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” (Mat 16:23KJV)???), I would argue that Jesus’ rebuke makes PERFECT sense in that context, as it fits in with Matthew’s rhetorical goals. In other words, Matthew juxtaposes Jesus’ elevation of Peter with his rebuke of Peter to show to his audience (for whom Peter is a major figure) that even the great Peter was not always so great, that Jesus loved him despite his sins and died for him too. In reality, it makes perfect sense, and in no way argues against Peter’s authority in the early church.
I think you need to study more Greek before you attack someone based on the wording of the faulty KJV.
[/quote]
Wow King…I could not have said it better. No, I mean I really could not have said it better. I appreciate that you understood what I wrote…
[/quote]
Yes, John 1:42 does show that Simon did recieve the name Peter from Jesus, I forgot about that one. My mistake.
Kai- Of course your theory for Matthew’s purpose of recording Peter’s rebuke by the Lord is really moot, until we are clear on Mt 16:18. So, I want to ask you to show me from the Greek text that Christ is referring to Peter when he says “and upon this rock I will build my church”. As I read the Greek text, it seems very plain the rock Christ intends to build his church upon is Himself, and He is emphasizing the importance this confession by Peter in vs 16- “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”. The rock is the fact Peter just confessed- He is the Son of the Living God.
Just use your standard keyboard and type romanized Greek; it will be sufficient for our purpose.
Also, I would like to ask- Do you believe the NT alone supports the concept of a pope? Just a yes or no is fine, but feel free to qualify afterward.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
As an example, take 1 John 5:7, where the KJV reads, “there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and theses three are one.” That entire sentence is a late addition; no early manuscripts have that reading. [/quote]
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Let’s go back to this one though; you have big problem. And to answer the question of why the issue of the Peter not being the first pope is so important- Of course it’s because this mistaken belief is the foundation of the whole hierarchical structure.
No Jesus didn’t. Simon was already also called Peter when Jesus first met him:
And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. (Mat 4:18)
[/quote]
Ah, we are running into translation problems now:
“While walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon (who is called Peter) and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen.
(Matthew 4:18 ESV)”
In the ESV translation, you see the “who is called Peter” in the present tense while the rest of the sentence is past tense.[/quote]
Do you know which Greek manuscript the ESV is based on? I can tell you that the KJV translators had it available, and rejected it.
Jesus was making a play on words. “thou art Peter[a small stone], and upon this rock[a huge rock] I will build my church;” But you don’t need to go back to the Greek to get this, just note the grammar. If Christ meant Peter is the rock His church was to be built on, he would’ve said- and upon thee I will build my church. One of the reasons the KJV translators used thee, thou, and -th endings, is because this form of English more accurately translates Greek tense. It was not because they lived in Shakespeare’s time, and everybody talked like that. If you read their dedicatory you can see this plainly. It does not contain this type of speech, though it was written during the same time period.
Do you think it’s possible Christ would make Peter the foundation of His church, and then, only a few verses later rebuke him saying- “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” (Mat 16:23KJV)???
[quote]pat wrote: Peter spoke first saying:
“And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
(Acts 15:7 ESV)”
James merely added to it. Acts 15 makes no indication what so ever, that James presided over Peter in the matter. He simply put the exclamation on Peter’s proclamation.
[/quote]
Yes, James let the others give their opinions first, just as anyone heading up a meeting might do, then he made is decision- “my sentence is this”.
[quote]pat and chen wrote: Once Paul even had to rebuke Peter:
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. (Gal 2:11)
Which means nothing. Why wouldn’t Paul or any other apostle be able to rebuke Peter? Peter was just a man after all, nor did he claim to be perfect. Peter did correct his mistake anyway, either by Paul’s rebuke or the dream he had in Acts.
Peter also warned about Paul’s letters being misunderstood and misused:
“as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
(2 Peter 3:16 ESV)”
Peter was the one who replaced Judas among the 12. He was also the first to speak and proclaim Jesus. Who but a person with the authority to do so, could do so?[/quote]
He did not replace Judas, Matthias did, see Acts 1:26.
He was not the first to proclaim Jesus. They all did together at Pentacost in Acts Ch 2:
But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: (Act 2:14 KJV)
Pat, you have made some mistakes that plain reading of the bible would correct. I’m really not trying to gloat at all, it does nothing for me to point out your errors above. I would have just as willingly written this info up for you as a PM that no one else would see. I sincerely recommend you simply read your bible by yourself, and stop reading Roman Catholic websites.
[/quote]
Actually Mr. Chen, in response to your comments to me, your exchange with Pat exemplifies my point. First of all, the KJV translators did NOT have many manuscripts available to them. In fact, they relied primarily on the Textus Receptus, a compilation of a handful of late Greek manuscripts (and even a translation from the Latin Vulgate into Greek). Modern translators (like the ESV committee) have thousands more (and earlier!) manuscripts than those used by the KJV translators, which is why the KJV is now widely recognized as such a poor translation. As an example, take 1 John 5:7, where the KJV reads, “there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and theses three are one.” That entire sentence is a late addition; no early manuscripts have that reading.
More importantly, the proper translation for “called” cannot be determined by text criticism, because there are no significant textual variants for Matthew 4:18 on this issue. The ESV, as Pat noted, is faithful to the Greek - the word translated “called” in the KJV and “who is called” is the ESV is a present participle, meaning that the best translation is actually “who is called.” Furthermore, as Pat noted, it is a parenthetical remark, meaning that Matthew inserted that descriptive phrase (“SImon (who is called Peter)”) in order to distinguish Peter for his audience. Simon was one of the most popular names in the 1st century A.D., so it makes sense that Matthew would add that phrase to make clear which Simon he was referring to. The fact that he didn’t feel the need to add anything more to his description other than Simon’s other name (Peter) actually supports Pat’s argument for Peter’s importance - he was such a prominent, important figure that the mere mention of the name would allow Matthew’s audience to identify him.
Setting aside the discussion of the use of “thee, thou, and -th” endings by the KJV translators, the fact remains that you completely ignored Pat’s point. You did not explain how John 1:42 fits with your theory; to borrow your phrase, the plain meaning of that passage is that Peter got his name from Jesus, not from someone else.
Furthermore, in response to your question ("Do you think it’s possible Christ would make Peter the foundation of His church, and then, only a few verses later rebuke him saying- “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” (Mat 16:23KJV)???), I would argue that Jesus’ rebuke makes PERFECT sense in that context, as it fits in with Matthew’s rhetorical goals. In other words, Matthew juxtaposes Jesus’ elevation of Peter with his rebuke of Peter to show to his audience (for whom Peter is a major figure) that even the great Peter was not always so great, that Jesus loved him despite his sins and died for him too. In reality, it makes perfect sense, and in no way argues against Peter’s authority in the early church.
I think you need to study more Greek before you attack someone based on the wording of the faulty KJV.
[/quote]
Wow King…I could not have said it better. No, I mean I really could not have said it better. I appreciate that you understood what I wrote…
[/quote]
Yes, John 1:42 does show that Simon did recieve the name Peter from Jesus, I forgot about that one. My mistake.
Kai- Of course your theory for Matthew’s purpose of recording Peter’s rebuke by the Lord is really moot, until we are clear on Mt 16:18. So, I want to ask you to show me from the Greek text that Christ is referring to Peter when he says “and upon this rock I will build my church”. As I read the Greek text, it seems very plain the rock Christ intends to build his church upon is Himself, and He is emphasizing the importance this confession by Peter in vs 16- “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”. The rock is the fact Peter just confessed- He is the Son of the Living God.
Just use your standard keyboard and type romanized Greek; it will be sufficient for our purpose.
Also, I would like to ask- Do you believe the NT alone supports the concept of a pope? Just a yes or no is fine, but feel free to qualify afterward.[/quote]
Is there a way to change fonts on T-Nation? I am assuming not.
Don’t forget Mark 3:16 - “And to Simon he gave the name Peter” (the subject of tithemi or “gave” here is Jesus).
Also, I was not citing my “theory of Matthew’s purpose” as evidence in support of reading epi taute te petra (upon this rock) as a reference to Peter. I was simply responding to the incredulity you expressed at the idea that Jesus would call Peter the foundation of his church and only a few verses later rebuke him so harshly. My point was that there is nothing inherently unbelievable about that; it fits Matthew’s rhetorical aims.
Mr. Chen, you are correct that the structure of the Greek does not prove that Peter is the rock upon which Jesus would build his church. The clause introduced by hoti is an appositional construction (x is y), and the subject shifts from Peter in the first part of the sentence to Jesus in the second (“I, Jesus, will build my church upon this rock”). The Greek epi taute te petra (upon this rock) does not grammatically or syntactically have to refer back to Peter.
At the same time, where the word play Jesus is making is lost in translation, it is absolutely apparent in the Greek. The first clause equates Simon with “Peter”, which is the masculine form of petra or “rock.” Jesus names Simon “rock” (petros) in the first part of his declaration. Now while some Protestants argue that epi taute te petra refers back to Peter’s confession, it is strange that Jesus identifies Peter with the “rock,” not Peter’s confession. I recognize that the second part of the sentence is a bit of a circumlocution - why does Jesus not simply say “upon you” if that is what he means? - but the sentence is equally difficult with your reading - having just called Simon “Rock,” Jesus refers to something else as “rock” without clearly identifying that the referent had changed. The most natural reading of the sentence is that (1) Simon is Rock (Petros), and (2) upon this just-a-moment-before mentioned rock (Petros) Christ will build his church.
The use of the demonstrative pronoun haute (in the dative, taute) also supports interpreting Peter as the petra upon which the church was built. Taute denotes “this;” ekeinos is its opposite, meaning “that.” Since the immediately preceding clause equates Simon with “rock” (Petros), if Jesus wanted to make clear that he was shifting subjects from Peter to Peter’s confession, ekeinos would have been more appropriate. The use of taute (this) causes the reader to look backwards for the closest possible referent, which, sure enough, is Petros (rock).
Furthermore, part of the problem is that English translations get so stuck in her minds that we are limited when we look at the Greek. In this case, the kai (“and”) looms large, and seems to add to elliptical nature of the phrase. However, linguistically speaking, kai has multiple functions, sometimes to join things together, but more often as a marker of progression. As such a marker, kai is often left untranslated, and it is highly possible that it should be so here, as its function here is not to create a complex subject or object (the boy AND the dog played/ I played with the boy and the dog), nor simply to join two independent clauses together, but rather to indicate progression of thought. Thus, a reading sensitive to this function of kai would probably use a semi-colon - “you are Rock; on this rock I will build my church.”
In other words, while the evidence is not conclusive, the burden of proof is on anyone who would argue that Jesus introduces a new referent for petra in the second part of the verse when the most likely referent (Petros, which also means rock) immediately precedes it. In reality, it is special pleading to argue that Jesus is referring back to Peter’s confession (which he does not call rock) rather than Peter (the man Jesus calls rock). Context, in short, supports reading epi taute te petra as reference to Peter, not his confession.
If it seems like I am arguing for this passage as proof of Peter’s eventual papal office, I am not. It’s a big leap exegetically from saying that Peter was a foundational figure in the early church to arguing that he was given special dominical authority rendering him inerrant in pronouncements and the vicar of Christ on earth. I do think that we shouldn’t downplay the important role Peter had in the early church; God used to him to do far more amazing things than you or I likely will ever do in our lives. That doesn’t make him pope, but it does make him worthy of respect. The early church leadership was not comprised of 12 equally authoritative individuals; Peter, James, and John had a special relation with Jesus compared to the others, and Peter does seem to have had considerable clout in the early church. You don’t have to wrongly tear down Peter to combat the notion of unique papal authority; there are solid historical reasons for doing the latter.
In case it isn’t apparent, no, I don’t think the New Testament alone supports the idea of a pope or papal authority. A better way of saying it is that the notion of papal authority does not derive from Scripture; a fair, contextually sensitive reading of the New Testament would not lead anyone to argue that Peter possessed papal authority. The church at Rome, supposedly (even likely) founded and headed by Peter, certainly grew in prominence for centuries, but the authority ascribed to the Roman church, historically speaking, has as much to do with the important place Rome held in the world at that time as it did with Peter’s relation to it. The Church at Rome would have likely received as much respect if it had been founded by Matthias as by Peter, simply because Rome was the most prominent city in the empire. Whether we like it or not, sometimes banal political and sociological factors contributed to the development of doctrines and institutions, including, in my opinion, the papacy.
Just a quick comment. The autograph of Matthew was in Aramaic. This is where we get the name Cephas, and looking in the Aramaic both instances of the use of rock are rendered Cephas. And further, the use of Petras and Petros in 1st Century had no distinction, not until the 3rd or 4th Century did we find a distinction.