A look at Matthew 16 vs dogma

Peter was so named by Christ to be REPRESENTATIVE in the character of his name of the rest.

 

Hey, when you really don't have Scripture to support your assertions, move elsewhere and give that a shot?

 

This is why I feel one of the most important questions we should be addressing is "What is a Christian?"

Since Rome teaches a Gospel that is different from that of the Bible, it is no longer Christian but an enemy of Christ. Neither do we lack fruit to judge them by.

 

Do you even know where they were when Jesus said this? Do you not know the cultural significance of the location? It was Caesarea Philippi. (Note the rock at that location and its pagan usage)

You see, doc, this is a perfect example of using tortured logic not to mention impossible grammar in order to shore up a position that would otherwise fall completely apart. Jesus would not have insulted Peter by using third person feminine singular which, by-the-way, did not even exist in their spoken language of Aramaic (petros / petra were synonymous in the Koine Greek of the New Testament as well) nor would he ambiguously dance around in such comical grammatical tenses – that only comes from the contrived Protestant interpretation (less than 500 years old) needed to deny the authority of the Catholic Church, which if acknowledged, destroys their (and your) position.

Jesus was God on Earth. Do you think he would not recognize the confusion that would inevitably result from using such impossible verbiage?

Peace!

 

And who on Earth has the authority to define who is a Christian? Hmmm...

You know, there are some creeds out there that define what one must believe in order to be considered a Christian. How about the Constantinople/Nicene creed?

That's an amazing claim since it was that very Church who finalized the canon of the New Testament. So... by your acceptance of that canon, you must necessarily accept the authority of those who set the canon.

Peace!

 

What? Clearly you didn't read my first post on the matter (#4). Anyway, as you well I don’t hold to the false and man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura and thus I am not bound by it, nor am I bound to defend it - that would be your position. Additionally, I can see why you run from the writings of the Early Church fathers. You do know that St. John Chrysostom is considered to be in the top five of the ECF's by theologians - both Catholic AND Protestant don't you?

Peace!

 

See post #9...

Peace!

 

1. The Roman Catholic Church does not define what Scripture is. I know these arguments and claims and they are some of the most shockingly arrogant statements I have heard from any non-Christian group.

2. Are creeds subject to error? Is the Scripture subject to error?

 

I am well aware of early Christian writings. I am not, however, bound by their authority as you are. It is quite revealing to me when debating papists that their primary appeal is to authority outside Scripture while bible-believers look to the Scripture (today, in large part to Huss, Wycliffe, and others who sacrificed their lives by the papacy to do so).

Yes, we believe and teach that Scripture Alone is the sufficient rule and guide for faith and Christian practice. Yet, even the papacy doesn't deny that Scripture is infallible. Even the papacy doesn't deny its authority...at least in word.

Early Christian writing are always subordinate to the Scriptures. What true Christians have never done, early or late, is submit their conscience and will to men rather than to God. They have always held to the primacy of Scripture over tradition.

 

I can't let this absurd reasoning go unchallenged before getting off.

1. There was literature during the period between Malichi and Matthew that kept the distinction between "petros" and "petra" as a smaller versus large stone. The Jews were well read and it would not require current usage to understand this.

2. There is no proof for the Q theory. Greek was the language of the day and Greek was used to express the nuances. The Greek text and its nuances express the mind of God and that is precisely why we have it and not some supposed Aramaic copy.

3. If "kepha" in a generic sense was designed by Christ then he should have said "you art "petros" and upon you I will build" or "you are petros and upon petros" I will build. He said neither but that is exactly what the Aramaic translation argument would demand.

4. See my exposition of the grammar and context in the last post to prove these Roman Catholic arguments are nothing but pure rubbage.

 

1. I am not a papist

2. I believe that scripture is materially sufficient. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation. I do not, however, believe scripture to be formally sufficient. In other words, scripture does not have the SOLE authority and never makes that claim for itself.

3. Since scripture is inspired, then is is by definition authoritative - just not the only authority. (see point 2 above)

How do you think scripture was passed on until it was written down? Orally. Did that make it not the word of God? No.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
"So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

Dissecting this verse:
Traditions taught by word of mouth = oral traditions
Traditions taught by letter = written traditions

There you have it; the word of God in written and spoken forms: Sacred scripture AND sacred traditions.

Consider 2 Timothy 2:2
"And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also."
Notice the Paul uses the word heard and not read, indicating an another example of oral tradition directly in scripture.

1 Corinthians 11:2
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you."
Again, this is an example of passing on sacred oral traditions.

1 Thessalonians 2:13
"And we also thank God constantly for this that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as what it really is; the word of God, which is at work in you believers."
So, they received as the word of God that which they heard, not simply that which they read in scripture.

Peace!

 

Your not a Roman Catholic? I thought you were. What are you then?

Why would what is taught orally by the Apostles in their day be different from what is written?

 

Most theologians of import just don't buy into this and it was not the teaching of the Church from its founding up to the time of the Reformation. Who is then to be considered as holding to the absurd.

Aramaic was the spoken language of the day. Jesus and the apostles spoke it. Greek was the written language - the language of commerce. Your response is meaningless.

Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are YOU, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to YOU [Simon Bar-Jonah], but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to YOU [Simon Bar-Jonah] that YOU are Peter [ROCK], and on this ROCK [Peter] I will build My church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it [the Church]. And I will give YOU [Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever YOU [Peter] bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU [Peter] loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

It pretty clear actually and it's also what Christians everywhere believed for 1,500 years.

So you say there, doc. However, opinions do not an argument make.

Peace!

 

Post 9 of yours follows:

I doubt that very much.

That is not true. Two words were used for a purpose. If they were synonymous there would have been no need to use two different words. Your argument fails on that point alone. Remember that this is the Holy Spirit writing. He doesn't make mistakes.

You are absolutely wrong on this point, so wrong that it seems like you don't know what you are talking about.
First, just before this Alexander the Great had conquered the world. What he gave this world was the Greek language. Greek was the universal language of the day. Even the slaves spoke it. Why do you think the entire NT was written in Greek? In fact to be specific it was written in Koine Greek--Common Greek or the Greek of the common person. That is what virtually everyone in the world of that time spoke.
Second, the language of commerce was Latin. The government of the time of Christ was Rome. Official transactions had to be done in Latin. The currency was in Roman currency with Latin inscriptions. Latin was the language of Rome.
Third, the OT was written in Hebrew, the sacred language of the Jews. Some say it was a fading language but it was not. It was still taught in the synagogues, and spoken among educated Jews. Remember Paul spoke to an entire crowd in the Hebrew tongue:

Acts 22:2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)
--It was the mark of an educated Jew, and when they heard him speak in that language he acquired their respect.

Fourth, Chaldee was a language that the Jews picked up when they were in captivity. It was related to Hebrew and many of them spoke it with ease. However it did not replace the Hebrew Language. Aramaic was a related language, like a dialect that was common at the time.

Another Scripture:
John 19:20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
These were the three official languages of the time.
Hebrew--official language of the Jews.
Latin--official language of Rome (language of commerce)
Greek--official language of the people--or common language of the world.

Here is a Catholic assumption, more like a myth or lie.
The NT was written in Greek. It is inspired and no other MSS. There was no Aramaic. Your argument is from silence and therefore not worth a Mexican Peso (or a Canadian penny). Deal with Scripture. It alone is our authority--not guess work.

Bluntly put, that is a lie. That is not what was originally said, and you have no way to prove it.
First, Greek was the common language of the day; everyone spoke it.
Second, the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and we have no reason to question the Holy Spirit and infer that he was lying to us.

"Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God"
"What is written is written."
Why don't you believe the Word of God? It is written and inspired in the Greek language and that is what we have to work with.

However, if you do an expository study of "rock" throughout the entire Bible or even just the NT, you will notice several passages that require Jesus to be the Rock in every place.

A simple blessing--nothing special about it. Simon is identified as the Son of Jonas. It refers to his physical heritage. We all receive blessings everyday.

Every believer is given these keys. It is called the gospel. Jesus cursed the scribes and Pharisees who took away these keys and locked up the kingdom of heaven from the common person.

No, it is a statement of fact; an address.
It is like me saying: "And I tell you, you are BillySunday" But that doesn't make it a blessing.

Peter's testimony was the Rock (that Christ was the Messiah), but Peter was the stone that would be built upon the Rock, the chief corner-stone which would be laid as the foundation.

"For other foundation can no man lay which is Jesus Christ. Christ alone is our Rock, our foundation. This the Bible teaches clearly.

 

I was born and raised a Baptist - just not one who holds to some of the more mainline fundamentalist views.

There is no difference and that is my point. Oral and written tradition were both inspired and therefore have equal authority.

Peace!

 

So you are a Baptist then? What denomination?

You may want to revise your last statement here because I wanted to be precise about the time period and make it specific to the time period of when the Apostles were alive.

So there would be no difference, in the days of the Apostles, between what they taught publically and what they sent in letters to the churches. Well, the Apostles are with the Lord now. So how can I know what they taught orally then except by what is left in the letters ?

 

And this is exactly why this discussion is fruitless. To Baptists, Scripture is suffecient, period.

 

That's very weak DHK. Did you even look at my sources? They are Protestant you know and - guess what - they disagree with you as well.

Everyone could speak a little Greek precisely BECAUSE it was the language of commerce - Just as today - if you go to Miami, FL you had better be able to speak a little Spanish. However, Aramaic was the spoken form of Hebrew. That's fact there DHK.

And Latin evolved from...

And the Hebrew tongue was... ARAMAIC!

Well, it is historically held to have been the dialect spoken by Jesus. Again, that's fact there, DHK.

Yes - but Aramaic was the spoken form of Hebrew.

If "...Greek was the universal language of the day..." and it was "...what virtually everyone in the world of that time spoke.." as you say, then why do you think Latin was the Language of commerce? It wasn't. It was simply the official language of Rome. They even adopted their gods from the Greeks for cryin' out loud.

Right...

Prove it!

Then why do many - MANY - scholars consider Jesus to have been speaking directly to and about Peter? After all, they are working with the Greek as well, yet they come to a different conclusion than you.

Jesus was also called the cornerstone, the door, the way, the truth, the Lamb of God, the Word made flesh, etc. However, none of this would preclude Jesus from changing Simon's name to Peter. He was, after all, God on Earth - the Word made flesh and, as such, was all knowing.

You obviously do not understand the significance of changing someone's name in scripture, nor do you realize the import of giving someone the keys to the kingdom in Jewish culture - both of which Jesus did to Peter in the context of the passage.

I think we are close to agreement on the above statement.

Amen! However, the fact that Christ built his Church upon Peter does not detract from that whatsoever.

Peace!

 

Perhaps. Yet sufficiency does not equate to SOLE authority and that is my point.

Peace!

 

Yes Tom, it does seem fruitless. How do you debate with someone who doesn't even believe in the sole authority of the Bible? They can feel free to pick and choose what is truth and what isn't. Opinion reigns supreme with them. On top of that, they can interject teaching from extra-Biblical sources as being authoritative or even above the Bible.