Featured Should catholics saved By Grace Of God Forsake the RCC, and depart now?

I know what Barnes says. I use him all the time. If I can't trust you to quote him accurately, then I can't trust you to quote the others accurately either. I will just conclude your entire post to be unethical and deceitful.
Here is what Barnes said, specifically about Mat.16:18

[FONT=&quot]Quite a bit different then what you posted isn't it?
[/FONT]

 

Since you were not there to be an eye-witness you don't know what they were speaking.
The NT was written in Greek.
The Greek is the inspired Word of God. Those are the words that we go by--the very words that God himself inspired. Case closed.

 

Yes, that is true. However, in what capacity is he giving the keys to Peter? He never addressed the question to Peter but to all the disciples. It is clear from Matthew 18:15-18 it was not directed to Peter in any individual capacity because it is a plural "you" in Matthew 18:18.

It is clear from Peter that every single member of the congregation Jesus claim to build is a metaphorical "stone" (1 Pet. 2:5) and it is clear from Peter that the feminine "petra" upon which the church is built is Christ (1 Pet. 2:8) and not Peter in the capacity of a pope (1 Pet. 5:1-3).

The answer is simple. Matthew 16:18 is a building context.

1. There is a builder named - "I will"
2. There is a building named - "my church"
3. There is a foundation to build upon - "upon this rock"

But where is the material to build with? - "Thou art Peter"

Peter answered in behalf of all the congregation present (Acts 1:21-22) and Christ by design intentionaly characterized the anarthous construct "petros" to characterize the kind of material Christ uses to build His church - the kind that confesses Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God. This is exactly where Peter got the metaphor that every single member of Christ's congregation is a "lively STONE." It is "the church" in Matthew 18:17 that is the antecedant of the plural "you" entrusted with administration of the keys in Matthew 18:18. It is the church that administers the key of discipline in 1 Cor. 5:1-13 by a plurality (2 Cor. 2:6).

 

Couple of points to bring up. It is clear that Jesus spoke with his disciples in Aramaic. That when Jesus named Peter he did so in Aramaic. How can we conclude this? Simple, straight from scriptures. Galatians 1:18

We can see Paul using the name the Lord gave Peter which is Aramaic. Thus the Petros/Petra argument doesn't work. The Lord Named Peter Kephas which is like english in that rock means rock and doesn't use a gender identifier. However, translated into Greek a person isn't going to give Kephas a girl name or Petra which in greek is feminine also giving the term Large rock but a manish name which is Petros or little rock. But the originial intent by Jesus wasn't to call him pebble but rock and names him Kepha.

 

Couple of problems to bring up. Peter is second person singular but "this" rock is third person singular and its grammatical antedent is traced back to his confession in verse 15.

Matthew is written in Greek not Aramaic. Aramaic can be applied to either size of rock - big or small but the Greek term "petros" versus "petra" CAN distinguish the size and Petros is found in Macabees to refer to a small stone.

Peter's own interpetative use of the building up of the church proves that in Peter's mind he merely was used as representative building material because every member is a "stone" in the congregation - 1 Pet. 2:5

Peter's own interpretative use of "petra" proves that in Peter's mind Christ is that foundation stone - 1 Pet. 2:8

Peter's own interpretative perception of his own office proves that in Peter's mind he holds no superior eldership than any other elder - 1 Pet. 5:1-4.

Christ's own application of the use of the keys proves that in Christ's own mind he never intended his statement in Matthew 16:19 to be perceived to be restricted to just Peter but to what Peter characterized - the materials that Jesus builds his churches - baptized believers - in Matthew 18:17-18 and thus a PLURAL "you" JUST AS PETER HIMSELF APPLIES IT METAPHORICALLY IN 1 Peter. 2:5:

1 Pet. 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

From this text we glean these truths

1. All members are EQUALLY metaphorical "stones" which Jesus uses to "build up" his congregation.
2. All members are EQUALLY priests before God
3. All membes EQUALLY offer up spiritual gifts

These three truths totally anihilate Roman Catholicism.

 

I don't see how that is a problem listen to Jesus. "You are rock. And upon this rock" it seems pretty clear.

Lets be more honest about this. All the copies that we can point to are Greek copies. There is no certainty that the autograph wasn't writen in Aramaic. Also its clear that Matthew is recalling a discussion which happened originally in Aramaic.

 

Again, there is absolutely no evidence that any of the gospels were written in Aramaic. Second, if your positon were true he should have said, "You are rock and upon you I will build my church. The third person singular has grammatical antecedents in verses 16 and 15.

There is no evidence for your position. There is evidence that Matthew wrote his gospel in Greek as he has to provide his audiance with an Aramaic translation of Christ's words in Matthew 27:46.


Matthew is not recalling any discussion. You are confusing John with Matthew. It is John that recalls the discussion and John writes in Greek to non-Aramaic speaking audiance as he has to provide an Aramaic translation.

 

Matthew was prevailed upon by Jewish Christians to write the Gospel of Matthew in the first place. According to Eusebius:
“Matthew had begun by preaching to Hebrews; and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own gospel to writing in his native tongue, so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote.” (Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.24.6-7).

Jerome also states that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. I don't know why these guys would fabricate this. It seems like good evidence to me that the gospel of Matthew was originally penned in Hebrew. Matthew was a Jewish tax collector. He was literate so he must have been able to read and write Hebrew. Many of the people who asked him to write the gospel were most likely illiterate. But the ones that could read & write most often learned Hebrew. Saint Jerome states that the Hebrew version of Matthew was still in existence during his lifetime in Pamphilus' library at Caesarea. Jerome also knew that the Hebrew version of Matthew's Gospel was in use during his lifetime by a certain group of Christians in Syria.

All this seems to strongly point to the gospel of Matthew orignally being written in Hebrew, not Greek. I have read that it is highly unlikely that Matthew even knew how to read or write Greek. As a tax collector for the Romans, he must also have been able to read and write Latin

 

That is pure baloney. Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew inspired by the Holy Spirit. He was not prevailed upon. Like so much of your reasoning, this is not a man made plan, but the hand of God. It makes no difference which language it was originally written in, and it certainly makes no difference what the RCC goofy historians think about it.

 

I never said that Matthew did not write under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If people prevailed upon Matthew to write the gospel doesn't mean that the Lord wasn't behind their doing so. For you to say 'it is pure baloney and made up' is what I would expect out of you. It DOES matter what language it was written in. For one thing, it puts that ridiculous 'petra/petros' argument to rest. As 'TS' said, the fact that Peter was addressed as Kephas AFTER the Lord Jesus changed his name to that supports the fact that Jesus used the Aramaic word for Rock. Are you saying that Catholic historians 'made up what Eusubeus and Jerome wrote? That their writings are forgeries? The 'goofy historians' I'm finding are the Baptist ones like Caroll's inaccurate 'Trail of Blood' nonsense.

 

Even in your quote it doesn't say what his native tongue was. It could have been Greek in the Hellenistic society in which he lived. We have over 5,000 MSS of the NT. There is not one Aramaic MS of the gospel of Matthew. In 5,000 MS. not one points to an Aramaic MS of Matthew. You stand on pure speculation, with absolutely no proof.

All of the apostles knew at least four languages, if not more: Latin, Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, and possibly the language of the part of the country that they were from or went to. Read Acts 2. There are about 13 nations or languages represented there. All spoke Greek, but they all spoke a native language as well. The key to it all is that the NT was inspired in Greek. That is the language that God's Word is inspired in; that is our authoritative source.

Not true. They lived in one of the most literate societies ever. Even the slaves knew Greek. It was a gift from Alexander the Great--to give Greek to the world as a universal language and make it accessible so that all could learn it.
[quote But the ones that could read & write most often learned Hebrew. [/quote]
All Jews were required to learn Hebrew in the synagogues.

If there was a Hebrew translation, it came from the Greek, not the other way around.

That is pure foolishness. Greek was the universal language of the day. All knew Greek.

 

Many of the heresies that entered the church came from "so-called church fathers." Even the RCC, for example, considered Origen a heretic.
I believe it was Ireneus that believed Christ lived to 80 years old.
Tertullian changed his views on Baptism more than once and in the end became a Montanist.
Which part of Tertullian's life do you conveniently quote in defense of the RCC's teaching?