Baptism question that seems unbiblical

[BreadOfLife]

You need to pay attention. My first statement, 'you showed me nothing' pertained to your first statement concerning Romes judgment against Kung. See how that works.

Concerning your Protestant quotes, I have already answered in my last two posts.

Stranger

The ONLY answer you gave me regarding those Protestant scholars is "I disagree with a lot of Protestants."

That's it?? That's your answer??
All you've showed me by this impotent response is that you're a good little Protestant doing what good little Protestant is supposed to do: Disagree and splinter off . . .

 

[Stranger]

The ONLY answer you gave me regarding those Protestant scholars is "I disagree with a lot of Protestants."

That's it?? That's your answer??
All you've showed me by this impotent response is that you're a good little Protestant doing what good little Protestant is supposed to do: Disagree and splinter off . . .

The same answer I give you concerning Peter and the Rock is the same answer I would give anyone else who believed as you. And we have discussed Peter and the Rock already. If you want to know my answer to those Protestants who believe as you, then go back and read what I said to you.

Now, show me the judgments that the Roman Church has passed on Kung.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

The same answer I give you concerning Peter and the Rock is the same answer I would give anyone else who believed as you. And we have discussed Peter and the Rock already. If you want to know my answer to those Protestants who believe as you, then go back and read what I said to you.

Now, show me the judgments that the Roman Church has passed on Kung.

Stranger

No - I've let you hijack this conversation long enough. This whole business about Kung started with the fact that I presented all of those Protestant scholars who agree with the Catholic position on Peter. YOU got stock on Kung.

Now - since I have debunked some of what Kung claimed - it's time for YOU to answer some of those Protestant scholars. And, while you're mulling them over - see if you can find ONE Early Church Father who said that Peter was NOT the Rock.
Happy hunting . . .

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), page 647 JPK page 14

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), page 58 JPK pages 16-17

Donald A. Carson III - Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary(two quotations from different works)
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 Peshitta (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), page 368
JPK pages 17-18

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), page 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), page 293, JPK page 19

John A. Broadus - Baptist author (two quotations from the same work)
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.

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), page 742 - JPK page 30

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), page 261 - PK page 34

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), page 470 - JPK pages 36-37[/QUOTE]

 

[Stranger]

BreadOfLife

See, you admit you started it. Yet for some reason when you present Protestants who agree with you, that is not hijacking the thread. But when I present a Romanist, as yourself, who agrees with some of what I believe, all of a sudden it is hijacking the thread. You of course cast much disdain upon Kung. And so I ask you, what are the judgements that the pope or Roman Church have passed against him. What are the final dispositions?

And you haven't debunked anything. You have only said differently. As to the Protestants you present, as I have already said, we have had this discussion before. My argument against your belief concerning Peter being the Rock, is the same it would be for these Protestants. Go back to page 18 of this thread and start with post #345 and read on. It will tell you all that you are wanting from me.

Stranger[/QUOTE]

 

[BreadOfLife]

BreadOfLife

See, you admit you started it. Yet for some reason when you present Protestants who agree with you, that is not hijacking the thread. But when I present a Romanist, as yourself, who agrees with some of what I believe, all of a sudden it is hijacking the thread. You of course cast much disdain upon Kung. And so I ask you, what are the judgements that the pope or Roman Church have passed against him. What are the final dispositions?

And you haven't debunked anything. You have only said differently. As to the Protestants you present, as I have already said, we have had this discussion before. My argument against your belief concerning Peter being the Rock, is the same it would be for these Protestants. Go back to page 18 of this thread and start with post #345 and read on. It will tell you all that you are wanting from me.

Stranger

[/QUOTE]
Wrong - I don't have any person "disdain" for Kung. I feel sorry for him.
I simply recognize a dissident when I read one - and so does the Church.

Now - when are YOU going to address some of the Protestant scholars that I presented - just as YOU demanded that I address Kung's drivel?

 

[Stranger]

BreadOfLife (concerning post #445)

Why are you so averse to showing what the final disposition by the authorities in the Roman Church was concerning Kung. Are you ashamed of what they did or did not do?

I did address the Protestant scholars. Go back to page 18 and start with post #345. What I argue there will be the same to your Protestant scholars.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Wrong - I don't have any person "disdain" for Kung. I feel sorry for him.
I simply recognize a dissident when I read one - and so does the Church.

Now - when are YOU going to address some of the Protestant scholars that I presented - just as YOU demanded that I address Kung's drivel?

Why are you so averse to showing what the final disposition by the authorities in the Roman Church was concerning Kung. Are you ashamed of what they did or did not do?

I did address the Protestant scholars. Go back to page 18 and start with post #345. What I argue there will be the same to your Protestant scholars.

Stranger[/QUOTE]
And why are YOU so afraid to address the more than one DOZEN quotes from Protestant scholars and historians that I presented??

Flatly rejecting them isn't the same as addressing them.

 

[Stranger]

BreadOfLife (concerning post #447)

Why do you confuse your post with mine? It is a common tactic I have found on forums when ones position becomes untenable. They resort to smoke and confusion.

As I said, I disagree with the Protestant scholars you present. My argument against them can be found starting with post #345. Why is that so hard to understand?

You on the other hand have no provided what the final dispositions of the Roman Church are concerning Kung. Never mind, I will find them myself and present them and then see if you want to disagree.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

BreadOfLife (concerning post #447)

Why do you confuse your post with mine? It is a common tactic I have found on forums when ones position becomes untenable. They resort to smoke and confusion.

As I said, I disagree with the Protestant scholars you present. My argument against them can be found starting with post #345. Why is that so hard to understand?

You on the other hand have no provided what the final dispositions of the Roman Church are concerning Kung. Never mind, I will find them myself and present them and then see if you want to disagree.

Stranger

Soooooo, you're basically running away from the evidence I presented, showing almost a DOZEN Protestant scholars and theologians who support the idea that Peter is the "Rock" in Matt. 16:18.

WHY are you so afraid to address this evidence??
WHY do you keep falsely claiming that you already addressed them - when ALL you did was say that you "disagree".

WHY do you disagree with them? Take some of their scholarly evidence and DEBUNK it.
THAT'S how you address a point that you disagree with.

Please respond.

 

[Stranger]

Soooooo, you're basically running away from the evidence I presented, showing almost a DOZEN Protestant scholars and theologians who support the idea that Peter is the "Rock" in Matt. 16:18.

WHY are you so afraid to address this evidence??
WHY do you keep falsely claiming that you already addressed them - when ALL you did was say that you "disagree".

WHY do you disagree with them? Take some of their scholarly evidence and DEBUNK it.
THAT'S how you address a point that you disagree with.

Please respond.

I have addressed the protestant response. I disagree with them for the same reason I disagree with you.

Go back to post #345 and start reading from there. That is my response. If you disagree with what I have said then prove where I am wrong.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

I have addressed the protestant response. I disagree with them for the same reason I disagree with you.
Go back to post #345 and start reading from there. That is my response. If you disagree with what I have said then prove where I am wrong.

Stranger

I already proved you were wrong and presented almost a DOZEN Protestant scholars to support my position.
You have NOT yet rebutted that evidence. I don't need to go back and re-read your responses because there weren't any.

A debate is a series of positions and rebuttals. If you're unable to offer a rebuttal - then you've LOST the debate.
This is Debating 101.

 

[epostle1]

I have addressed the protestant response. I disagree with them for the same reason I disagree with you.

Go back to post #345 and start reading from there. That is my response. If you disagree with what I have said then prove where I am wrong.

Stranger

I was not aware that the Church had to formally disprove each and every dissident to satisfy the demands of outside dissidents. The Church is very patient. She can wait several centuries, if necessary, for the weeds of heresy to choke itself out, if the heresy even lasts long enough. The Church knows she can't swat flies while sitting on a manure pile.

Kung may not have been formally declared a heretic, but in Catholic circles he is(was) a damaging dissident. Contrary to the opinions of psychotic anti-Catholics, we have far more freedom of expression than they do.

 

[epostle1]

BreadOfLife (concerning post #445)

Why are you so averse to showing what the final disposition by the authorities in the Roman Church was concerning Kung. Are you ashamed of what they did or did not do?

I did address the Protestant scholars. Go back to page 18 and start with post #345. What I argue there will be the same to your Protestant scholars.

Stranger

Their can be no "final disposition" on Kung because he died. If you are looking for a mean dominating dictator that beats dissidents with his crozier, you won't find it.
Fr. Hans Kung says Francis responded to request for free discussion on infallibility dogma
Was Theologian Hans Küng Ever Excommunicated?
Topics like this are not simple for rationalists.

 

[Stranger]

I already proved you were wrong and presented almost a DOZEN Protestant scholars to support my position.
You have NOT yet rebutted that evidence. I don't need to go back and re-read your responses because there weren't any.

A debate is a series of positions and rebuttals. If you're unable to offer a rebuttal - then you've LOST the debate.
This is Debating 101.

You didn't prove me wrong. You disagreed. And then you present some protestants who agree with you. Big deal. I am not going to argue with every protestant you want to present. If you think I am in error, then 'you' show me and we can debate it. As you tried to. But you didn't.

So, if you want to go over it again, use your protestants arguments and yours and prove to me that Peter is the Rock, and I will argue against you that Peter is not the Rock. If you don't want to go over it again, go back to post #345 and start there and you will see my argument to you and to your protestants.

Stranger

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

As gullible as YOU are - you probably believe this asinine tale . . .

Oh really, and what's your tale that you claim is more legitimate?

 

[Stranger]

Their can be no "final disposition" on Kung because he died. If you are looking for a mean dominating dictator that beats dissidents with his crozier, you won't find it.
Fr. Hans Kung says Francis responded to request for free discussion on infallibility dogma
Was Theologian Hans Küng Ever Excommunicated?
Topics like this are not simple for rationalists.

When did he die? I was aware that he was never excommuicated up to a certain time, but wasn't sure if he had been since that time.

I was simply wanting to know Kung's place in the Roman church at the end as he always was faithful to the Church.

Stranger

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

Christian Baptism is much like entering a family or Tribe of Judah ( Gods people ) but under Grace now.
So one is initiated into that Tribe under God and such can and only be done once.
The greater Baptism is the one called the Holy Spirit, so you become born again of Jesus Christ, becoming Servants of God ( Israel ).
Not all will become Israel, but most just like Judah (Gods People) and that's fine to be a people of faith in God.
But to be born again of the Holy Spirit (true Israel) is more than faith, it's like total conviction and dedication of the Saints.

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

The same answer I give you concerning Peter and the Rock is the same answer I would give anyone else who believed as you. And we have discussed Peter and the Rock already. If you want to know my answer to those Protestants who believe as you, then go back and read what I said to you.

Now, show me the judgments that the Roman Church has passed on Kung.

Stranger

When Jesus first met Simon he called him Peter ? they say the Jesus know man before he was born ?
So we know that form the rock flows water, Spiritual water.
Jesus give Peter the Keys, so he is the first Pope of the Church. not so much as a leader but in charge of the faith guiding it as to the Holy Spirit and the Bible.
A rock is of expressed foundation being solid.
Jesus is the Rock, Jesus is the Corner Stone that the builders rejected.
With Peter, Jesus gave him this position, as such being a solid strength of character for the task at hand to unite all under the faith.

Not that all the Popes were of God, especially Pope Frances who can be seen for exactly what he is, a Freemason, supports the New World Order that is going to become a dictatorship lead by Marxist trash and Political Correctness becomes it's Idol that must be worshiped, he is a great supporter and lover of Sodomites, rejects the Bible, never speaks of Jesus Christ ever but only god, claims that Islam is of the same god as he claims of that is god, not to mention that every other Pope before him must of been wrong if he is correct.

Most people love Political Correctness nowadays, if you offend it then you are attacked no end, kicked out of your job for good, by just saying one word wrong out of place by it's true believes who totally worship it all.
I say it's a work of Satan that must be stamped out totally, because it's leading the whole world astray with it's mans works rubbish, Marxist insanity and it's Socialist dribble will only lead to the madness that created Nazis and Communist madness where the Government governs over the people like you are just it's cattle to become it's Slaves and if anyone stands up to them, you then become an enemy of the State and shot, just like all such madmen did and no one says boo, because you will be shot for questioning that Mob.
They have worked against Church and State for their own ends for years slowly but surely and this mob is on the path to become the most evil adulterous generation ever and it's all due to your TV media and Schools, University's peddling this deranged filth and Satanic Priest who are wolves.

 

[epostle1]

When Jesus first met Simon he called him Peter ? they say the Jesus know man before he was born ?
So we know that form the rock flows water, Spiritual water.
Jesus give Peter the Keys, so he is the first Pope of the Church. not so much as a leader but in charge of the faith guiding it as to the Holy Spirit and the Bible.
A rock is of expressed foundation being solid.
Jesus is the Rock, Jesus is the Corner Stone that the builders rejected.
With Peter, Jesus gave him this position, as such being a solid strength of character for the task at hand to unite all under the faith.

Not that all the Popes were of God, especially Pope Frances who can be seen for exactly what he is, a Freemason, supports the New World Order that is going to become a dictatorship lead by Marxist trash and Political Correctness becomes it's Idol that must be worshiped, he is a great supporter and lover of Sodomites, rejects the Bible, never speaks of Jesus Christ ever but only god, claims that Islam is of the same god as he claims of that is god, not to mention that every other Pope before him must of been wrong if he is correct.

Most people love Political Correctness nowadays, if you offend it then you are attacked no end, kicked out of your job for good, by just saying one word wrong out of place by it's true believes who totally worship it all.
I say it's a work of Satan that must be stamped out totally, because it's leading the whole world astray with it's mans works rubbish, Marxist insanity and it's Socialist dribble will only lead to the madness that created Nazis and Communist madness where the Government governs over the people like you are just it's cattle to become it's Slaves and if anyone stands up to them, you then become an enemy of the State and shot, just like all such madmen did and no one says boo, because you will be shot for questioning that Mob.
They have worked against Church and State for their own ends for years slowly but surely and this mob is on the path to become the most evil adulterous generation ever and it's all due to your TV media and Schools, University's peddling this deranged filth and Satanic Priest who are wolves.

There is no shortage of religious idiots on the internet.

 

[epostle1]

When did he die? I was aware that he was never excommuicated up to a certain time, but wasn't sure if he had been since that time.

I was simply wanting to know Kung's place in the Roman church at the end as he always was faithful to the Church.

Stranger

We don't shoot our wounded. The Church takes time to digest Kung's complaints, especially given the fact that papal infallibility was already worked out in 1870. To be fair to Kung, greasing one squeaky wheel, the Church has to go over the same issues that have long been resolved. He claims they are outdated. If you learn anything out of this, know that theologians have a voice in spite of the fact that most Catholics disagree with them.