Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

[Nondenom40]

Now, you realize there are.



I guess Jesus just didn't get the word, um?

Having aramiac words, of which there are few means what exactly? The n.t. was written in greek not latin, aramiac or sanskrit. Yet catholics will use any and everything other than first century n.t. greek to support a position. Why? Because the bible doesn't say what they want it to say, so use a 21st century dictionary to support and prop up mother church. If you've never picked up a lexicon there are some free online. Do some study; 2 Tim 2:15. Be a berean.

 

[Yehren]

Having aramiac words, of which there are few means what exactly?

Means things aren't as simple as you assumed. It's not just messing up the etymology; it's your other assumptions as well.

The n.t. was written in greek not latin, aramiac or sanskrit. Yet catholics will use any and everything other than first century n.t. greek to support a position.

Early Catholics wrote in koine Greek (languages are capitalized, BTW). I thought you knew. If you understood the history of our faith a bit better, a lot of the confusion would go away for you.

Why? Because the bible doesn't say what they want it to say,

The Bible you use was compiled by Catholics, although you might have trimmed away a bit of His word since that time. But as you learned, the Bible specifically rejects "sola scriptura" and "sola fide." I can show you again, if you don't have access to a Bible.

so use a 21st century dictionary to support and prop up mother church.

I notice that it's the 1st to 15th century history that has you upset. And of course, the Church says that it will not fail...

Matthew 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I'm figuring that if the gates of hell are ineffective against it, you aren't much of a threat.

If you've never picked up a lexicon

You just learned what a "lexicon" is. If you forgot, go back and look above. I left couple of citiations for you, and there are other cites there, when you look. Every home has a lexicon. Or should. Spend a little time learning about it, and this won't have you in knots, anymore.

 

[Nondenom40]

Means things aren't as simple as you assumed. It's not just messing up the etymology; it's your other assumptions as well.

I'm not the one thats confused. Catholics try to force meanings on biblical words that don't exist within the text so they go running to other sources. All this shows is that catholics can't be bothered with the plain text of scripture.

Early Catholics wrote in koine Greek (languages are capitalized, BTW). I thought you knew. If you understood the history of our faith a bit better, a lot of the confusion would go away for you.

I understand the history of your faith. It wasn't around in the first century, or the second or the third...see a pattern here?

The Bible you use was compiled by Catholics, although you might have trimmed away a bit of His word since that time.

Funny. Jerome specifically calls your extra books apocrypha. You mean that catholic? You can't trim away what was never there. Your extra books were never considered inspired until trent...1400 years after the close of the apostolic age. You guys know how to jump on an issue don't ya?

But as you learned, the Bible specifically rejects "sola scriptura" and "sola fide." I can show you again, if you don't have access to a Bible.

When catholics don't have an argument they jump to sola scriptura or sola fide. I accept your white flag

I notice that it's the 1st to 15th century history that has you upset. And of course, the Church says that it will not fail...

Upset at what exactly? I'm not the one trying to shoehorn a definition into the biblical text where it doesn't belong.

Matthew 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I'm figuring that if the gates of hell are ineffective against it, you aren't much of a threat.

Jesus is the rock, not peter. Your church lied to you. Peter isn't gonna get you to heaven, Jesus is. Put your trust in Him.

You just learned what a "lexicon" is. If you forgot, go back and look above. I left couple of citiations for you, and there are other cites there, when you look. Every home has a lexicon. Or should. Spend a little time learning about it, and this won't have you in knots, anymore.

Catholics love their strawmen don't they? I have several lexicons and i use them. Know what i don't use to define biblical words? Websters.

 

[Yehren]

I'm not the one thats confused.

See above. I read your denial, but your behavior is more persuasive.

Catholics try to force meanings on biblical words that don't exist within the text so they go running to other sources.

As I showed you, the text itself denies "sola scriptura" and "sola fide." No point in denying it. Would you like me to show you again? And it's really unrealistic to expect the Bible to give you the etymology for an English word, when English didn't even exist at the time.

All this shows is that catholics can't be bothered with the plain text of scripture.

I just showed you the plain text that denies two of your new "solas." If you'd just accept it as it is, instead of what revisionists are telling you, your confusion would go away.

I understand the history of your faith.

See above. I know you want to believe you do, but the facts show otherwise.

Funny. Jerome specifically calls your extra books apocrypha.

There was no universal agreement, until the Council of Trent. Since the Bible itself says that there are authoritative sources of information about God beyond scripture, there was really no such thing as bibolatry until Luther.

When catholics don't have an argument they jump to sola scriptura or sola fide.

So you accept what Paul and James said? You're down to three solas, now.

I accept your white flag

"When you can't win, declare victory, and leave." Gen. McCollough.

Upset at what exactly?

Cognitive dissonance, it seems. You're seeing a lot of stuff for the first time, and you're having trouble making it fit in your new theology.

Jesus is the rock, not peter.

Matthew 16:18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

Jesus didn't say "Peter", actually. He said "Cephas" (Aramaic for "rock"). "Peter" is koine Greek for "rock." And then He said on that rock He would build His Church. No point in denying it. Find a way to accommodate reality.

Your leaders lied to you. The Catholic Church doesn't say Peter is going to get you to heaven, Jesus is. Put your trust in Him, instead of those modern revisionists.

I have several lexicons and i use them.

But you didn't even know what "lexicon" means. Perhaps if you'd realize that you don't know as much as you thought you did, it would go easier for you.

Know what i don't use to define biblical words? Websters.

Know what you shouldn't use to define English words? Anything written before English existed.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You keep moving the goalposts. Typical catholic tactic. And who cares if Jesus spoke aramaic? The Holy Spirit inspired the writers to write in greek right? Not aramaic. You love your strawmen arguments don't you?

Ummmmm, first of all – according to the 2nd century Greek Apostolic Father, Papias of Hierapolis – Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic. The audience to which it was written was the JEWS – not Gentiles.

Secondly – even if WAS written in Greek – you still have the whole Peter/Petra/Kepha problem.
Once again – I challenge you to find ONE example of ANYBODY named “Petros” prior to the first century. This word was used in Matt. 16:18 only because it is a masculine noun and the subject was a man.

You have shown a real ignorance and refusal to accept HOW other languages work. English doesn’t work the way most other languages do with feminine and masculine words. You’ve also rejected the idea of SYNONYMS – like Presbyter/Priest. Synonyms are commonplace in MANY languages.

All you have is denial and rejection.

On a purely academic level – you LOST this argument a long time ago . . .

 

[Giuliano]

Ummmmm, first of all – according to the 2nd century Greek Apostolic Father, Papias of Hierapolis – Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic. The audience to which it was written was the JEWS – not Gentiles.

Very interesting. I thought maybe this was so, but I didn't know of any early Church Fathers who mentioned it.

 

[Nondenom40]

Ummmmm, first of all – according to the 2nd century Greek Apostolic Father, Papias of Hierapolis – Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic. The audience to which it was written was the JEWS – not Gentiles.

Show it to us. Link us to an extant copy of Matthews gospel in hebrew...from the first century. Also, properly cite your sources. What book, chapter??

Secondly – even if WAS written in Greek – you still have the whole Peter/Petra/Kepha problem.

I have no problem with petra/petros. Why do you?

Once again – I challenge you to find ONE example of ANYBODY named “Petros” prior to the first century. This word was used in Matt. 16:18 only because it is a masculine noun and the subject was a man.

Youre saying you know for a fact not one single person since Adam was ever named petros prior to Peter? You know this how??

Thou art Peter [ου ει πετρος] . Christ responds to Peter's emphatic thou with another, equally emphatic. Peter says, "Thou art the Christ." Christ replies, "Thou art Peter." Petrov (Peter) is used as a proper name, but without losing its meaning as a common noun. The name was bestowed on Simon at his first interview with Jesus (Joh 1:42) under the form of its Aramaic equivalent, Cephas. In this passage attention is called, not to the giving of the name, but to its meaning. In classical Greek the word means a piece of rock, as in Homer, of Ajax throwing a stone at Hector (" Iliad, "7 270), or of Patroclus grasping and hiding in his hand a jagged stone (" Iliad," 16 734).

Vincent's Word Studies

You have shown a real ignorance and refusal to accept HOW other languages work. English doesn’t work the way most other languages do with feminine and masculine words. You’ve also rejected the idea of SYNONYMS – like Presbyter/Priest. Synonyms are commonplace in MANY languages.

All you have is denial and rejection.

On a purely academic level – you LOST this argument a long time ago . . .

You made the claim about presbyter and priest being synonymous, i'm still waiting for you to back that up. Until then its your opinion.

 

[BreadOfLife]

That is a complete misrepresentation of James. James did not "differentiate" in the way that you describe, but he described the scope and power of prayer, not just given to "ministerial" priests, but rather what is available to the "natural man."

If anything, James refers to "the elders of the church", not as having greater authority, but as appointed servants.

Hogwash.

And that is exactly what a Catholic priest is – an “appointed servant”.

James absolutely differentiates between the clergy and the laity in James 5:
James 5:13-15
Is anyone among YOU suffering? He should pray. Is anyone in good spirits? He should sing praise.
Is anyone among YOU sick? He should summon the presbyters of the church, and THEY should pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven.

Paul also differentiates between the clergy and the laity when he speaks of the Ministry of Reconciliation:
2 Cor. 2:10-11
Whomever you forgive anything, so do I. For indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for you in the presence of Christ, so that we might not be taken advantage of by Satan, for we are not unaware of his purposes.

1 Cor. 5:18-20
And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given US the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to US the message of reconciliation.
So WE are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through US. WE implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

YOUR Protestant objections didn’t materialize until 1500 years AFTER the Apostles . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Show it to us. Link us to an extant copy of Matthews gospel in hebrew...from the first century. Also, properly cite your sources. What book, chapter??

I have no problem with petra/petros. Why do you?
Youre saying you know for a fact not one single person since Adam was ever named petros prior to Peter? You know this how??

You made the claim about presbyter and priest being synonymous, i'm still waiting for you to back that up. Until then its your opinion.

Try to stay honest – and try to stay educated . . .

I NEVER said that I “knew for a fact” that there was never a person since Adam that was named Peter.

I asked YOU to show me an example. CAN you??
I didn’t think so . . .

As for Matthew’s Gospel in Hebrew/Aramaic – I stated explicitly – “Even if it WAS written in Greek, you still have the Petros/Petra/Kepha problem.”

And, unless you acknowledge that Peter is the “Rock” being spoken of here – you DO have a problem as MOST Protestants do.

Finally – as to Presbyter and Priest being synonyms – you are lying when you say I haven’t presented any evidence.

I not only gave you the explicit etymological history of the words – but I also gave you the Webster’s Dictionary example of the comparison of the 2 words being SYNONYMS. Your insistence that I haven’t is just another whiny example of your complete dishonesty.

Like I said before – you LOST this argument a LONG time ago . . .

 

[ScottA]

Hogwash.

And that is exactly what a Catholic priest is – an “appointed servant”.

James absolutely differentiates between the clergy and the laity in James 5:
James 5:13-15
Is anyone among YOU suffering? He should pray. Is anyone in good spirits? He should sing praise.
Is anyone among YOU sick? He should summon the presbyters of the church, and THEY should pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven.

Paul also differentiates between the clergy and the laity when he speaks of the Ministry of Reconciliation:
2 Cor. 2:10-11
Whomever you forgive anything, so do I. For indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for you in the presence of Christ, so that we might not be taken advantage of by Satan, for we are not unaware of his purposes.

1 Cor. 5:18-20
And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given US the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to US the message of reconciliation.
So WE are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through US. WE implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

YOUR Protestant objections didn’t materialize until 1500 years AFTER the Apostles . . .

So...it's "hogwash" when I say priests are servants, but gospel when you say it. Yeah, that's the problem right there--hypocrisy in sheep's (servants) clothing.

Thanks for showing the egg on your face!

Nonetheless, God giving spiritual gifts and assigning all to service, is of no dispute. It is only disputed that some lord over others within the body, where the only hierarchy is Head and body. You act as if the elders, leaders, and priests, are better than those who's service is equal before God, but who are less celebrated by men. This you do to your own shame.

 

[BreadOfLife]

So...it's "hogwash" when I say priests are servants, but gospel when you say it. Yeah, that's the problem right there--hypocrisy in sheep's (servants) clothing.

Thanks for showing the egg on your face!

Nonetheless, God giving spiritual gifts and assigning all to service, is of no dispute. It is only disputed that some lord over others within the body, where the only hierarchy is Head and body. You act as if the elders, leaders, and priests, are better than those who's service is equal before God, but who are less celebrated by men. This you do to your own shame.

Try to stay honest, Scott – because I will expose you every time.

You didn’t say that priests were servants. You were denying that James was differentiating them as priests and referred to them as mere “elders”.

And I never even implied that priests were "better". I merely pointed to the Bibical truth that their roles are different.

Once again, your argument collapses under the weight of your own doublespeak . . .

 

[ScottA]

Try to stay honest, Scott – because I will expose you every time.

You didn’t say that priests were servants. You were denying that James was differentiating them as priests and referred to them as mere “elders”.

And I never even implied that priests were "better". I merely pointed to the Bibical truth that their roles are different.

Once again, your argument collapses under the weight of your own doublespeak . . .

The doublespeak is you parading the authority given to priests as if no one else had any, and using every scripture about authority of all "the church" also to support a hierarchy that does not exist.

But biblically speaking, that is not "doublespeak", it's "hypocrisy", the "woe" given to leaders by Jesus, of which you are also guilty.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The doublespeak is you parading the authority given to priests as if no one else had any, and using every scripture about authority of all "the church" also to support a hierarchy that does not exist.

But biblically speaking, that is not "doublespeak", it's "hypocrisy", the "woe" given to leaders by Jesus, of which you are also guilty.

Wrong.

Jesus chided the hypocritical Jewish leaders. He didn’t have a problem with leaders or hierarchy - and He didn’t leave His Church is disarray and chaos. He left the Apostles in charge (Matt. 16:12-15, 18:15-18, John 16:12-15, 20:21-23) and they, in turn appointed others to take their place.
This is the Apostolic Succession that UNANIMOUSLY written about in the Early Church.

About the Church hierarchy, Paul writes:
1 Tim. 5:17
Presbyters who preside well deserve double honor, especially those who toil in preaching and teaching.

1 Thess. 5:12-13
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are OVER YOU in the Lord and who admonish you and to show esteem for them with special love on account of their work. Be at peace among yourselves.

Your disdain for Christ’s Church rears its ugly head every time you reject her teachings – which are Christ Himself (Luke 10:16, Acts 9:4-5).

 

[ScottA]

Wrong.

Jesus chided the hypocritical Jewish leaders. He didn’t have a problem with leaders or hierarchy - and He didn’t leave His Church is disarray and chaos. He left the Apostles in charge (Matt. 16:12-15, 18:15-18, John 16:12-15, 20:21-23) and they, in turn appointed others to take their place.
This is the Apostolic Succession that UNANIMOUSLY written about in the Early Church.

About the Church hierarchy, Paul writes:
1 Tim. 5:17
Presbyters who preside well deserve double honor, especially those who toil in preaching and teaching.

1 Thess. 5:12-13
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are OVER YOU in the Lord and who admonish you and to show esteem for them with special love on account of their work. Be at peace among yourselves.

Your disdain for Christ’s Church rears its ugly head every time you reject her teachings – which are Christ Himself (Luke 10:16, Acts 9:4-5).

No...as I said, you are taking license that was not given in the way you describe. There is no hierarchy as you describe it.

1 Peter 4:10
"As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God."

"Double honor" is rather for all who "preside well" according to their gifts. But to say nothing of those who "preside" poorly--you give to the one, while robbing from all others.

 

[Yehren]

From an anti-Catholic site:

In Scripture, bishops and elders are interchangeable terms. It is clear that Paul and Peter's churches were led by a group of elders (older, experienced, or trusted men), whose office was referred to as bishop or overseer (interchangeable terms, both translate the one Greek word episkopos).

It was their job to shepherd the church (Acts 20:28), and so they are the "pastors" in the New Testament.

Apparently, from history, John did not format his churches this way. He had a group of elders, but only one of those held the title of bishop or overseer. He was, so to speak, the head elder or head pastor.

Sometime during the 2nd century, John's usage won out. There is no reference to bishops and elders being the same people after Polycarp's letter to the Philippians dated some time between A.D. 110 and 150.

The later reference to priests is a reference to the elders, who began to be called priests around the mid 3rd century.


Deacons in Brief

Deacon is simply the Greek word diakonos left untranslated. The word is found all over the New Testament, over 30 times, and it is translated servant except in 1 Tim. 3.

It should have been translated servant there as well. The office should not have some mysterious Greek title, "deacon," but it should simply be "servant."

In the 2nd century churches servants (or deacons, if you must) visited the sick, helped with whatever was needed during services, and brought communion bread and wine to those who could not attend Sunday meetings, whether due to sickness or imprisonment.

Interestingly, in the 3rd century, there is reference to them watching the doors to make sure only Christians entered the meeting.
Bishops, Elders, and Deacons

 

[BreadOfLife]

No...as I said, you are taking license that was not given in the way you describe. There is no hierarchy as you describe it.

1 Peter 4:10
"As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God."

"Double honor" is rather for all who "preside well" according to their gifts. But to say nothing of those who "preside" poorly--you give to the one, while robbing from all others.

Adding your own perverse spin doesn't change the Word of God.
Christ left HIS Church with a hierarchy . . .

1 Cor. 12:27:31
Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it. Some people God has designated in the church to be, FiRST, apostles; SECOND, prophets; THIRD, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work mighty deeds? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 Strive eagerly for the greatest spiritual gifts.

Matt. 16:15-18
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, TELL THE CHURCH. If he refuses to listen even to the CHURCH, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Acts 15:1-3, 6, 23, 28-29
Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers,a “Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.” Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.

The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter.

This is the letter delivered by them: “The apostles and the presbyters, your brothers, to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of Gentile origin: greetings.
‘IT IS THE DECISION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND OF US not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, 29 namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.’”

THIS is the hierarchical Church of Christ.
YOUR leaderless and chaotic vision of Christ's Church is UNscriptural . . .

 

[ScottA]

Adding your own perverse spin doesn't change the Word of God.
Christ left HIS Church with a hierarchy . . .

1 Cor. 12:27:31
Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it. Some people God has designated in the church to be, FiRST, apostles; SECOND, prophets; THIRD, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work mighty deeds? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 Strive eagerly for the greatest spiritual gifts.

Matt. 16:15-18
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, TELL THE CHURCH. If he refuses to listen even to the CHURCH, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Acts 15:1-3, 6, 23, 28-29
Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers,a “Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.” Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.

The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter.

This is the letter delivered by them: “The apostles and the presbyters, your brothers, to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of Gentile origin: greetings.
‘IT IS THE DECISION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND OF US not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, 29 namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.’”

THIS is the hierarchical Church of Christ.
YOUR leaderless and chaotic vision of Christ's Church is UNscriptural . . .

That is not what you are reading. You read but do not understand.

Paul was not speaking of hierarchy, but of chronology, the order in which Christ gave gifts to men.

As for the church and its authority...it is one body, even a body of many members, but one. Is one part of a body greater than another? Does a bride have more than one Lord? You do not know what you are talking about, nor what He has done, not even in the most basic of terms.

 

[brakelite]

I have no issue with a structure of some sort governing the church. In the 8th through to the 14th century in Asia, the head of the church was known as Metropolitan. They're were a series of these, dime centred in Bagdad, others Antioch, some in China. This was an organisational necessity because of the size and scope of the church. However, no where is it suggested, nor as far as I know practiced, that this Metropolitan had spiritual authority inasmuch as demanding obedience to doctrine as perceived by himself and/or his underlings.
Rome was a different kettle of rotten fish altogether. A series of Popes who at first we bishops of Rome only, began through a series of demands and threats to usurp spiritual authority over other towns nearby, them cities a little further afield, till such time as he claimed jurisdiction over heaven, hell, and the earth, teaching that none could go anywhere without his explicit say so. He and his coterie of enforcers then decided that God would approve their wars on His behalf and the spread of the gospel by hiring
mercenaries and standing armies to invade, conquer, and claim the world for Christ. Yep. Great way to share the love. I do believe the Pope still claims to have that same authority, and believes his universal jurisdiction still to include heaven and hell. I do not think any of that was what Jesus intended when He said to Peter, feed My sheep.

 

[Nondenom40]

Try to stay honest – and try to stay educated . . .

I NEVER said that I “knew for a fact” that there was never a person since Adam that was named Peter.

I asked YOU to show me an example. CAN you??
I didn’t think so . . .

Then why make the comment;

Once again – I challenge you to find ONE example of ANYBODY named “Petros” prior to the first century.

Seems like an odd comment to make unless you had certain knowledge otherwise huh?

As for Matthew’s Gospel in Hebrew/Aramaic – I stated explicitly – “Even if it WAS written in Greek, you still have the Petros/Petra/Kepha problem.”

Since the n.t. was written in greek i have no problem with petra/petros. Why do you?

And, unless you acknowledge that Peter is the “Rock” being spoken of here – you DO have a problem as MOST Protestants do.

Peter isn't the rock being spoken of. No one is added to the church by peter. We are born again by placing our faith in Jesus.

Finally – as to Presbyter and Priest being synonyms – you are lying when you say I haven’t presented any evidence.

I not only gave you the explicit etymological history of the words – but I also gave you the Webster’s Dictionary example of the comparison of the 2 words being SYNONYMS. Your insistence that I haven’t is just another whiny example of your complete dishonesty.

Like I said before – you LOST this argument a LONG time ago . . .

And as i said earlier, i couldn't care less what a modern dictionary says. What do lexicons say? Something you don't seem to want to touch with a 10ft pole. We know why. And i've asked for BIBLICAL support for priest and presbyter being synonymous. Still haven't seen that. So while youre a great example of why people don't want to dialogue with you (this being our last exchange) your anger and hostility has no place on a christian forum. I'm on another christian forum you wouldn't last a day on because there are standards there regarding conduct. I have no idea why moderators here let this kind of hostility go on. Maybe these boards are unmoderated? Anyway. You won't deal with the actual biblical text, lexical support or even reason reasonably. So you can have the last word. I'm out. If you want to have a rational discussion on any roman catholic topic feel free to go over to CARM. My guess is you won't because you can't steam roll over people there without infractions and suspensions.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Then why make the comment;

Seems like an odd comment to make unless you had certain knowledge otherwise huh?
Since the n.t. was written in greek i have no problem with petra/petros. Why do you?

Peter isn't the rock being spoken of. No one is added to the church by peter. We are born again by placing our faith in Jesus.

And as i said earlier, i couldn't care less what a modern dictionary says. What do lexicons say? Something you don't seem to want to touch with a 10ft pole. We know why. And i've asked for BIBLICAL support for priest and presbyter being synonymous. Still haven't seen that. So while youre a great example of why people don't want to dialogue with you (this being our last exchange) your anger and hostility has no place on a christian forum. I'm on another christian forum you wouldn't last a day on because there are standards there regarding conduct. I have no idea why moderators here let this kind of hostility go on. Maybe these boards are unmoderated? Anyway. You won't deal with the actual biblical text, lexical support or even reason reasonably. So you can have the last word. I'm out. If you want to have a rational discussion on any roman catholic topic feel free to go over to CARM. My guess is you won't because you can't steam roll over people there without infractions and suspensions.

It’s a simple linguistic challenge. I’m showing you how little you understand about languages.

As for Matt. 16:18 – Peter IS the Rock being spoken of. As I educated you earlier -= Paul confirms this by calling him “Cephas” in his letters. Cephas is a Greek transliteration (sorry for the big word) of the Aramaic “Kepha” – which means “ROCK”.
In the Scriptures – there are THREE who are called “ROCK”:
- Abraham (Isa. 51:1
- Christ (Isa. 28:16, Matt. 21:42)
- Peter (Matt. 16:18)
Do your homework . . .

As for Lexicon support for my position – I’ve already given this to you. You keep denying that I have because you argue with your eyes closed.

I told you that Strong’s Greek Lexicon lists the word Heirus as “Priest of the Temple”.
NOT the same as a Christian Priest (Presbyter). I ALSO challenged you to find a nonbiblical use of the term “Presbyter” – PRIOR to the 1st century. Have you done that yet??

You LOST this argument a LONG time ago . . .

Finally - there is no such thing as a “rational” conversation over at CARM.
Matt Slick and his anti-Catholic minions have made sure of that. I took on several of those blind drones for several months and was eventually banned.
You know what the “official” reason was?? “Preaching Catholic Heresy”
If it was truly an “open” forum – then they would be open to ALL opinions and doctrinal discussions.
They simply couldn’t handle the truth. They didn‘t like being constantly defeated so they threw me off.

Matt Slick has been destroyed by the likes of Jimmy Akin and Tim Staples. His CARM site is a pathetic psudeo-Christian farce . . .