The Biblical Basis for Catholic Distinctives

[Berserk]

Curtis: "The Protestants haven’t paid out over a billion dollars to victims, as the RCC has."
LOL, that's because the Catholics are more morally and legally responsible than sexually promiscuous evangelical leaders and their churches.
In any case, thanks for conceding my case that Protestants desperately need to learn from Catholic biblical exegesis. When fundamentalists need to resort to the desperate expedient of stereotyping Catholics on the basis of their worst exemplars, they are exposing the fact, well recognized by neutral biblical scholars, that they have no rational answer to Catholic biblical exegesis. You just need to find an informed Catholic who can lead you into the Word!
Berserk: "John 20:23 and Matthew 16:19! And your fundamentalist bias has blinded you to the force of these texts. Jesus teaches the importance of human mediation of divine forgiveness through the pronouncement of absolution. So deal with it!"

Curits: "You are implying forgiveness of sins of Christians is dependent on some human priest forgiving them, and telling them to say a bunch of Hail Mary’s and Our Father’s."
First, neither I nor Jesus is IMPlYING that; rather, Jesus actually DECREES it unequivocally in John 2o:23 and Matthew 16:19!
Second, you pontificate from ignorance of what can actually happen in the Catholic confessional: e.g. a recommendation and discussion of books on honest confession and the identification of unconscius sins and sins of omission, of which most fundamentalists are blissfully and willfully oblivious.
Curtis: "If you concede that Christians can go right to the Father in Jesus’ name as a son/daughter, then you are admitting there’s no need to have another mediator but Jesus in going boldly to the throne of grace, and I pass on using a mortal priest, when scripture says Jesus is our one great high priest forever. I’d rather pray wholesale, not retail, and eliminate the middle man of some priest."

Then you are rejecting God's Word when Jesus insists on the role of "a middle man in the texts quoted! Deal with it!

Curtis: "And all scholarship I’ve checked on your John 20:23 proof text, essentially said the following. The meaning of the passage is not that man can forgive sins that belongs only to God, but that they should be taught by the Holy Spirit to declare on what terms, to what characters, and to what temper of mind God would extend forgiveness of sins."

Name even one academic commentary just on Matthew or John that expresses such interpretive nonsense! John 20:23 and Matthew 16:19 say nothing about "the terms" and "temper of mind" that might prompt God to "extend forgiveness of sins." John 20:23 directly declares apostolic authority to directly forgive sins or refuse to do so and makes it clear that God honors such apostolic (and therefore ecclesial) declaration. There is no ambiguity in Greek on this point. Oh but then you and the other fundamentalists here don't know Greek. Sigh!

 

[ScottA]

Really??
I hinestly thought that you might be above this kind of idiocy - but I see that I was wrong.

The anti-Biblical fallacy that Jesus forbade calling men "Father" is an example of ignprance of the Scriptures.
In Matt. 23, Jesus was speaking about the Scribes and Pharisees who exalted themselves before all:
Matt 23:6-7
“They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues, greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation 'Rabbi.”

Then, in verse 9, He says:
“And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.”

In the verse that precedes this (Matt: 23:8), Jesus tells us not to call people “Teachers”. Is Jesus telling us that we can’t call certain people "fathers" or “teachers” when they may actually be fathers or teachers? Only a Scripturally-bankrupt moron would believe this.

He is telling us that no man is to be considered father above our Father in heaven and no person is to be considered teacher above our Teacher in heaven.

Consider the following passages:
- God COMMANS us to, “Honor your FATHER and mother (Exodus 20:12).
- Jesus said, “Your FATHER Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” (John 8:56).
- St. Stephen refers to "our FATHER Abraham," (Acts 7:2).
- St. Paul speaks of "our FATHER Isaac” (Romans 9:10).
- For I became your FATHER in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).
- "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a TEACHER of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7).
- "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and TEACHER" (2 Tim. 1:11).
- "God has appointed in the church first Apostles, second prophets, third TEACHERS" (1 Cor. 12:28).

As for when Jesus told His apostles about NOT lording power over each other – it was because they were arguing among themselves as to who would be the greatest (Luke 9:46).

Peter never CHOSE to be the preeminent Apostle.
He was given this responsibility (Matt. 16:18-19, Luke 22:31-32, John 21:15-19) and he obediently fulfilled the will of his Lord.

These things I am well aware of, but you are missing the point-- The point Jesus was making, is that the scribes and Pharisees had it wrong, so far off He gave them a ration (Woe). Which sets a precedence for not doing as they did...which He defined in His criticisms as lording over the people of God in their office and title--just as He also did the Priests. But that is the second time the precedence is in scripture...where men have been revered as if in the place of God...as I already said: That being Israel's desire for a man over them instead of God.

Jesus then clarifies the right and wrong issue in how He would build his church, giving opportunity for both possible outcomes...and...you all got it wrong-- He presented two [different] rock/Rocks in the same address to Peter in Matthew 16:17-19...and you all and the church fathers, like Israel, like the Priests, Scribes, and Pharisee-- you picked Peter instead of God to be the Head of the church here on earth. But there is no "here" there--you all did that, just as Israel also insisted in having a man as king. You all made the same mistake after multiple foreshadowings. Woe.

But, hey, they never saw the error either. Get in line.

 

[marks]

Curtis: "And all scholarship I’ve checked on your John 20:23 proof text, essentially said the following. The meaning of the passage is not that man can forgive sins that belongs only to God, but that they should be taught by the Holy Spirit to declare on what terms, to what characters, and to what temper of mind God would extend forgiveness of sins."

Name even one academic commentary just on Matthew or John that expresses such interpretive nonsense! John 20:23 and Matthew 16:19 say nothing about "the terms" and "temper of mind" that might prompt God to "extend forgiveness of sins." John 20:23 directly declares apostolic authority to directly forgive sins or refuse to do so and makes it clear that God honors such apostolic (and therefore ecclesial) declaration. There is no ambiguity in Greek on this point. Oh but then you and the other fundamentalists here don't know Greek. Sigh!

It's an assumption that this right is passed along.

Jesus told the disciples/Apostles this, not others, and He never told them it was transferable.

Much love!

 

[Episkopos]

It's an assumption that this right is passed along.

Jesus told the disciples/Apostles this, not others, and He never told them it was transferable.

Much love!

This is hilarious. I suppose Paul being seated in heavenly places IS transferable? Being crucified with Christ? The modern false gospel transfers whatever sounds good to itching ears.

 

[marks]

This is hilarious. I suppose Paul being seated in heavenly places IS transferable? Being crucified with Christ?

That's not comparable, I'd think you would know that.

Look in the following where "us" appears:

Ephesians 2:1-7 KJV
1) And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2) Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3) Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4) But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5) Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)
6) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7) That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

This isn't about itching ears, though I know you would cast that aspersion, but this is what God, through Paul, taught.

Again, notice "us", "our", "we" :

Romans 6:3-7 KJV
3) Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5) For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6) Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7) For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Much love!

 

[ScottA]

Typical fundie nonsense. Your hatred is matched by your ignorance. Even your grammar is off. You don't name or quote any ECF, just airhead assertions (because you are afraid of them). The "Do not call anyone on earth your father" is a standard mantra by ignorant fundies who twist and distort scripture. "Do not call anyone on earth your father" has been explained repeatedly. Fashioning weapons using scripture to attack Catholics is a form of witchcraft. The Bible never attacks the Church the way you do, but you don't care, you do it anyway. When you stop trolling with lies and falsehoods, if that's possible, I'll take you out of my iggy bin.

I use biblical precedence the custom of those sent who's practices are written in the scriptures. Not attacks, but scripture.

You, on the other hand, use cartoons, name calling, and expressions of hatred.

"ECF" ...In cell biology, extracellular fluid (ECF) denotes all body fluid outside the cells of any multicellular organism?

 

[amigo de christo]

Ignore.

I come with a friendly reminder . Never follow Rome . Follow Christ . may all love and embrace this simple truth .

 

[ScottA]

Then you are rejecting God's Word when Jesus insists on the role of "a middle man in the texts quoted! Deal with it!

No, that's wrong.

Jesus gave two possible ways to take what He was saying: He contrasted Peter/flesh and blood with the Father...and the church fathers chose "flesh and blood."

The rest is history.

 

[BreadOfLife]

These things I am well aware of, but you are missing the point-- The point Jesus was making, is that the scribes and Pharisees had it wrong, so far off He gave them a ration (Woe). Which sets a precedence for not doing as they did...which He defined in His criticisms as lording over the people of God in their office and title--just as He also did the Priests. But that is the second time the precedence is in scripture...where men have been revered as if in the place of God...as I already said: That being Israel's desire for a man over them instead of God.

No - Jesus was condemning the fact that the Scribbes and Pharisees were tryoing to SUPERCEDE God's Authority. He also blasted them in Mark 7 in a different sceanrio - but the context was basically the same because they were placing their manmade traditions ABOVE Scripture and Sacred Traadition.

Jesus then clarifies the right and wrong issue in how He would build his church, giving opportunity for both possible outcomes...and...you all got it wrong-- He presented two [different] rock/Rocks in the same address to Peter in Matthew 16:17-19...and you all and the church fathers, like Israel, like the Priests, Scribes, and Pharisee-- you picked Peter instead of God to be the Head of the church here on earth. But there is no "here" there--you all did that, just as Israel also insisted in having a man as king. You all made the same mistake after multiple foreshadowings. Woe.

But, hey, they never saw the error either. Get in line.

Two "different" Rocks??

In this passage in Matt. 15 - Jesus was blessing Simon he had just confessed that Jesus was the Christ - the Son of God. Jesus tells him that this revelation came from God Himself. What follows is a THREE-fold blessing:
Matt. 16:17-19
And Jesus answered him,
1) “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
2) And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hellc shall not prevail against it.
3) I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

YOU would have us believe that Jesus blesses Simon – then insults him – only to bless him again:
1) “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
2) And I tell you, you are small, insignificant pebble, and on this massive stone I will build my church, and the gates of hellc shall not prevail against it.
3) I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosedd in heaven.”

Anti-Catholics also make the common blunder of taking the Greek words used here “Petros” (small ston) and “Pe tra “(massive stone). Unfortunately for them - Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic to each other – NOT Greek.
So, what Jesus actually told Simon was:
“And I tell you, you are Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build my church, and the gates of hellc shall not prevail against.”

Kepha is the ONLY Aramaic word for “Rock” – not small or large – just “Rock”. This is why, in Paul’s letters, Peter (Petros) is referred to as “Caphas” - not “Peter (Petros).

In the Greek, Petra is a feminine noun and would NOT be used to describe a man – so “Petros is used here to make it grammatically correct.

 

[Berserk]

No, that's wrong.

Jesus gave two possible ways to take what He was saying: He contrasted Peter/flesh and blood with the Father...and the church fathers chose "flesh and blood."

LOL, thus, you concede the Catholic point at issue in Matthew 16:16. 19)! So when Jesus then proceeds to establish Peter as "the Rock" (foundation), not Himself, on which He will build His church, He is invoking divine authority (not "flesh and blood") for Peter the Rock's control over "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" and Peter's resulting authority (1) to "bind and loose" both on earth and in heaven and therefore (2) to "forgive" or "retain" sins (similarly John 20:23). Academic commentaries generally agree that Peter, not Jesus, is "the Rock" here because Peter's name ("Cephas") means "rock" (hence Jesus' word play on Peter's name) and because Jesus refers to Himself as "the cornerstone (Mark 12:10 par.)," but never as "the rock." As the 3rd first-century bishop of Antioch in succession from Peter, Ignatius now considers himself a "Catholic" bishop with the full status of a monarchical bishop that characterizes ensuing Catholic bishops.

 

[BreadOfLife]

He presented two [different] rock/Rocks in the same address to Peter in Matthew 16:17-19...and you all and the church fathers, like Israel, like the Priests, Scribes, and Pharisee-- you picked Peter instead of God to be the Head of the church here on earth.

Incidentally - many Protestant scholars agree with the Catholic position on Matt. 16:17-19 . . .

Protestant Scholars on Matt. 16:16-19
1. There is no distinction between "petros" and "petra."
· "In Aramaic 'Peter' and Rock are the same word; in Greek (here), they are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period." --Craig S. Keener,The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90.

· "Although it is true that petros and petra can mean 'stone' and 'rock' respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry." --Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.

· "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 broke 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." --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355.

· "I grant that in Greek Peter (Petros) and stone (petra) mean the same thing, save that the first word is Attic [from the ancient classical Greek dialect of the Attica region], the second from the common tongue." --John Calvin, Calvin's New Testament Commentaries: The Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 2, trans. T. H. L. Parker, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 188.

· "The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and Petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words."--Gerhard Friedrich, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. VI, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 98-99.

2. Two different Greek words are used because you can't use a feminine noun for a man's name.
· "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." --Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.

· "When using both the masculine and feminine forms of the word, however, Matthew is not trying to distance Peter, Petros, from 'this rock,' petra. Rather, the evangelist changes the genders simply because Simon, a male, is given a masculine form of the feminine noun for his new name." --James B. Shelton, letter to the authors, 21 October 1994, 1, in Scott Butler, Norman Dehlgren, and Rev. Mr. David Hess, Jesus Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, (Goleta, CA: Queenship, 1996), 23.

· "The name Peter (not now first given, but prophetically bestowed by our Lord on his first interview with Simon (John 1:42), or Cephas, signifying a rock, the termination being only altered from petra to petros to suit the masculine appellation, denotes the personal position of this Apostle in the building of the Church of Christ." --Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers, vol. 1, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983), 119.

· "The most likely explanation for the change from petros ('Peter') to petra is that petra was the normal word for 'rock.' Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man's name, however, Simon was not called petra but petros." --Herman N. Ridderbos, Bible Student's Commentary: Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 303.

· "The feminine word for rock, petra, is necessarily changed to the masculine petros (stone) to give a man's name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form kepha would occur in both places)." --R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 254.

3. "This rock" refers to Peter
· "Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view." --William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.

· "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." --Gerhard Maier, "The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate," trans. Harold H. P. Dressler, in D. A. Carson, ed., Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context, (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), 58.

· "By the words 'this rock' Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter's confession, but Peter himself." --J. Knox Chamblin, "Matthew," in Walter A. Eldwell, ed., Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: MI: Baker, 1989), 742.

· ". . . If, then, Mt. 16:18 forces us to assume a formal and material identity between petra and Petros, this shows how fully the apostolate, and in it to a special degree the position of Peter, belongs to and is essentially enclosed within, the revelation of Christ. Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession." --Gerhard Friedrich, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed.,Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. VI, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 98-99.

· "The expression 'this rock' almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following 'the Christ' in vs. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter's name (Petros) and the word 'rock' (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification." --Craig L. Blomberg, The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22, (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 251-252.

· "The foundation of the messianic community will be Peter, the rock, who is recipient of the revelation and maker of the confession (cf. Eph 2:20). The significant leadership role of Peter is a matter of sober history . . . . [T]he plain sense of the whole statement of Jesus would seem to accord best with the view that the rock on which Jesus builds His Church is Peter." --William E. McCumber, "Matthew," in William M. Greathouse and Willard H. Taylor, eds.,Beacon Bible Expositions, vol. 1, (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1975), 125.

· "'You are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my church.' Peter is here pictured as the foundation of the church." --M. Eugene Boring, "Matthew," in Pheme Perkins and others, eds., The New Interpreter's Bible, vol. 8, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), 345.

· "Let it be observed that Jesus could not here mean himself by the rock, consistently with the image, because he is the builder. To say, 'I will build,' would be a very confused image. The suggestion of some expositors that in saying 'thou art Peter, and on this rock' he pointed at himself involves an artificiality which to some minds is repulsive." --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 356.

· "Another interpretation is that the word rock refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage." --Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament, Robert Fraw, ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 170.

· "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." --David Hill, "The Gospel of Matthew," in Ronald E. Clements and Matthew Black, eds., The New Century Bible Commentary, (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), 261.

 

[BreadOfLife]

CONTD . . .

· "Some interpreters have therefore referred to Jesus as rock here, but the context is against this. Nor is it likely that Peter's faith or Peter's confession is meant. It is undoubtedly Peter himself who is to be the Rock, but Peter confessing, faithful and obedient." --D. Guthrie and others, The New Bible Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1953) [reprinted by Inter-Varsity Press], 837.

· "There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that He was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words 'on this rock [petra]; indeed refer to Peter." --Herman N. Ridderbos, Bible Student's Commentary: Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 303.

· "The word-play and the whole structure of the passage demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus' declaration about Peter as vs. 16 was Peter's declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter's confession that Jesus declares his role as the church's foundation, but it is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied." --R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 254.

· "The frequent attempts that have been made, larely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock (e.g., most recently Caragounis) seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy." --Donald A. Hagner, "Matthew 14-28," in David A. Hubbard and others, eds., World Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b, (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 470.

4. The identity of the rock ("petra") is affirmed by the Aramaic that Jesus was speaking.

· "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.'" --William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition on the Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.

· "'You are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church (mou ten ekklesian).' These words are spoken in Aramaic, in which Cephas stands both for Petros and petra." --Veselin Kesich, "Peter's Primacy in the New Testament and the Early Tradition," in John Meyendorff, ed., The Primacy of Peter, (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992), 47-48.

· "In Aramaic 'Peter' and Rock are the same word; in Greek (here), they are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period." --Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90.

· "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." --Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.

· "'And upon this rock'--As 'Peter' and 'rock' are one word in the dialect familiarly spoken by our Lord--the Aramaic or Syro-Chaldaic, which was the mother tongue of the country--this exalted play upon the word can be fully seen only in languages which have one word for both. Even in the Greek it is imperfectly represented. in French, as Webster and Wilkinson remark, it is perfect, Pierre-pierre." --Robert Jamieson, Andrew Robert Fausset, and David Brown, One Volume Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Associated Publishers, n.d. [197?]), 47-48.

· "The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John 1:42; comp. 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; Gal 2:9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun. Hence the old Syriac translation of the N.T. renders the passage in question thus: 'Anath-her Kipha, v' all hode Kipha.' The Arabic translation has alsachra in both cases. The proper translation then would be: 'Thou art Rock, and upon this rock,' etc." --John Peter Lange, trans. Philip Schaff, Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 293.

· "But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, 'Thou are kipho, and on this kipho.' The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, 'Thou are kepha, and on this kepha.' (Comp. Buxtorf.) Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: 'Thou are Pierre, and on this pierre'; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, 'Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.'" --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355-356.

· "Edersh. finds the words petros and petra borrowed in the late Rabbinical language, and things that Jesus, while speaking Aramaic, may have borrowed those Greek words here. But this is grossly improbable, and the suggestion looks like a desperate expedient; nor has he shown that the late Rabbis themselves make the supposed distinction between the two words." --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 356.

· "Furthermore, the whole passage contains semitic structures. In Aramaic the word for both Peter's name and the rock would be identical, Kepha' . . . kepha'." --James B. Shelton, letter to the authors, 21 October 1994, 1, in Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and Rev. Mr. David Hess,Jesus, Peter, and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, (Goleta, CA: Queenship, 1996), 21.

· "PETER (Gr. Petros). Simon Peter, the most prominent of Jesus' twelve disciples. Peter's original name was Simon (Aram. sim'on, represented in Greek by Simon and Symeon). Jesus gave him the Aramaic name kepha "rock" (Matt. 16:18); Luke 6:14 par.; John 1:42), which is in Greek both transliterated (Kephas; Eng. Cephas) and translated (Petros)." --Allen C. Myers, ed., The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 818.

 

[Berserk]

Enoch111: "I don't need to duck anything since I have shown -- by quoting directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church -- that almost all their teachings are false."

LOL, you don't even realize that the CC is not intended as a full biblical justification for its doctrines and, worse, you don't bother to check out the case for Catholic exegesis of the relevant biblical prooftexts and when you do (as your next claim illlustrates, you imagine you can pontificate without providing rational grounds!

Enoch: "Getting back to the passages you have quoted:
1. The power to forgive or not forgive sins was only given to the apostles. This was part of apostolic authority, though rarely used."

First, you pontificate this from ignorance and without contemplating why God would surrender "the power to forgive or not forgiven sins" to the apostles, but not to subsequent Spirit-anointed church leaders.
Second, you overlook the obvious fact that the apostles could directly forgive sins only because "Jesus imparted the same Spirit to them that is available to subsequent church leader for discernment of the sincerity of the confessor.
Third, you create a slippery slope on which anything Jesus taught the apostles that modern fundamentalists don't like can be limited to the lives of the apostles.

"It was never handed down to the elders. And it certainly has not be handed down to Catholic priests since all Christians as within the Royal Priesthood."
First, all academic book commentaries on Matthew agree that Matthew 16:16. 19 was crafted to apply to the post-apostolic church. Indeed, in Matthew 18:15-20 Peter's authority to bind and loose is extended to "the church" in general.
Second, you forget that the authority of our high priest Christ assumes the important role of "priests" who perform priestly functions authorized by their high priest.
Third, you are hung up on jargon and don't even realize that the term "priest" was only began to be applied to Catholic bishops and elders at the end of the 2nd century. The priesthood of all believers includes bishops who can exercise the priestly role of forgiving sins.

Enoch: "2. Confession of faults is not the same as confession of sins, and only God can absolve sinners. So once again we have a bogus priesthood giving bogus absolutions."

In my reply to your claim about James 5:16 in post 76 I have already refuted this absurd claim (also made by Taken) and you haven't even bothered to read it! So I repeat the relevant portion of post 76 for your edification:
"Obviously you neither know Greek nor own a standard Greek dictionary. If you did, you'd learn that, though "paraptoma" can mean "false step." its primary theological meaning is "sin" as in sin against God (e. g. see this use in Romans 5:15. 17f.).

In any case, you obviously don't own a modern critical Greek NT text with a critical apparatus of Greek textual variants at the bottom. If you did, you would learn that there is far superior Greek manuscript evidence for the reading "hamartia"--not that it matters for the point at issue here.

 

[Brakelite]

It's interesting, actually more than interesting, that for 16 years the council of Trent desperately tried to find a counter argument to the reformation which was taking Catholics away from bondage in their thousands. The council failed to counter the biblical foundations of the reformation. The debate was focused on the reformation standard of 'sola scriptura'.
Until a certain bishop of Reggio came before the council, there were no answers. In fact, the popes personal representatives wrote to him that there was a decided trend among the Catholic bishops to abandon tradition in favor of scripture alone as the basis for doctrine. But along came the archbishop to the rescue. The crux of his argument went as follows...
"The Protestants claim to stand upon the written word only. They profess to hold the Scripture alone as the standard of faith. They justify their revolt by the plea that the Church has apostatized from the written word and follows tradition. Now the Protestants' claim, that they stand upon the written word only, is not true. Their profession of holding the Scripture alone as the standard of faith, is false.

PROOF: The written word explicitly enjoins the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath. They do not observe the seventh day, but reject it. If they do truly hold the Scripture alone as their standard, they would be observing the seventh day as is enjoined in the Scripture throughout. Yet they not only reject the observance of the Sabbath enjoined in the written word, but they have adopted and do practice the observance of Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the Church. Consequently the claim of 'Scripture alone as the standard,' fails; and the doctrine of 'Scripture and tradition' as essential, is fully established, the Protestants themselves being judges."

The Seventh Day Adventist church, along with a few others including Messianics and 7th day baptists, stand as testimony against Catholic tradition, and the claim by the reform churches and evangelicals that their claim to Sola scriptura' is on solid ground, remains as empty as it was in the 16th century.

Just sayin.

 

[BreadOfLife]

It's interesting, actually more than interesting, that for 16 years the council of Trent desperately tried to find a counter argument to the reformation which was taking Catholics away from bondage in their thousands. The council failed to counter the biblical foundations of the reformation. The debate was focused on the reformation standard of 'sola scriptura'.
Until a certain bishop of Reggio came before the council, there were no answers. In fact, the popes personal representatives wrote to him that there was a decided trend among the Catholic bishops to abandon tradition in favor of scripture alone as the basis for doctrine. But along came the archbishop to the rescue. The crux of his argument went as follows...
"The Protestants claim to stand upon the written word only. They profess to hold the Scripture alone as the standard of faith. They justify their revolt by the plea that the Church has apostatized from the written word and follows tradition. Now the Protestants' claim, that they stand upon the written word only, is not true. Their profession of holding the Scripture alone as the standard of faith, is false.

PROOF: The written word explicitly enjoins the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath. They do not observe the seventh day, but reject it. If they do truly hold the Scripture alone as their standard, they would be observing the seventh day as is enjoined in the Scripture throughout. Yet they not only reject the observance of the Sabbath enjoined in the written word, but they have adopted and do practice the observance of Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the Church. Consequently the claim of 'Scripture alone as the standard,' fails; and the doctrine of 'Scripture and tradition' as essential, is fully established, the Protestants themselves being judges."

The Seventh Day Adventist church, along with a few others including Messianics and 7th day baptists, stand as testimony against Catholic tradition, and the claim by the reform churches and evangelicals that their claim to Sola scriptura' is on solid ground, remains as empty as it was in the 16th century.

Just sayin.

What's even MORE interesting is how SDAs cherry-pick what they want about the Sabbath - but IGNORE what the New Testament says the Sabbath:

Col. 2:16-17
Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon OR A SABBATH. These are a SHADOWof the things to come, but the SUBSTANCE belongs to Christ.

Matt. 5:17
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to FULFILL them."

Apparently - YOU'RE still waiting for the Messiah to come., along with our Jewish brothers.
He already came and accomlished His work - and we wait in joyful hope for His return.

As for the debatre over Sola Scriptura - it's a dead point since it cannot be substantiated by ther very Scripture it purports to be our "SOLE" Ahuthority.
Jesus gave FINAL earhtly Authority to His Church, who GAVE us the NT under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit . . .

Matt 16:18-19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 18:18
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.

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

 

[Taken]

@ScottA ~

Hebrews built their Temple and Synagogs upon their Rock called, LORD.
Duet 3:
[3] Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.
[4] He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Catholics built their Church upon their rock, called Peter.
(A successive line of men, called their popes and their holy fathers).

Protestants build their Churches upon their Rock, called Christ.
Jesus is the Rock, the Head, the Cornerstone, of His Church, the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
1 Cor 10:
[4] And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.


Duet 3:
[36] For the LORD shall judge his people, and repent himself for his servants, when he seeth that their power is gone, and there is none shut up, or left.
[37] And he shall say, Where are their gods, their rock in whom they trusted...

 

[Berserk]

Taken: "Hebrews built their Temple and Synagogs upon their Rock called, LORD."

LOL, no OT text claims that the Jews built their Temple and synaogug on the divine Rock.

Taken: Duet 3: [3] Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.
[4] He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
Duet 3: [37] And he shall say, Where are their gods, their rock in whom they trusted...

ALL book commentaries on Deuteronomy identify "the Rock" chap. 3 as Yahweh, not Christ.

Taken: "Catholics built their Church upon their rock, called Peter.
(A successive line of men, called their popes and their holy fathers)."

Your quarrel is actually with Jesus, not Protestants. Jesus identifies Peter, not Himself, as "the Rock" on which "I will build my Church (Matthew 16:16). Even Protestant academic Bible scholars concede this point because Jesus is using a wordplay on the "meaning of "Petros" (Aramaic "Cephas"), which means "Rock" and Jesus views Himself as the "cornerstone" (so Mark 10:12 par.), not as "the Rock."

Taken: "Protestants build their Churches upon their Rock, called Christ.

In doing so, they defy Jesus' intention (1) to build the Church on Peter the Rock's apostleship (Matthew 16:16) and therefore (2) to give Peter "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" and the use of the authority to "bind and loose" on earth and in heaven in the ministry of pronouncing absolution (so John 20:23).

Taken: "1 Cor 10: [4] And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."

Paul's different use of rock imagery does not nullify Jesus' usage of such imagery!
Paul's typology identifies Pentateuchal imagery of water from a rock with Christ, but Paul never identifies Jesus' role as "the Rock" with Jesus' status as "the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11)." For Paul as for Jesus, Jesus is "the foundational "cornerstone, not the foundational "Rock" (Eph. 2:20).

"I laid a foundation and someone else [hence apostolic succession] is building on it (1 Corinthians 3:10)."
"I make it my ambition to proclaim the Gospel, not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on someone else's (e. g. Peter's) foundation (Romans 15:20)."[/QUOTE]

 

[ScottA]

Two "different" Rocks??

Just what I said-- You all missed it completely!

17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 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. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:17-19

Simon Bar-Jonah (Peter) = rock​

My Father = My Rock​

Two possible contributors to build Jesus' church, one of who He says "not." "Not "flesh and blood." But you all didn't see or hear it--and chose the wrong [o]ne anyway.

Moses foretold, “The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear", and warned "I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life."--but you all heard only what you wanted to hear.

 

[Mink57]

Just what I said-- You all missed it completely!

17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 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. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:17-19

Simon Bar-Jonah (Peter) = rock​

My Father = My Rock​

Two possible contributors to build Jesus' church, one of who He says "not." "Not "flesh and blood." But you all didn't see or hear it--and chose the wrong [o]ne anyway.

You seem to misunderstand Matthew 16:17-19.

"When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, But who do you say I am?" Simon Peter said in reply, 'You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly father." Matthew 16: 13-17.

The bolded means that no human being ("flesh and blood" is a Semitic expression meaning 'human beings') revealed to Peter that Jesus is the Messiah; the Son of the living God, but that God Himself revealed this (that Jesus is the Messiah/Son of God) to Peter...

...which is why Jesus said to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah (Peter)". Peter had been "blessed" by God the Father by revealing that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God to Peter.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

Jesus' status as "the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11)." For Paul as for Jesus, Jesus is "the foundational "cornerstone, not the foundational "Rock" (Eph. 2:20).

"I laid a foundation and someone else [hence apostolic succession] is building on it (1 Corinthians 3:10)."

So, Berserk, you have ONE assembly with A CornerSTONE (JESUS), And
Also "a rock, Peter"? How about:

one assembly, Israel, as a "wall" of God's Building, previously (BEFORE
Acts 9!), and THEN (AFTER Acts 9):

When, Paul (a rock also?) "laid The Foundation," there is Now "A
SECOND Wall," With CHRIST, "The Cornerstone" Of BOTH! Amen? ie:

God's Prophetic Program, Under LAW, gospel of the kingdom (past/future)

(1) Israel's "wall"
Concerns a kingdom: a political organization
(Daniel_2:44; Matthew_6:10 KJB!)

Rightly Divided (2_Timothy_2:15 KJB!) From Things That DIFFER!:

God's Revelation Of The Mystery, Under The Gospel Of The GRACE Of God!
(Current = “But NOW!” Romans_3:21, 7:6, 16: 26; Ephesians_2:13 et al KJB!):

(1) Body Of CHRIST, "The ONE New man (Eph_2:15) wall"
Concerns A Body, HIS Church; a Living Organism
(1_Corinthians_12:12, 27; Ephesians_4:12-16 KJB!)

Prophecy:
(2) The kingdom to be established on earth
(Jeremiah_23:5; Matthew_6:10!)
RDf:

The Mystery:
(2) The Body {Church} Given a position in Heaven!
(Ephesians_1:3, 2:5-6; Colossians_3:1-3 KJB!)

(continued in 3-19, IF you wish: "Distinctions" of prophecy vs MYSTERY!)

Is CHRIST Really "THE Chief CornerSTONE," Of These

TWO "walls of God's Building"?

GRACE And Peace...