Where does the Pope get his authority?

[Titus]

Actually, I think He didn't use a dead language, a live language, or ANY language. The Evangelist made that choice. Not God. (I'm starting to repeat myself.)


That's true. The preservation of Koine Greek manuscripts was a deliberate choice. Of man, not of God. And I could say the same about the Gospel According to Matthew in Aramaic. That one's preserved in the British Library. (Man's choice again.)

If I didn't already know you were a believer by this post alone I'd think you were an atheist.
I'm sorry but your beliefs that it was by chance that the preserved manuscripts were written in Greek truly amazes me.
As if God had no hand in the matter.

Do you really believe this Holy Book that is the very reason why mankind can know God and be saved was left for man to do with it as he chooses?

I could never believe God would be so careless with the greatest piece of knowledge, the only hope for mankind, would let men choose how it would be translated.

I believe I'm right not based on my personal reasoning but based on the fact that the passages I already gave you says God is the one who persevered His word not man.

No group of men choose to put the canon together.
What an arrogant and ridiculous belief that God would not be carefully watching over His great work.
That God would not be the one in charge of the Inspired books being assembled.


The truth of the matter is, if it is true man chose which books are canon.
Then there is no sound reason for believing the Bible is inerrant

Men are fallible.
To put your trust that man would get all the books correct and not add any books that don't belong
Is PUTTING YOUR TRUST IN MEN NOT GOD.

Only a fool would do so.

 

[RedFan]

If I didn't already know you were a believer by this post alone I'd think you were an atheist.
I'm sorry but your beliefs that it was by chance that the preserved manuscripts were written in Greek truly amazes me.

Again, it wasn't by chance at all. It was a deliberate choice by the author -- and a very wise one (Greek readership in the Mediterranean world was 50 times what Hebrew or Aramaic readership would have been). His original manuscript was then copied in Greek by copyists many times (which I presume meets your "preserved" reference).

I could never believe God would be so careless with the greatest piece of knowledge, the only hope for mankind, would let men choose how it would be translated.

But He HAS let men choose how to translate the Bible, into well over a hundred languages! And men have often disagreed on how precisely to translate it -- certainly into English (which I know about) if not into many languages (which is fair to presume).

No group of men choose to put the canon together.

Switching from the language to "the canon" now -- i.e., which books make the "cut" and which don't (Jude is in, Barnabas is out, Hebrews is in, 1 Clement is out, etc.) -- the fact is that the compilation you now have on your shelf was the choice of man, in the third and fourth century. Different codices have different contents, but consensus was finally reached. You see the hand of God in resolving these discrepancies. Okay, fine. But that is an assumption on your part. (And again, I know how much you dislike assumptions.)

The truth of the matter is, if it is true man chose which books are canon.
Then there is no sound reason for believing the Bible is inerrant

If you'd said "inspired" rather than "inerrant" (two different concepts) I might agree with you. But the Bible is NOT inerrant, at least not as to its factual details. I'll give an example. Matthew 27:9 mistakenly attributes the story of the purchase of the potters’ field to Jeremiah rather than Zechariah. So, was Matthew just having a senior moment when penning 27:9, thought he knew which OT writing contained the story, and got it wrong? Or maybe he was genuinely unsure and decided to take a wild-ass guess because he was too lazy to hoof it down to the Temple and check the scrolls? Regardless, can’t we agree that God didn’t put those words in his pen?

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

No group of men choose to put the canon together.
What an arrogant and ridiculous belief that God would not be carefully watching over His great work.
That God would not be the one in charge of the Inspired books being assembled.

Right. God didn't need men. Or He dictated it word for word just like the Quran. Or God sent space aliens to deliver the Bible. Or the Bible fell out of the sky bound in back leather in the KJV.

The truth of the matter is, if it is true man chose which books are canon. Then there is no sound reason for believing the Bible is inerrant

A non-sequitur fallacy.

Men are fallible.
To put your trust that man would get all the books correct and not add any books that don't belong
Is PUTTING YOUR TRUST IN MEN NOT GOD.

Only a fool would do so.

All Scripture is inspired. Men did not inspire or make books inspired. That certainly is foolish. Canonization does not mean that men (the Church) makes something inspired, it means that after decades (sometime centuries) of discernment and debate, men formally declare which books are inspired, and which ones were not. Inspiration has to be proven, not just assumed. Your denials of historical facts suggests you simply assume inspiration.

A Visual Diagram of the History of the New Testament Canon​

Sources for New Testament Canon Chart (all Protestant):
1) J. D. Douglas, editor, New Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1962 edition, 194-198.
2) F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, editors, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd edition, 1983, 232, 300, 309-10, 626, 641, 724, 1049, 1069.
3) Norman L. Geisler & William E. Nix, From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible, Chicago: Moody Press, 1974, 109-12, 117-125.

 

[Brakelite]

First off, you just admitted that your men don't know the truth of Scripture.

Your reading comprehension skills are woeful. I did not say that at all. Quote...
The scriptures decide what is truth. Not your men. Or my men. Or any man.
KJV John 17:17
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
That does not say men cannot know the truth, it simply says men do not make the final decision as to what is truth.
In answer to the question, what is truth, all men should direct others to the scriptures. As Jesus said, "thy word is Truth", speaking to His Father. The scriptures absolutely decide and declare what is truth.
KJV Hebrews 4:12
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
You think you know truth? The scriptures will decide. And judge your heart in the matter.
Catholics direct their people either to the catechism, the encyclicals of popes, church councils, and to the magisterium. Catholics are not directed to the scriptures in order to ascertain for themselves what is truth. Interpreting scripture for themselves is out of the question. The scripture itself interprets itself. It is self explanatory. It doesn't need you or me to testify of its veracity. Yet we have a magisterium who makes the final decision as to what scripture means, the final arbiter of truth.

Second off, you just admitted that YOU don't know the truth of Scripture. But you KNOW that everyone else is wrong except for YOU and your men.

. What I am saying is that no man has the right to decide on behalf of others what scripture means.

Third off, Scripture doesn't decide what the truth is. Scripture is the truth!

It's the word of God.
KJV Psalms 119:105
105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

They just think He has ordained a vicar.

Now, hardly ever a truer word spoken. And in doing so, they had no clue, maybe, of their decisions and dogmas having the deepest consequences.
We have a High Priest in heaven, before whom all may approach with boldness. There is no requirement, need, rhyme, not reason for any man to be interposing himself between man and God. There is only one Mediator between man and God, the man Christ Jesus.

The word Antichrist literally means opposing Christ, by displacing Him from His rightful position. Antichrist means, instead of Christ, in the room of Christ, in place of Christ. Yes, the vicar of Christ. In that famous forgery, the "Donation of Constantine", the title, "VIcarus fillei Dei " was first found. The bishops of Rome, who for many centuries afterward, used that forgery to steal land, possessions, power, and yes, even souls, for the church, also laid hold of that title for themselves, in various forms, thus identifying themselves as that man of sin, the Antichrist.

1759. James Ferguson (1710-1776) was a most remarkable example of self-education. Famous for inventing and improving astronomical as well as other scientific instruments, this Scot was accorded a high honor: membership in the Royal Society of London. He also “sometimes turned his attention to theological subjects.” Because of his outstanding ability in calculation, these included prophecy and the question of “the NAME AND NUMBER OF THE BEAST.” His biographer, Ebenezer Henderson, “copied it in 1831 from a MS of Ferguson’s in the possession of the late William Upcott, Esq., Islington, London.” Ferguson included three tables establishing the numerical value of Romiith, Lateinos, and Vicarius Filii Dei. He pointed out that in his time this last mentioned was a title recognized by Catholics: “The Papists call the Pope VICARIUS FILII DEI (The Vicar of the Son of God). And, if we take the sum of all the numeral letters in these three words, we shall find it also to be 666.” Ferguson may have been the first in Britain to equate Vicarius Filii Dei with 666. His biographer also wrote: “Ferguson introduces the motto on the Palace of the Pope at Rome, viz. ‘Vicarivs Dei Generalis in Terris,” (the Vicar General of God on Earth),” which—as Ferguson demonstrated—likewise has a numerical value of 666.


The Donation

1860. An illuminating work by William Elfe Tayler appeared: History of the Temporal Power of the Popes; Showing the Crimes by Which It Was Originally Acquired, and Afterwards Enlarged. He described how the fraudulent Donation of Constantine became the basis for adding further territories to the Papal State. Charlemagne, on the strength of that forgery, virtually doubled its size. He produced a Donation of his own. As if all this were not enough, some later popes produced additional spurious documents. “In the prosecution of their determined purpose to rank amongst the monarchs of this world, no means seem to have been too base for the pretended Vicars of the Son of God” (emphasis added). The papacy also added “three other forged documents of the Holy See, viz., the donation of Louis the Pious, Constantine the Great, and Otho I” (author’s emphasis).156 The pontiffs kept on quoting and using the original Donation. “In fact, kingdoms were given away by these pretended masters of the world, on the strength of it—as Ireland to our Henry II., by Pope Adrian IV.”

W W Koch.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

12. Ωστόσο, εφόσον ο Θεός μιλάει στην Ιερά Γραφή μέσω των ανθρώπων με ανθρώπινο τρόπο, (6) ο ερμηνευτής της Ιερής Γραφής, για να δει ξεκάθαρα τι ήθελε να μας μεταδώσει ο Θεός, θα πρέπει να διερευνήσει προσεκτικά το νόημα που σκόπευαν πραγματικά οι ιεροί συγγραφείς, και αυτό που ήθελε να φανερώσει ο Θεός με τα λόγια τους. Για να διερευνηθεί η πρόθεση των ιερών συγγραφέων, πρέπει να δοθεί προσοχή, μεταξύ άλλων, στις «λογοτεχνικές μορφές». Διότι η αλήθεια εκτίθεται και εκφράζεται διαφορετικά σε κείμενα που είναι ποικίλα ιστορικά, προφητικά, ποιητικά ή άλλων μορφών λόγου. Ο διερμηνέας πρέπει να διερευνήσει το νόημα που σκόπευε να εκφράσει ο ιερός συγγραφέας και το εξέφρασε πραγματικά σε συγκεκριμένες περιστάσεις χρησιμοποιώντας σύγχρονες λογοτεχνικές μορφές σύμφωνα με την κατάσταση της εποχής και του πολιτισμού του. (7) Για τη σωστή κατανόηση αυτού που ήθελε να ισχυριστεί ο ιερός συγγραφέας, πρέπει να δοθεί η δέουσα προσοχή στα συνήθη και χαρακτηριστικά στυλ συναισθήματος, ομιλίας και αφήγησης που επικρατούσαν την εποχή του ιερού συγγραφέα, και στα πρότυπα που χρησιμοποιούσαν συνήθως οι άνθρωποι εκείνη την περίοδο στις καθημερινές τους σχέσεις μεταξύ τους. (8) Όμως, εφόσον η Αγία Γραφή πρέπει να διαβάζεται και να ερμηνεύεται με το ιερό πνεύμα με το οποίο γράφτηκε, (9) δεν πρέπει να δοθεί λιγότερο σοβαρή προσοχή στο περιεχόμενο και την ενότητα ολόκληρης της Γραφής για να γίνει το νόημα των ιερών κειμένων. σωστά επεξεργασμένο. Η ζωντανή παράδοση ολόκληρης της Εκκλησίας πρέπει να λαμβάνεται υπόψη μαζί με την αρμονία που υπάρχει ανάμεσα στα στοιχεία της πίστης. Καθήκον των ερμηνευτών είναι να εργαστούν σύμφωνα με αυτούς τους κανόνες για την καλύτερη κατανόηση και εξήγηση του νοήματος της Ιεράς Γραφής, έτσι ώστε μέσω της προπαρασκευαστικής μελέτης να ωριμάσει η κρίση της Εκκλησίας. Διότι όλα όσα ειπώθηκαν για τον τρόπο ερμηνείας της Γραφής υπόκεινται τελικά στην κρίση της Εκκλησίας, η οποία εκτελεί τη θεία αποστολή και διακονία της φύλαξης και ερμηνείας του λόγου του Θεού. (10)

13. Στην Ιερά Γραφή, λοιπόν, ενώ η αλήθεια και η αγιότητα του Θεού παραμένουν πάντα ανέπαφα, φαίνεται ξεκάθαρα η θαυμαστή «συγκατάβαση» της αιώνιας σοφίας, «για να μάθουμε την ευγενική καλοσύνη του Θεού, την οποία οι λέξεις δεν μπορούν να εκφράσουν και πόσο μακριά Έχει προχωρήσει στην προσαρμογή της γλώσσας Του με στοχαστικό ενδιαφέρον για την αδύναμη ανθρώπινη φύση μας». (11) Διότι τα λόγια του Θεού, που εκφράζονται στην ανθρώπινη γλώσσα, έχουν γίνει σαν ανθρώπινη ομιλία, όπως ακριβώς ο λόγος του αιώνιου Πατέρα, όταν πήρε κοντά Του τη σάρκα της ανθρώπινης αδυναμίας, έγινε με κάθε τρόπο σαν τους ανθρώπους.

From Greek to English
12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)

But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)

13. In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous "condescension" of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, "that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature." (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.

Dei verbum

Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation - Dei verbum

www.vatican.va

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

. What I am saying is that no man has the right to decide on behalf of others what scripture means.

Except you and your SDA elders.

It's the word of God.

Key in "word of God" in any Bible search engine. It appears 50 times in the NKJV. Almost NOWHERE does it refer to the written word alone. Your definition of "word of God", confined to the written word alone, is not Biblical.

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: "word of god"

www.biblegateway.com

05 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

Now, hardly ever a truer word spoken. And in doing so, they had no clue, maybe, of their decisions and dogmas having the deepest consequences.
We have a High Priest in heaven, before whom all may approach with boldness. There is no requirement, need, rhyme, not reason for any man to be interposing himself between man and God. There is only one Mediator between man and God, the man Christ Jesus.

one Mediator between man and God is reduced to a slogan when it denies subordinate mediators, a thoroughly Biblical concept. Any Christian is a subordinate mediator when they pray for the well-being of another. Nobody is claiming subordinate mediatorship supplants or replaces the One Mediator. That's a myth invented by Bible cults.

The word Antichrist literally means opposing Christ, by displacing Him from His rightful position. Antichrist means, instead of Christ, in the room of Christ, in place of Christ. Yes, the vicar of Christ. In that famous forgery, the "Donation of Constantine", the title, "VIcarus fillei Dei " was first found.

"VIcarus fillei Dei " may have been found in a forged document, but it was never a title for the Pope. Beyond that, "vicarius" means ambassador or servant, it does not mean displacement. Anglicans call their bishops "vicar" and I don't see you persecuting Anglicans with lies and falsehoods.

The bishops of Rome, who for many centuries afterward, used that forgery to steal land, possessions, power, and yes, even souls, for the church, also laid hold of that title for themselves, in various forms, thus identifying themselves as that man of sin, the Antichrist.

Your anti-Catholic narrative is false and insulting, and why is it only the SDA who pound this hollow drum?

1759. James Ferguson (1710-1776) was a most remarkable example of self-education. Famous for inventing and improving astronomical as well as other scientific instruments, this Scot was accorded a high honor: membership in the Royal Society of London. He also “sometimes turned his attention to theological subjects.” Because of his outstanding ability in calculation, these included prophecy and the question of “the NAME AND NUMBER OF THE BEAST.” His biographer, Ebenezer Henderson, “copied it in 1831 from a MS of Ferguson’s in the possession of the late William Upcott, Esq., Islington, London.” Ferguson included three tables establishing the numerical value of Romiith, Lateinos, and Vicarius Filii Dei. He pointed out that in his time this last mentioned was a title recognized by Catholics: “The Papists call the Pope VICARIUS FILII DEI (The Vicar of the Son of God). And, if we take the sum of all the numeral letters in these three words, we shall find it also to be 666.” Ferguson may have been the first in Britain to equate Vicarius Filii Dei with 666. His biographer also wrote: “Ferguson introduces the motto on the Palace of the Pope at Rome, viz. ‘Vicarivs Dei Generalis in Terris,” (the Vicar General of God on Earth),” which—as Ferguson demonstrated—likewise has a numerical value of 666.

Some say the letters Ellen G. White, given numerical value, add up to 666. I admit its about as dumb as a non existing title conjured up by a hostile astronomer using Numerology.

The Donation

1860. An illuminating work by William Elfe Tayler appeared: History of the Temporal Power of the Popes; Showing the Crimes by Which It Was Originally Acquired, and Afterwards Enlarged. He described how the fraudulent Donation of Constantine became the basis for adding further territories to the Papal State. Charlemagne, on the strength of that forgery, virtually doubled its size. He produced a Donation of his own. As if all this were not enough, some later popes produced additional spurious documents. “In the prosecution of their determined purpose to rank amongst the monarchs of this world, no means seem to have been too base for the pretended Vicars of the Son of God” (emphasis added). The papacy also added “three other forged documents of the Holy See, viz., the donation of Louis the Pious, Constantine the Great, and Otho I” (author’s emphasis).156 The pontiffs kept on quoting and using the original Donation. “In fact, kingdoms were given away by these pretended masters of the world, on the strength of it—as Ireland to our Henry II., by Pope Adrian IV.”

W W Koch.

I don't see anything illuminating about a forged document. It's well known to be a forgery since the 15th century. But its lies are truthful to you.
"some later popes produced additional spurious documents", funny these spurious documents can't be found in official church teaching that's always available to the public.
"pretended masters of the world": undiluted bigotry. I bet you like Ian Paisley.

 

[Brakelite]

12. Ωστόσο, εφόσον ο Θεός μιλάει στην Ιερά Γραφή μέσω των ανθρώπων με ανθρώπινο τρόπο, (6) ο ερμηνευτής της Ιερής Γραφής, για να δει ξεκάθαρα τι ήθελε να μας μεταδώσει ο Θεός, θα πρέπει να διερευνήσει προσεκτικά το νόημα που σκόπευαν πραγματικά οι ιεροί συγγραφείς, και αυτό που ήθελε να φανερώσει ο Θεός με τα λόγια τους. Για να διερευνηθεί η πρόθεση των ιερών συγγραφέων, πρέπει να δοθεί προσοχή, μεταξύ άλλων, στις «λογοτεχνικές μορφές». Διότι η αλήθεια εκτίθεται και εκφράζεται διαφορετικά σε κείμενα που είναι ποικίλα ιστορικά, προφητικά, ποιητικά ή άλλων μορφών λόγου. Ο διερμηνέας πρέπει να διερευνήσει το νόημα που σκόπευε να εκφράσει ο ιερός συγγραφέας και το εξέφρασε πραγματικά σε συγκεκριμένες περιστάσεις χρησιμοποιώντας σύγχρονες λογοτεχνικές μορφές σύμφωνα με την κατάσταση της εποχής και του πολιτισμού του. (7) Για τη σωστή κατανόηση αυτού που ήθελε να ισχυριστεί ο ιερός συγγραφέας, πρέπει να δοθεί η δέουσα προσοχή στα συνήθη και χαρακτηριστικά στυλ συναισθήματος, ομιλίας και αφήγησης που επικρατούσαν την εποχή του ιερού συγγραφέα, και στα πρότυπα που χρησιμοποιούσαν συνήθως οι άνθρωποι εκείνη την περίοδο στις καθημερινές τους σχέσεις μεταξύ τους. (8) Όμως, εφόσον η Αγία Γραφή πρέπει να διαβάζεται και να ερμηνεύεται με το ιερό πνεύμα με το οποίο γράφτηκε, (9) δεν πρέπει να δοθεί λιγότερο σοβαρή προσοχή στο περιεχόμενο και την ενότητα ολόκληρης της Γραφής για να γίνει το νόημα των ιερών κειμένων. σωστά επεξεργασμένο. Η ζωντανή παράδοση ολόκληρης της Εκκλησίας πρέπει να λαμβάνεται υπόψη μαζί με την αρμονία που υπάρχει ανάμεσα στα στοιχεία της πίστης. Καθήκον των ερμηνευτών είναι να εργαστούν σύμφωνα με αυτούς τους κανόνες για την καλύτερη κατανόηση και εξήγηση του νοήματος της Ιεράς Γραφής, έτσι ώστε μέσω της προπαρασκευαστικής μελέτης να ωριμάσει η κρίση της Εκκλησίας. Διότι όλα όσα ειπώθηκαν για τον τρόπο ερμηνείας της Γραφής υπόκεινται τελικά στην κρίση της Εκκλησίας, η οποία εκτελεί τη θεία αποστολή και διακονία της φύλαξης και ερμηνείας του λόγου του Θεού. (10)

13. Στην Ιερά Γραφή, λοιπόν, ενώ η αλήθεια και η αγιότητα του Θεού παραμένουν πάντα ανέπαφα, φαίνεται ξεκάθαρα η θαυμαστή «συγκατάβαση» της αιώνιας σοφίας, «για να μάθουμε την ευγενική καλοσύνη του Θεού, την οποία οι λέξεις δεν μπορούν να εκφράσουν και πόσο μακριά Έχει προχωρήσει στην προσαρμογή της γλώσσας Του με στοχαστικό ενδιαφέρον για την αδύναμη ανθρώπινη φύση μας». (11) Διότι τα λόγια του Θεού, που εκφράζονται στην ανθρώπινη γλώσσα, έχουν γίνει σαν ανθρώπινη ομιλία, όπως ακριβώς ο λόγος του αιώνιου Πατέρα, όταν πήρε κοντά Του τη σάρκα της ανθρώπινης αδυναμίας, έγινε με κάθε τρόπο σαν τους ανθρώπους.

From Greek to English
12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)

But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)

13. In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous "condescension" of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, "that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature." (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.

Dei verbum

Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation - Dei verbum

www.vatican.va

Mmmm. Human intellect exalted above the power of the Spirit of God. Trusting in ones own education, intelligence, and likely a variety of qualifications in order to understand what in essence can only be understood by the grace of God.
KJV Romans 8:5-6
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

KJV John 4:23-24
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
KJV John 6:63, 65
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
KJV John 15:26
26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
KJV John 16:13
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

KJV Luke 11:11-13
11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

 

[Marymog]

Your reading comprehension skills are woeful. I did not say that at all. Quote...

YES, you did admit that your men don't know the truth of Scripture.

QUOTE FROM YOU: The scriptures decide what is truth. Not your men. Or my men. Or any man.

You crack me up.....But dishonesty shouldn't be funny.

 

[Marymog]

You think you know truth? The scriptures will decide. And judge your heart in the matter.

Yes, I know the truth because I listen to The Church and The Church decides the truth just like Scripture says in 1 Timothy 3:15 and the truth has set me free just like Scripture says in John 8:32.

Scripture has, as you said, decided the truth. But you and your men deny the truth. Here is one example:

Jesus said you must eat my body and drink my blood. YOUR MEN say ewwww gross, that is not true.

Jesus then showed you how to eat his body and drink his blood and said this IS my body/blood. YOUR MEN say it is NOT your body and blood.......that is not true, it is a symbol of His body/blood.

Paul said, the cup of blessing which we bless is the communion of the blood of Christ and the bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ. He who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. Your men say NO IT ISN"T His body/blood and we don't eat/drink in an unworthy manner. Paul, stop lying about the bread/wine.

But I must give you credit. You are submitting to the teachings of the men who rule over you (Hebrews 13:17). You are listening to them, BUT, as Scripture says, they will pay the price since they are watching out for you soul. But they must also give account for lying to you.

 

[Marymog]

Catholics direct their people either to the catechism, the encyclicals of popes, church councils, and to the magisterium. Catholics are not directed to the scriptures in order to ascertain for themselves what is truth. Interpreting scripture for themselves is out of the question.

Ummmmm.....individual Christians are not the pillar and foundation of truth. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15) and if you refuse to listen to The Church you are ex-communicated, just like Scripture says (Matthew 18:17). Sooooo you can get out of your fanasy world, read Scripture and come back to reality. According to Scripture YOU are not the pillar and foundation of truth therefor YOU do not ascertain the truth on your own.

Why do you deny the truth of Scripture?

If you can interpret Scripture and determine the truth on your own brakelite, why do you attend church? You don't need anyone to reveal the truth to you so why go hang out with the peasants?

Your denomination has a website that lists YOUR Official Beliefs, Statements and Manuals. YOUR denomination has your own catechism, encyclicals of your men and your own church councils. Your last annual council was on October 6th, 2022. Did you attend it brakelite?

You crack me up.....

 

[Marymog]

. What I am saying is that no man has the right to decide on behalf of others what scripture means.

Yup, we agree on that and I have been saying that all along. No individual man "has the right to decide on behalf of others what scripture means". The Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth, has that right. And if you refuse to listen to The Church you are ex-communicated from The Church. Just like Scripture says.

 

[Marymog]

Except you and your SDA elders.

I went to the SDA website and it is chalked full of the things that @Brakelite is supposed to believe. It has a drop-down tab listing their OFFICIAL beliefs, Statements and Manuals all the way from the Holy Scriptures to The New Earth (whatever that one means).

Yet he says that "no man has the right to decide on behalf of others what scripture means."

 

[RedFan]

12. Ωστόσο, εφόσον ο Θεός μιλάει στην Ιερά Γραφή μέσω των ανθρώπων με ανθρώπινο τρόπο, (6) ο ερμηνευτής της Ιερής Γραφής, για να δει ξεκάθαρα τι ήθελε να μας μεταδώσει ο Θεός, θα πρέπει να διερευνήσει προσεκτικά το νόημα που σκόπευαν πραγματικά οι ιεροί συγγραφείς, και αυτό που ήθελε να φανερώσει ο Θεός με τα λόγια τους. Για να διερευνηθεί η πρόθεση των ιερών συγγραφέων, πρέπει να δοθεί προσοχή, μεταξύ άλλων, στις «λογοτεχνικές μορφές». Διότι η αλήθεια εκτίθεται και εκφράζεται διαφορετικά σε κείμενα που είναι ποικίλα ιστορικά, προφητικά, ποιητικά ή άλλων μορφών λόγου. Ο διερμηνέας πρέπει να διερευνήσει το νόημα που σκόπευε να εκφράσει ο ιερός συγγραφέας και το εξέφρασε πραγματικά σε συγκεκριμένες περιστάσεις χρησιμοποιώντας σύγχρονες λογοτεχνικές μορφές σύμφωνα με την κατάσταση της εποχής και του πολιτισμού του. (7) Για τη σωστή κατανόηση αυτού που ήθελε να ισχυριστεί ο ιερός συγγραφέας, πρέπει να δοθεί η δέουσα προσοχή στα συνήθη και χαρακτηριστικά στυλ συναισθήματος, ομιλίας και αφήγησης που επικρατούσαν την εποχή του ιερού συγγραφέα, και στα πρότυπα που χρησιμοποιούσαν συνήθως οι άνθρωποι εκείνη την περίοδο στις καθημερινές τους σχέσεις μεταξύ τους. (8) Όμως, εφόσον η Αγία Γραφή πρέπει να διαβάζεται και να ερμηνεύεται με το ιερό πνεύμα με το οποίο γράφτηκε, (9) δεν πρέπει να δοθεί λιγότερο σοβαρή προσοχή στο περιεχόμενο και την ενότητα ολόκληρης της Γραφής για να γίνει το νόημα των ιερών κειμένων. σωστά επεξεργασμένο. Η ζωντανή παράδοση ολόκληρης της Εκκλησίας πρέπει να λαμβάνεται υπόψη μαζί με την αρμονία που υπάρχει ανάμεσα στα στοιχεία της πίστης. Καθήκον των ερμηνευτών είναι να εργαστούν σύμφωνα με αυτούς τους κανόνες για την καλύτερη κατανόηση και εξήγηση του νοήματος της Ιεράς Γραφής, έτσι ώστε μέσω της προπαρασκευαστικής μελέτης να ωριμάσει η κρίση της Εκκλησίας. Διότι όλα όσα ειπώθηκαν για τον τρόπο ερμηνείας της Γραφής υπόκεινται τελικά στην κρίση της Εκκλησίας, η οποία εκτελεί τη θεία αποστολή και διακονία της φύλαξης και ερμηνείας του λόγου του Θεού. (10)

13. Στην Ιερά Γραφή, λοιπόν, ενώ η αλήθεια και η αγιότητα του Θεού παραμένουν πάντα ανέπαφα, φαίνεται ξεκάθαρα η θαυμαστή «συγκατάβαση» της αιώνιας σοφίας, «για να μάθουμε την ευγενική καλοσύνη του Θεού, την οποία οι λέξεις δεν μπορούν να εκφράσουν και πόσο μακριά Έχει προχωρήσει στην προσαρμογή της γλώσσας Του με στοχαστικό ενδιαφέρον για την αδύναμη ανθρώπινη φύση μας». (11) Διότι τα λόγια του Θεού, που εκφράζονται στην ανθρώπινη γλώσσα, έχουν γίνει σαν ανθρώπινη ομιλία, όπως ακριβώς ο λόγος του αιώνιου Πατέρα, όταν πήρε κοντά Του τη σάρκα της ανθρώπινης αδυναμίας, έγινε με κάθε τρόπο σαν τους ανθρώπους.

From Greek to English
12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)

But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)

13. In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous "condescension" of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, "that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature." (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.

Dei verbum

Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation - Dei verbum

www.vatican.va

Why the Greek quotation? (Just looking at it from 10,000 feet, it appears to be modern Greek and not Koine Greek.)

 

[BreadOfLife]

Give Scripture that teaches Jesus spoke to Peter in Aramaic in Matthew 16:18-19?

As I already taught you, no one comes to truth by assumptions.

Its obvious at least to me that God had the new testament written and preserved in greek.
This is how it should be read, petros, petra.
BreadofLife,
Demands it must be read in Aramaic to be accurately understood.
He's obviously biased because he's catholic and the Greek language disproves catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19.

Outside sources of uninspired men after the apostles is not how we come to the truth on what sayeth the Scriptures.

The
Bible proves the Bible.
Did Jesus say men that write history books are our source of truth?

According to God what is truth and where do we go to find it?

John 17:17,
- sanctify them by Your truth, Your word is truth

I have given you several examples of Jesus speaking in Aramaic - and YOU have completely FAILED to address them:

These are some of the Aramaic words spoken by Jesus:
"Talitha koum"- Mat 5:3
"Ephphatha" Mark 7:34
"Eli, Eli lama sabathani" verse Matt. 27:46

WHEN are you finally going to address this??

 

[BreadOfLife]

Breadof Life is disagreeing that Greek is the best most accurate words for Rock.
He is wiser than God I guess.
He can tell God on judgement day how God should have used Aramaic and had all other languages translated from it.

And your LIES continue . . .

Not only did they speak Aramaic - Peter is the "Rock" referred to in Matt, 16:18.
YOUR delusion is that you actually believe that you know MORE than the following PROTESTANT scholars on the matter . . .

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.

 

[BreadOfLife]

continued . . .

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.

"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.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

continued . . .

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.

"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.

More recent Protestants have been able to back away from the position that early Protestants felt forced to make and have been able to admit that Peter is, indeed, the rock. But the overwhelming evidence presented is automatically rejected by anti-Protestant Bible cults.

 

[RedFan]

I have given you several examples of Jesus speaking in Aramaic - and YOU have completely FAILED to address them:

These are some of the Aramaic words spoken by Jesus:
"Talitha koum"- Mat 5:3
"Ephphatha" Mark 7:34
"Eli, Eli lama sabathani" verse Matt. 27:46

WHEN are you finally going to address this??

I am happy to let Titus address this if he wishes, but here is my $0.02: Nobody is denying (not even Titus) that Jesus spoke Aramaic, as well as Hebrew and very likely Greek. Rather, Titus is arguing that the conversation with Peter in Matt. 16:17-18 was actually undertaken in Greek rather than Aramaic. (I think that's improbable in the extreme -- but I digress.)

That Mathew's gospel was composed in Greek, we both agree on. That it was "preserved" in Greek (Titus's word) by copyists, we all agree on. How either one of these facts can possibly impact any conclusion on the language of the Jesus-Peter conversation is beyond me, so I'll let Titus tell us his reasoning.

 

[RedFan]

More recent Protestants have been able to back away from the position that early Protestants felt forced to make and have been able to admit that Peter is, indeed, the rock. But the overwhelming evidence presented is automatically rejected by anti-Protestant Bible cults.

I don't now what an "anti-Protestant" is, so I cannot comment on their reasoning abilities, but speaking as a Protestant myself, you definitely can reason with me!

And yes, I think it is overwhelmingly likely (though not certain) that σὺ εἶ πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν is a reference to Peter as the rock on which the church would be built.

 

[Brakelite]

YES, you did admit that your men don't know the truth of Scripture.

QUOTE FROM YOU: The scriptures decide what is truth. Not your men. Or my men. Or any man.

You crack me up.....But dishonesty shouldn't be funny.

What I said...QUOTE FROM YOU: The scriptures decide what is truth. Not your men. Or my men. Or any man.
Does not say people don't know the truth. Like I said in a subsequent post, the holy Spirit guides us into truth, (Jesus said that), our work is to accept it, believe it, and act on it.

Yes, I know the truth because I listen to The Church and The Church decides the truth

So you are placing you entire eternal destiny in the hands of men no better than yourself, and in some cases, worse. I will trust Jesus

I went to the SDA website and it is chalked full of the things that @Brakelite is supposed to believe. It has a drop-down tab listing their OFFICIAL beliefs, Statements and Manuals all the way from the Holy Scriptures to The New Earth (whatever that one means).

Yet he says that "no man has the right to decide on behalf of others what scripture means."

Nowhere on that web site will you find any suggestion that anyone is compelled to believe that which is laid out as the fundamentals of our faith. Being baptized into Christ and into fellowship with any particular assembly of believers is a voluntary act. One chooses to join the Adventist church because when studying scripture he recognises that the teachings of that church reflect what He has read in scripture. Nothing devious or dodgy about that. I seem to have touched a nerve with you. Sorry you are so triggered.

Yet he says that "no man has the right to decide on behalf of others what scripture means."

And I stand by that. For 2000 years, Satan has inspired your church to compel others, through force, persecution, torture, war, and crusades, to accept her teachings. Such was never God's doing. And Protestant churches, Islamic, and any other faith doing the same is n oko better. You are attempting to defend the indefensible.