A look at Matthew 16 vs dogma

[DHK]

The fact is when you compare the OT quotes in Matthew with the Other NT writers what we find is that the other writers coincide with LXX translations of the OT. Thus showing Matthew quotes of the OT are an independent translation of what the apostles were using. The question then is why is this. Either 1) Matthew wrote the gospel to the JEWS and HEBREWS in their second language Greek and translated OT scripture without using a source text. 2) Matthew wrote the gospel in Aramaic and his disciples compiled the work together for their Greek Audiences and translated directely from the Aramaic use rather than old hebrew into Greek from the OT not using source LXX. Get it?

No, I don't get it. You make unwarranted assumptions by looking at the NT writers and comparing them for all the wrong reasons.
First of all the LXX has nothing to do with it.
Secondly the NT writers were inspired by God, not the LXX.
Thirdly each NT writer had a different purpose and a different audience which affected their style of writing and their vocabulary.

Matthew wrote to primarily a Jewish audience demonstrating that Christ was indeed the Messiah. He uses more references to the OT than any other gospel writer.

Mark wrote to primarily to a Roman audience demonstrating that Christ was a Servant. Notice there is no genealogy. No one cares about the genealogy of a servant. He came not to be ministered unto but to minister and to give his life a ransom for many.

Luke wrote primarily to a Greek audience demonstrating that Christ was the son of man. Luke was a physician. He wrote specifically to Theophilus, a Greek friend. His gospel was volume one and the book of Acts was volume two. In the gospel the humanity of Christ is emphasized.

John wrote primarily to the world at large demonstrating that Christ was deity. It was written well after the others and gives additional information that the others don't have. If any Gospel uses Hebraic and Aramaic expressions it is John, who, when he uses them, stops and translates them for us.

Matthew is different, because he had a different purpose, a different audience, not because it was translated from Aramaic. Your assumptions are hogwash, unsubstantiated, based on fiction, and an argument from silence.

 

[HankD]

Christ was the Rock, is the Rock and will always be the Rock.

Luke 6

47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:
48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.
49 But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.

​

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No, I don't get it. You make unwarranted assumptions by looking at the NT writers and comparing them for all the wrong reasons.
First of all the LXX has nothing to do with it.
Secondly the NT writers were inspired by God, not the LXX.
Thirdly each NT writer had a different purpose and a different audience which affected their style of writing and their vocabulary.

Matthew wrote to primarily a Jewish audience demonstrating that Christ was indeed the Messiah. He uses more references to the OT than any other gospel writer.

Mark wrote to primarily to a Roman audience demonstrating that Christ was a Servant. Notice there is no genealogy. No one cares about the genealogy of a servant. He came not to be ministered unto but to minister and to give his life a ransom for many.

Luke wrote primarily to a Greek audience demonstrating that Christ was the son of man. Luke was a physician. He wrote specifically to Theophilus, a Greek friend. His gospel was volume one and the book of Acts was volume two. In the gospel the humanity of Christ is emphasized.

John wrote primarily to the world at large demonstrating that Christ was deity. It was written well after the others and gives additional information that the others don't have. If any Gospel uses Hebraic and Aramaic expressions it is John, who, when he uses them, stops and translates them for us.

Matthew is different, because he had a different purpose, a different audience, not because it was translated from Aramaic. Your assumptions are hogwash, unsubstantiated, based on fiction, and an argument from silence.

You're ignoring the fact that the LXX has a lot to do with it. It was a source text for the Apostles. They used this source text for their quotes of the OT as can be seen in their writings. Matthew divergess away from this. There are several reasons for this. Who is the Audience for Matthew? His Jewish Country Men? Most likely. It is important to note:

Portions of the oral sayings in Matthew contain vocabulary that indicates Hebrew or Aramaic linguistic techniques involving puns, alliterations, and word connections. Hebrew/Aramaic vocabulary choices possibly underlie the text in Matthew 1:21, 3:9, 4:12, 4:21-23, 5:9-10, 5:23, 5:47-48, 7:6, 8:28-31, 9:8, 10:35-39, 11:6, 11:8-10, 11:17, 11:29, 12:13-15, 12:39, 14:32, 14:35-36, 15:34-37, 16:18, 17:05, 18:9, 18:16, 18:23-35, 19:9-13, 19:24, 21:19, 21:37-46, 21:42, 23:25-29, 24:32, 26:28-36, 26:52 - Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, George Howard, 1995, p. 184-190

Also note the early witness of this gospel: Epiphanius in his Panarion

They too accept Matthew's gospel and like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, they use it alone. They call it the Gospel of the Hebrews, for in truth, Matthew alone of the New Covenant writers expounded and declared the gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script

or Papias

Matthew composed the logia in the Hebrew tongue and each one interpreted them as he was able

or Ireaneaus

Matthew also issued a written Gospel of the Hebrews in their own language while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the Church

So there are several reasons to think that is the case.

 

[BillySunday1935]

Why not deal with facts instead of fairy tales.
Most of the doctrine of the RCC comes from those things that are not written down in the Bible. The only place they can be found is in pagan tradition. They are not Christian whatsoever:

Examples: Purgatory, limbo, indulgences, rosary, worship of relics and icons, immaculate conception of Mary, assumption of Mary, Mary as Queen of Heaven, confession of sin to a priest, penance, etc. } All the man-made doctrines of religious organization that has nothing to do with Biblical Christianity.

When in doubt, do the doctrinal dance.

In fact Jesus never told anyone to write down anything.

So you say!

2 Peter 3:1-2 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

Oh please… he is writing so that they (the reader) may be mindful of the words spoken by the holy prophets AND the commandment given to the apostles of [from] the Lord and Saviour.

John 16:13 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.

Look – my statement was that Jesus never commanded the apostles to write anything down – and he didn’t. I didn’t say that the Holy Spirit didn’t move them to teach, preach, and some even to write. That’s a different issue. Please respond to what I write and not to what you want/need/wish me to write.

--This verse specifically speaks of the Scripture that the Apostles would right. The Holy Spirit would guide them into ALL truth when the time would come for them to write the truth of the Scriptures.

Specifically? Right… And that is your interpretation of the verse. Yet – nowhere is there given a command that they are to write anything.

2 Peter 1:21 For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke, being moved by the Holy Spirit.
--Not by the will of man, but by God's will was the Holy Scripture written.
They were moved (almost forcibly so) by the Holy Spirit. They were instruments used in the hand of God to write the words that God wanted them to write.

Amen! Yet in 2 Peter 1:21 there is no command to write anything by Jesus. “…but holy men of God spoke…” See, they spoke – they didn’t necessarily write.

However, we do have a trail of recorded history from the ECF's indicating Peter as preeminent among the apostles, and as leader of the Church of Rome with ultimate authority.

This is a joke isn't it??

Yes – and it’s your response.

The Catholics claim that Peter was the Pope of Rome for 25 years.
Let’s see how viable this is:

Peter was present at Pentecost in 29 A.D.

In Gal.2:11, Peter was rebuked by Paul. The context tells Peter was in Antioch at this time. The corresponding passage is in Acts 11:19-26. The date of this event was 42 A.D.

So what?

Peter was present at the Council of Jerusalem in 50 A.D., and James was the pastor of that church.

Yes – and Peter had authority over all Churches. I’ve shown you the ECF’s on this before.

The Epistle of Rome, written by the Apostle Paul, was written in 60 A.D. Neither in the greeting of chapter 1 or in the salutations in chapter 16 Peter is not mentioned.

The exception does not prove the rule there, DHK!

The First Epistle of Peter was written in 60 A.D.
The Second Epistle of Peter was written in 66 A.D.

--Both were written from Babylon, putting Peter there during those years.

1 Peter 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

In Second Peter, Peter speaks of him imminent death:
2 Peter 1:14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.
--He knew that his death was soon, even as Paul stated the same in 2Tim.4.

So Paul was in Babylon in 66 A.D. writing his second epistle.

This is ridiculous and you know it (or you should).

“The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”

“Another angel, a second, followed, saying, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion’” (Rev. 14:8). “The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath” (Rev. 16:19). “[A]nd on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations’” (Rev. 17:5). “And he called out with a mighty voice, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great’” (Rev. 18:2). “[T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, ‘Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come’” (Rev. 18:10). “So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence” (Rev. 18:21).

These references can’t be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a “great city.” It played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the “great city” mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.

However Nero died in June 68 A.D. by suicide knowing that a revolt was imminent, and he didn't want to be killed by the hand of another.

Peter died either late 67 or early 68. He was in Babylon in 66.
It is only Tradition that puts him in Rome at the time of his death where he supposedly died by being crucified upside down.

Other than that we have no evidence that Peter was ever in Rome whatsoever, and the time line above gives no room for him to be in Rome either. The fact is: it was impossible for him to be a pastor, bishop or pope in Rome at any time.

So DHK, in his wisdom has it right and the Church (for 2000 years) who taught that Peter did go to Rome to be crucified upside down, was simply wrong. Oh – yeeeaahh.

That’s what happens when you ignore history there, DHK.

Peace!

 

[ReformedBaptist]

DHK,

Good work on showing the truth plainly. The Romanists who are trying to defend the papacy are showing both by their defenses and attitudes that they do err.

Thanks for your work on this.

 

[BillySunday1935]

DHK,

Good work on showing the truth plainly. The Romanists who are trying to defend the papacy are showing both by their defenses and attitudes that they do err.

Thanks for your work on this.

Are you using the phrase "Romanists" as a pejorative? If so, that’s not very Christ-like.

Peace!

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Are you using the phrase "Romanists" as a pejorative? If so, that’s not very Christ-like.

Peace!

Yes, absolutely. THink what you will.

 

[BillySunday1935]

Christ was the Rock, is the Rock and will always be the Rock.

Luke 6

47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:
48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.
49 But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.

​

Then why is he called by so many other names in scripture?

John 1:29
29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

John 1:36
36When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, "Look, the Lamb of God!"

Revelation 5:6
6Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits[a] of God sent out into all the earth.

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 10:7-11
7Therefore Jesus said again, "I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. 8All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved.[a] He will come in and go out, and find pasture. 10The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

11"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.


John 15:1-6

1"I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
5"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.


He is also called the only mediator, the high preist, the Lion of Judah, and many other names.

That kind of knocks out your opening premise there...

Peace!

 

[BillySunday1935]

Yes, absolutely. THink what you will.

“Yes, absolutely” you are using it as a pejorative, or “yes – absolutely” it isn't Christ-like?

Peace!

 

[ReformedBaptist]

“Yes, absolutely” you are using it as a pejorative, or “yes – absolutely” it isn't Christ-like?

Peace!

Yes, I meant it pejoratively, or rather negatively. And I don't think it us un-christ-like. It's no different than Christ calling the Pharisees white-washed tombs. It does not carry a positive connotation. lol

Same with Romanist and papist. It is meant to convey, negatively, the person's allegiance to the papacy rather than to Christ Jesus.

 

[BillySunday1935]

Yes, I meant it pejoratively, or rather negatively. And I don't think it us un-christ-like. It's no different than Christ calling the Pharisees white-washed tombs. It does not carry a positive connotation. lol

So using that same standard, it is perfectly fine to use pejorative language to describe Baptists, Methodists, etc.

Same with Romanist and papist. It is meant to convey, negatively, the person's allegiance to the papacy rather than to Christ Jesus.

1) What's the difference between a "Romanist" and a "papist"?

2) How do you know that a Catholic person's allegiance is to the papacy rather than to Jesus Christ -- do they take an oath or something? How would that go - hmmmm... perhaps something like this:

"I hereby swear, in front of everyone, allegiance to the Pope - the Vicar of Christ, and to him alone am I subserviant - forsaking all others even Jesus Christ."

Do they have an oath like that, or what? If so, then it should be a matter of record shouldn't it?

Peace!

 

[ReformedBaptist]

So using that same standard, it is perfectly fine to use pejorative language to describe Baptists, Methodists, etc.




1) What's the difference between a "Romanist" and a "papist"?

2) How do you know that a Catholic person's allegiance is to the papacy rather than to Jesus Christ -- do they take an oath or something? How would that go - hmmmm... perhaps something like this:

"I hereby swear, in front of everyone, allegiance to the Pope - the Vicar of Christ, and to him alone am I subserviant - forsaking all others even Jesus Christ."

Do they have an oath like that, or what? If so, then it should be a matter of record shouldn't it?

Peace!

Use whatever term for me you like. The Roman Catholics I have met pejeoratively labeled me a "bible-believer" I enjoy that one.

A Romanist and a papist are the same thing.

The rest of your questions aren't questions. So, they don't need answers.

A Roman Catholic's allegiance is not to Christ Jesus, but to the pope. The Church is their God, not Jesus. The pope is their head, not Jesus.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Use whatever term for me you like. The Roman Catholics I have met pejeoratively labeled me a "bible-believer" I enjoy that one.

A Romanist and a papist are the same thing.

The rest of your questions aren't questions. So, they don't need answers.

A Roman Catholic's allegiance is not to Christ Jesus, but to the pope. The Church is their God, not Jesus. The pope is their head, not Jesus.

Having been raised in a Catholic Family I can honestly say "Baloney" They view their church as the deposit left by the apostles. Popes have been and are evaluated and often critizised.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Wouldn't it be more fair to say that it is the more engaged Catholic, the more trained Catholic that you are representing? However, the nominal Catholic is precisely described by my Reformed brother's comments?

Having been raised in a Catholic Family I can honestly say "Baloney" They view their church as the deposit left by the apostles. Popes have been and are evaluated and often critizised.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Wouldn't it be more fair to say that it is the more engaged Catholic, the more trained Catholic that you are representing? However, the nominal Catholic is precisely described by my Reformed brother's comments?

Nominal Catholics, in my opinion, are no better than your average agnostic. The only reason they have a understanding of the very basics such as the Trinity, Resurrection, Christ sacrifice, the sacraments is because its drilled into them every mass. And each of these are poorly understood. Many play with secular themes or paganistic ones. Some believe they can both be Catholic and Budhist etc... These aren't the faithful. They are like the unregenerate christians who sit in the pews every sunday believing because they are basically good and know John 3:16 and were baptized at one point they are christians while after church curse like a sailor, drink like a fish, smoke like a chiminey, and are like any other secular person.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Nominal Catholics, in my opinion, are no better than your average agnostic. The only reason they have a understanding of the very basics such as the Trinity, Resurrection, Christ sacrifice, the sacraments is because its drilled into them every mass. And each of these are poorly understood. Many play with secular themes or paganistic ones. Some believe they can both be Catholic and Budhist etc... These aren't the faithful. They are like the unregenerate christians who sit in the pews every sunday believing because they are basically good and know John 3:16 and were baptized at one point they are christians while after church curse like a sailor, drink like a fish, smoke like a chiminey, and are like any other secular person.

Yep! I have met a boat load of them. Do you think the nominal out number the faithful, those who can articulate their faith?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yep! I have met a boat load of them. Do you think the nominal out number the faithful, those who can articulate their faith?

My experience has indicated that the nominal do outnumber the faithful. However, it seems lately there is a resurgence in the number of the faithful and I'm wondering if has to do with changes implemented in their Catichecal training. There have been other changes of late as well. The most significant one you'll probably see is that there has been a review and retranslation of the liturgy which affects the mass and brevery etc... This will be implemented in 2011. There are many priest opposed because they are unfamiliar with the change, but many also like the changes. The RCC is becoming more conservative. This new translation is actually closer to the extrodinary rite which is the latin mass. So terms like v: "the lord be with you" R: "and also with you" will be closer to the Latin ie "Et cum spititu tuo" or and "with your spirit". Changes in the Eucharistic prayer are also made. The catholic church has changed in many ways since I was a kid. which may explain the ressurgence of the faithful.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Having been raised in a Catholic Family I can honestly say "Baloney" They view their church as the deposit left by the apostles. Popes have been and are evaluated and often critizised.

Then you were outside the norm. If we want to judge all Catholics by our personal experiences, then I will tell you my best friend was raised Roman Catholic, my mom grew up Catholic and went to Catholci school, et.

Their trust and hope is NOT in Jesus. If they say so, that is the lip service. Their trust and hope is in Mother Church. They trust only what the Church tells them. Their salvation is had through the Church. When I was sharing the Gospel with a ROman Catholic in college, she would so much as even look at the Scripture but only would allow me to read them to her as she was terrified she would get a wrong interpretation. Then she would take what I said and go ask her priest about it. Let the papacy be accursed. May God destroy it, as He promised, and very quickly.

What you are doing is defending a seriously antichrist system that is quite literally damning souls to hell.

I was invited to a Roman Catholic home to have a discussion, which actually turned out to be an inqusition of sorts. I sat there, defending the Bible in the face of countless idols litering this man's home...and most appalling of all, to watch this man's wife, bow her head and pray to the pope.

I have not witnessed more disgusting idolatry than that in my whole life. At least the idolators of the far east do not mix their demon woship with a Christian name or garb.

But these gave worship openly and blatently by offering prayer to the pope in front of me, and pointing to their idols and images and saying they were their gods.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Then you were outside the norm. If we want to judge all Catholics by our personal experiences, then I will tell you my best friend was raised Roman Catholic, my mom grew up Catholic and went to Catholci school, et.

Their trust and hope is NOT in Jesus. If they say so, that is the lip service. Their trust and hope is in Mother Church. They trust only what the Church tells them. Their salvation is had through the Church.

What you are doing is defending a seriously antichrist system that is quite literally damning souls to hell.

I was invited to a Roman Catholic home to have a discussion, which actually turned out to be an inqusition of sorts. I sat there, defending the Bible in the face of countless idols litering this man's home...and most appalling of all, to watch this man's wife, bow her head and pray to the pope.

I have not witnessed more disgusting idolatry than that in my whole life. At least the idolators of the far east do not mix their demon woship with a Christian name or garb.

But these gave worship openly and blatently by offering prayer to the pope in front of me, and pointing to their idols and images and saying they were their gods.

You take Catholics who pray to the Pope seriously? You're right that is idolatry and those Catholics are wakos. My Father is a serious Catholic and doesn't own one statue. He likes to wear an oversized crucifix though. And a Catholic actually pointing to a statue saying they were their gods? These people weren't Catholic. They were crazy. I don't know any Catholic who does that. Are you sure they weren't Old Catholic Church based out of Ultrich?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

You take Catholics who pray to the Pope seriously? You're right that is idolatry and those Catholics are wakos. My Father is a serious Catholic and doesn't own one statue. He likes to wear an oversized crucifix though. And a Catholic actually pointing to a statue saying they were their gods? These people weren't Catholic. They were crazy. I don't know any Catholic who does that. Are you sure they weren't Old Catholic Church based out of Ultrich?

There was with them their priest from the local parish as well as a few seminary grads. These people were not crazy. Although I think the Holy Spirit worked in an unusal way to expose what they were. In other words, their behavior was odd, but the Lord worked in a way so that it was obvious to all what they are.

The point that can be taken from this, is that neither you or I can judge what Catholicism is by the behavior of a few Catholics we know. We must judge the system by its precepts and judgments and doctrines.

Such as Dr. Walter does on these boards, or a James White or others in history who have dealt directly be papal teaching and not how some individual catholic works it out.

Or should I go on to judge the papacy by the satanism and voodooism of the papacy in South America that I witnesses in Mexico and Venezuala and Belize when I was there?