Witness to my Roman Catholic Parents

Could you explain to me this verse in Psalms 18
For who is God, except the Lord? And who is a rock, except our God?</font>[/QUOTE]Let's look at it this way first:

But who is the light of the world? Jesus (John 8:12) or the Church? (Matt. 5:16)

Maybe you ought to (Protestants are not familiar with this) compare Isaiah 22 to Matthew 16 and also do some research as to the historical, geographical significance of Jesus speaking of "rocks" in Matthew 16 at the place called Caesarea Philippi... and what was located there to make this exchange so hard-hitting (something that you can understand only in the historical context...)

 

Latreia: Since Matthew was a Gospel written for the Jews, it would make sense that there would be an Aramaic and Hebrew version of it since this is what they spoke: NOT GREEK.

Studying the language of Matthew, bear in mind that there are a lot of Aramaic phrases, references, and non-OT prophesies mentioned within it. Nowhere in the OT does it say "He will be called a Nazarene."

 

"Latreia: Since Matthew was a Gospel written for the Jews, it would make sense that there would be an Aramaic and Hebrew version of it since this is what they spoke: NOT GREEK."

Yes, it would make sense. That's what makes it so reasonable that the Fathers would make the mistake.

BTW you are wrong in sayng that they did not speak greek.

"Studying the language of Matthew, bear in mind that there are a lot of Aramaic phrases, references, and non-OT prophesies mentioned within it. Nowhere in the OT does it say "He will be called a Nazarene.""

Yes, and I referred to this. The semtisms are easily understod given that the author of Matthew constrains the semitisms almost uniquely to sayings of Jesus. For it is also indisputable that the autor was able to write idiomatic greek as well.

As to "He will be called a "Nazarene", you are making a very comon mistake in understanding the meaning of the text. To say that Jesus was a Nazarene was to say that he was froma despised place, and hence a depised person. It is a recurring theme in Matthew and amply supported in the OT. IOW, matthew is not giving a direct quotation from any oe or group pf prophets, but is rather giving us the gist of several OT passages which do occur in the prophets.

 

Confirmation was at 8th grade, so I was about 12-13 years of age.

Yeah, but did they actually TEACH you anything? Or did they just run ya through the course like runnin' a car through the carwash and pronounce ya Catholic?

 

Ya like that one, eh Bro. Curtis.

Look man, I will be the first one to criticize the Church where She needs criticism. But unlike Luther, I am not going to leave the Church, but strive within Her to make Her better. This consists of two things:

1. Be the BEST Catholic I can be. Be energetic, full of the love of Christ and faith, orthodox in praxis and doctrinally correct and thus hopefully inspire other Catholics to be thus

2. Express to those in authority my concerns without insult, degradation, or trying to change the essential doctrines of the Church.

[ And one of the areas I am going to let people know that the Church STINKS in is CATECHESIS of its children and converts. The horror stories I have heard from other Catholics make me wonder why ANYONE would want to join the Church. ]

I think if everyone did this the Church would slowly change into something real good.

Nimrod --

You can't remember? Geee. Made a BIG impression on you, didn't it.

Brother Ed

[ January 03, 2003, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: CatholicConvert ]

 

(Mat 16:17-19 NRSV) And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. {18} And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. {19} 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."

Clearly, the 'rock' upon which the Church is to be built is Peter. I'm not RC, but I wonder why so-many Protestants are afraid to admit that this is what is revealed in these verses. Verse 19 clearly shows Peter's (and also the other Apostles)authority and leadership role. Yes, ultimately the Rock is Christ...

(Eph 2:19-20 NRSV) So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God, {20} built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.

But note that the 'foundation' is built upon the Apostles as well.

 

Hi Nimrod,

You wrote, "about Matt 16. She said "Jesus was speaking in Aramaic and Peter and "Rock" are the same words." ARRRgh! How many times am I going to hear this false statment from Roman Catholics? The NT was written in Greek, we don't know for sure what the HS would have written if it was in Aramaic. I asked her what is her proof that Matt was written in Aramaic?"

I'm impressed that your mother knew the proper answer to your objection, even though I'm sure that she probably short circuited the argument because she isn't wholly familiar with the latest New Testament scholarship on this particular passage.

It seems that she was witnessing to you as well, brother, and that you should take her witness to heart.

Most modern Protestant scholars have abandoned the Reformers' argument and they now agree with the Catholic Church that Peter was the rock to which Jesus referred.

For example, Protestant scholar Oscar Cullman, writing in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, writes:

"The Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between p tra [petra] and P tros; P tros = p tra. . . . The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable . . . for there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of "thou art Rock" and "on this rock I will build" shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first . It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected." (Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, {Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968}, 6:98, 108.)

David Hill, a Presbyterian minister at the University of Sheffield wrote:

"It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. . . . 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 {Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972}, 261.)

You should consider what the Gospel of John has to say in 1:42, "Then [Andrew] brought [Simon] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, 'You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas' (which is translated 'Peter')." John did not write, "Jesus looked at him and said, 'You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Peter'". He included the Aramaic original of Peter's name to retain the historical accuracy of Jesus' immediate renaming of Simon and translated it in his Gospel. In the Bible, when your name is changed by God, usually you are to be appointed a pretty hefty task in the plan of salvation history (i.e. Abram to Abraham; Jacob to Israel; Simon to Kephas).

And apart from the Aramaic/Greek scholarship, I would urge you to consider the fact that Matthew was writing a theologically dense historical narrative, demonstrating that Jesus is the Son of David, the New Solomon who has come to fulfill, renew, and elevate the Davidic Covenant made by God through the prophet Nathan to David in 2 Samuel 7.

Jesus tells us that "Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock" (7:24).

Can you tell me who in the Old Testament was gifted with divine wisdom and built the house upon the 'eben shetnyah (the stone of foundation)? Solomon, David's son who was gifted with wisdom, built the Temple upon the rock that is now housed by the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. And so what do you think Jesus, the son of David, does? He builds his house upon rock as the New Solomon using Davidic imagery from Isaiah 22:20-22 when establishing the Prime Minister of his Davidic Kingdom as the eternal God-man.

Want to be a Bible Christian? Then become a papist!

May God bless you,

Carson

[ January 05, 2003, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Carson,

Do I have to point out AGAIN, that you are misusing sources? You can't say that so and so held that Peter was the Rock without pointing out that they also say that they don't beleive that Peter is the Rock ina Papal sense.

Don't they teach academic ethics in your school? But then I know who some of your profs are. You are truly heir student. In all things.

Want to get saved? Leave the RCC.

 

Hi Latreia,

"Do I have to point out AGAIN, that you are misusing sources?"

Do I have to point out that you are misrepresenting what I said?

"You can't say that so and so held that Peter was the Rock without pointing out that they also say that they don't beleive that Peter is the Rock ina Papal sense."

I wrote, "Most modern Protestant scholars have abandoned the Reformers' argument and they now agree with the Catholic Church that Peter was the rock to which Jesus referred."

I did not say that these Protestants believed that Peter was "the Rock" in the Catholic sense of the doctrine. If they did so, they would be Catholics.

"Don't they teach academic ethics in your school? But then I know who some of your profs are. You are truly heir student. In all things."

I have two words for you Latreia:
1. Ad
2. Hominem

May God bless you and guide you to address others in a more respectful fashion without resorting to putting words in others' mouths and bolstering your own ego through ad hominem attacks,

Carson

 

Who is brainwashing you with this nonsense? And where is your proof? Because you may be able to cite a couple of protestant sources that say that Peter was the "rock" referred to in Matthew 16, does that mean "most modern protestant scholars" believe that way? And just how would you know that? And how would you prove that?
Perhaps it would be more accurate for you to say, 'most of the modern protestant liberal scholars available to me in my seminary have taken this position...' You probably haven't even begun to look at conservative sources, fundamental sources, and a wide variety of other sources. Your scope is no doubt very narrow and limited, and from that you deduce "most."

That's not good logic, nor scholarship, Carson.
DHK

 

Hi DHK,

And where is your proof? Because you may be able to cite a couple of protestant sources that say that Peter was the "rock" referred to in Matthew 16, does that mean "most modern protestant scholars" believe that way? And just how would you know that? And how would you prove that?

I would demonstrate my assertion by quoting a leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian, Gerhard Maier, who tells us, "Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which – in accordance with the words of the text – applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis." ("The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate,” Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context, (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), 58.)

Perhaps it would be more accurate for you to say, 'most of the modern protestant liberal scholars available to me in my seminary have taken this position...'

I do not attend a seminary nor is a seminary a part of the Franciscan University of Steubenville. I am earning a secular degree, an MA in Theology, as a lay person.

God bless you,

Carson

 

You refer to one Lutheran's opinion--which is just that--opinion. Plus another liberal, and a so-called conservative. That is three people. From that you deduce that most Protestants hold to the belief that "rock" refers to "Peter." On the basis of three people--you deduce that this is the view of most!!
I can provide you the same kind of selective scholarship and come to the conclusion that Catholics believe that baptism is by immersion only, and for adults only.
DHK

 

Hi DHK,

You refer to one Lutheran's opinion--which is just that--opinion.

No, I did not refer to one Lutheran's opinion.

I referred to a fact pointed out by a scholar, G. Maier. Maier tells of the fact that "a broad consensus has emerged". Thus, a consensus has emerged from the left and right in differing confessions. This is not what Maier conjectures. It is what he observes from a matter of fact.

Perhaps you would also be interested in some contemporary scholars from your own Baptist tradition who disagree with your eisegesis of Matthew 16.

Donald A. Carson III (also popularly known as D.A. Carson), a Baptist Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary, writes, "Although it is true that petros and petra can mean 'stone' and 'rock' respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses ('you are kepha' and 'on this kepha'), since the word was used both for a name and for a 'rock.' The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name." (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), {Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984}, 368.)

Elsewhere, D.A. Carson also writes, "The word Peter petros, meaning 'rock' (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter." (Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary – New Testament, vol. 2, {Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994}, 78.)

And the Baptist commentator John A. Broadus writes, "Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.

"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.' . . . Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: 'Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre'; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, 'Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.'" (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, {Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886}, 355-356.)

Craig L. Blomberg, who is a Baptist and a Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary, tells us, "Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname 'Peter' (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, 'You are Peter,' parallels Peter’s confession, 'You are the Christ,' as if to say, 'Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.' The expression 'this rock' almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following 'the Christ' in v. 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." (The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22, (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 251-252.)

And our Lord says, "A sower went out to sow his seed; and as he sowed, some fell along the path, and was trodden under foot, and the birds of the air devoured it. And some fell on the rock; and as it grew up, it withered away, because it had no moisture. And some fell among thorns; and the thorns grew with it and choked it. And some fell into good soil and grew, and yielded a hundredfold." As he said this, he called out, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." (Luke 8:5-8)

God bless you,

Carson

 

Just wondering, have you polled all of them? I would like to see the results if you did, it would be interesting.

Neal