Mary Ann Collins (A Former Catholic Nun)

Links? What a cop-out. I don't have time to waste chasing your links around the internet. Who knows what kind of sites they might lead to. If you actually have anything of value to say, other than the same old tired pedantic arguments that appeal primarily to the thick-craniumed masses go ahead and post them. So far you have proven your mental inability to withstand even the most paltry attacks. If you had the ability to do it, you would be posting your excellent arguments on a catholic site, instead of posting here and whining about all the persecution suffer. Get some gut. Links. HA!

 

Two things:

I am a student worker on campus. When I don't have work to do, I am free to study or surf the web. My overseer can see me in plain site.

Also, although your spiel about what a terrible person I am was nice and all, it would have helped this discussion if you would have paid attention to my request. I don't want Internet links. I asked for a bound text that I can get to verify the quotation. You MUST have used such a book, unless you are relying on Internet scholarship, which is to say, untrustworthy.

If you cannot produce a bound volume that I can check, I don't see the need why anyone should trust you. It's not against you personally; I don't trust the majority of Internet references; and you provided me with some women priest website...hardly an encylopedia or official source.

Enough said.

 

GS, Thanks! When you mentioned about being 'at work', that wasn't the picture I had in mind. I was simply expressing disapproval at what is a common problem: employees surfing the web on company time. Obviously you're not in that situation. Thanks again.

First, I never said, neither tried to say, that you are any sort of a 'terrible person'. But, I *did* say that popery has crippled your capacity to see clearly and to deal with reality. The defensive responsive from you (after I indicated that my research assured me of the integrity of the quote) in suggesting that the quote is phony, and that those using it are guilty of using false material, only shows that your thought processes are incapable of accepting and dealing with reality. The pope is such an idol to you that, in your deceived mind, he couldn't possibly be guilty of such a statement—and that those who suggest that he is are liars and deceivers. But, the fact is, they told the truth, and he *is* guilty.

And the moral of the story is: that you have been conditioned to hold a particular view of the papacy that is not consistent with reality. And I'm trying to help you to see that, so that you can be free of the delusion which you have been conditioned to hold as true—i.e. that the 'pope' is the 'Vicar' of Christ. He most certainly is not!

Further, I took time out from doing other things this afternoon to check the board, and hurriedly did a quick search for your sake to try to offer some proof that the quote is authentic. I think that the onus was on you to show some reason why the historical studies which I linked to are suspect. But, no, you simply accuse them of being so on no grounds whatsoever—in essence, suggesting that my research is false and misleading. Well, I took a little bit more time to go through some of those other links, and here are two popish sources, which I assume you would accept as 'bearing the imprimatur', that attest to the veracity of the quote:

http://rerum-novarum.blogspot.com/2003_04_20_rerum-novarum_archive.html

http://www.fatherfeeney.org/cain/cain7.htm

Now, as expected, they try to put their best spin on it (damage control), like popery tries to do with all of its unsavory history; but you can make of that whatever you wish.

Now, I would suggest that, in the future, if you want to be a real and effective papal defender, you do your own research, and provide some proof positive that my material is unworthy or fraudulent, before making such a suggestion. That way you would succeed in making a point, rather than having to eat crow.

all the best,

Mike

 

And the next time you ask for a verifiable primary source you'll get more of the same, GS!

 

Mike,

When did I suggest that your material was "unworthy" or "fraudulent?" In my own search, I have only found that one little snippet over and over used, almost always with the [...] added, but some not using it at all. That leads me to believe that it it a common source (but not the original source) that is being used here, because the [...] occurs in the same places (or not at all), thus giving the exact same quotation. I am curious to note what has been taken out, and to read the wider document.

A few other things you should note:

The papal quote is in line with the 13th amendment which reads:

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

Second, I am a convert to the Catholic faith. I was not reared or indoctrinated in the faith as you so quicly assume.

By the way, since when does a blogspot.com site bear the imprimatur? Or are you just trying to be offensive for the sake of being offensive?

But keep on jumping to conclusions. I will pray for you.

 

GS, well, there's this:

Hmmmm.... I wonder how many times you ask your 'pope' or your priest for verification of their souces. I'll bet never, even though their entire belief structure is fraught with dishonest and specious reasonings. You trust them implicitly; but they've conditioned you to mistrust me, even though I'm telling you the truth. I didn't post only the women priest website, but two others as well, thinking that ought to be enough, though I could have posted several more. Of course, you are only trying (and failing) to appear to make a point. The fact is that I posted 4 links that each presented credible information. You can try to dodge the truth all you want, but it will always prove you wrong in the end.

I've posted as much of the quote as I've been able to find. If you find any more of it, let me know.

You will have to clarify yourself here. What exactly are you trying to say? This amendment spells out that slavery will NOT be allowed; while the papal quote says it's OK. Seems to me like the exact opposite of what you're claiming.

Actually, the 'imprimatur' statement was a subtle dig, as I figured would be understood. Obviously, neither site bears any imprimatur. But the fact that both sites are constructed by those with whom you share a common viewpoint makes them, in your view, implicitly deserving of trust, with or without verifiable documentation. And on that basis, you will accept what they say, hook, line, and sinker. I just figured that, since they use the quote, you would cease to question it's veracity. If you want to take offence, that's your own choice.

Out of curiousity, who/what will you be praying to for me? And, should I be expecting any sort of apparitions, or any such thing, as a result?

 

JM-

Regarding the so-called "kepa/kepa" argument, the Russian language Bible would go against with your interpretation. It interprets it as rock/rock just like the Aramaic.!. What do you think of that? Believe it or not, it really DOES help to know another language. In fact, some French Bibles have this interpreted as "pierre/pierre". It all depends on what gender or lack thereof is assigned to this word. - God bless! - Meercat

 

It has nothing to do with gender or other languages, or other translations. It has solely to do with how the words petra and petros are used and translated in the Greek language. It is the Greek that is inspired. It is the Greek that was used by the New Testament authors. It was the Greek that God chose to preserve the New Testament in for us today. That is the language we must concern ourselves with most. Here is a quote from one of the links that Jim originally posted about four pages back:

As you can see petra and petros are vastly different in their meanings. Peter was referred to as petros (as his name was)-- a little stone. It is Christ, the chief cornerstone, upon which the church is built.
DHK

 

Time to wrap it up. This thread will close no sooner than 8:30 tomorrow morning.
Gina

 

Meercat,

I'm aware that the Russian, French, and some others fail to distinguish between petros/petra in their translations, but use the same word for both. That does not change the fact that the translation from Greek 'petros' into Aramaic is always 'kepa', and the Greek 'petra' is sometimes 'kepa', but more often (and more properly) 'shua'. Since the Aramaic is the language that matters here, the Russian, French, etc, are irrelevant. But thanks for your input.

Mike

 

Meercat,

Just a little further clarification, which I ought to have included in the last post:

Since 'kepa' is the more proper rendering of 'petros', and 'shua' of 'petra', the original Aramaic spoken by the Lord was more likely kepa/shua, which was rendered into Greek as petros/petra. This completely invalidates papal Rome's oft-stated claims that Peter (petros) is the rock (petra) on which the Church is being built.

best,

Mike

 

*sigh*

Once again, your "more likely"-esque scenarios some how "invalidate" opposing claims. You move swiftly from theory to fact. And you know this. But whatever. This thread is about to die anyway.

 

GS,

But, my 'more likely' is, in fact, more truthful, since it is not possible to establish absolute certainty. However your popish dogmatic position, by which they deceive you and untold #s of people, is, in fact, deceitful—because they teach you to believe the 'less likely' if it were fact, and thereby enslave your heart and soul to their corrupt system, while you believe and trust them. Thus, you believe them, not on the basis of the testimony of truth, but on the basis of idolatrous fervor. May God open your eyes to see.

 

May God open my eyes to see that I can't really know anything for certain? No thanks.

I believe in absolute Truth and that God has revealed such to us, and that it is not dependant on me to figure out revealed Truth for myself.

But seriously, discussion with you bears no fruit. Might as well just go ahead and end it.

*signs off this thread*

 

I thank God that He gave us His Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth.

Bye!

Mike

 

Too late to edit the above post, but, it should read:

 

All small talk aside, these observations hold weight.

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

"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." (1)

Protestant scholar Oscar Cullman:

"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." (2)

Protestant scholar D.A. Carson:

"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. . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been lithos ("stone" of almost any size)." (3)

Protestant scholar W.F. Albright:

"This is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times. . . . Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose. In view of the background of vs. 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence (cp. Gal 2:11 ff.)." (4)

1. David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 261.

2. 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.

3. D.A. Carson, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.

4. W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1971), 195.

 

Ahhh, not necesarrily. Someone might start a "Volume II" thread, like I did with "Catholic salvation".

Mike

 

Carson, you're still dodging. You may not have noticed, but I told MikeS a few pages back to not waste time bringing up the # of supposed 'Protestant' 'scholars' who promote the petros = petra theory. That is a favorite ploy of papists, but does not hold water. There are actually several more than the ones you list, if you want to use that argument. Which one of them addresses the fact that the more proper (and more often) translation into Aramaic of 'petra' is 'shua'? I discuss that point on the Hebrew of Matthew page. See especially the link to Pastor David Stark's Thoughts on Matthew 16.18.

This material must be considered in any translation/interpretation/understanding of Matthew 16.18.

Which of your 'scholars' speak to this question? Not one of them even mentions it, as though they don't even know it exists. They are only parroting one another and the status quo, in order to draw their paycheck without making any waves.

The reason I say you are still only dodging is because you claimed that my material is 'unconvincing' because Stephen Ray has published something more persuasive. Well, I asked you to supply us with what you find especially compelling about Stephen Ray's book. Thus far, nothing. Are you saying that you find these others you posted more compelling than Stephen Ray? Or are these quotes of 'Protestant' 'scholars' some of the compelling evidence you got from Stephen Ray's book?

One can turn over a lot of worthless rocks in a search for diamonds. In my opinion, these quotes that you've posted are but plain rocks. I'm looking for diamonds.

Mike

P.S. mouse-over the links in this post.

 

Carson, dontcha know? When junior asks for references and quotes, it's dodging to post catholic quotes and dodging to post protestant quotes. The only non-dodge answeres are to post quotes from the web page of the Univeral Priest himself!