Peter the Pope question

[JesusFan]

So, the Bible would have to state that the original penning of the gospel of Matthew was in Aramaic? Really? And, what about the other points you are ignoring in my posts.

The language chosen to be used by the Holy Spirit was Koine Greek for entire NT

 

[Walter]

The language chosen to be used by the Holy Spirit was Koine Greek for entire NT

Scripture reference please?

There are no original manuscripts, just copies.I can give other references to show Matthew was originally written in Aramaic if you like.

 

[Walter]

The language chosen to be used by the Holy Spirit was Koine Greek for entire NT

And, even if it had been in Greek, I showed why the petros/petras position doesn't hold water. You are just choosing to ignore it.

Even as student at Cal Baptist University that position was shown to be bogus

 

[RootBeer]

IF Peter was the first Pope, why did He defer to both James and Paul in Acts, as if all were co equals?

Exactly. Nowhere in Acts 15 does Peter say "wait a minute guys, I have a special authority..."

I'm listening to James R. White's Church History series, and he points out that 1st Clement (~140AD) also argues from silence. It's from the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth, not from the Bishop of Rome saying "I have a special authority..."

 

[Walter]

Exactly. Nowhere in Acts 15 does Peter say "wait a minute guys, I have a special authority..."

I'm listening to James R. White's Church History series, and he points out that 1st Clement (~140AD) also argues from silence. It's from the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth, not from the Bishop of Rome saying "I have a special authority..."

Glad you mentioned James White. I have also watched his debates with Catholics over the years. Always done respectfully. Here is one addressing the OP:

 

[37818]

'The word pope is derived ultimately from the Greek πάππας (páppas) originally an affectionate term meaning "father", later referring to a bishop or patriarch.'

Matthew 23:9, And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

 

[JesusFan]

Exactly. Nowhere in Acts 15 does Peter say "wait a minute guys, I have a special authority..."

I'm listening to James R. White's Church History series, and he points out that 1st Clement (~140AD) also argues from silence. It's from the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth, not from the Bishop of Rome saying "I have a special authority..."

And where was His papal authority and inspiration on doctrines and practices when Paul called him out publically?

 

[Walter]

And where was His papal authority and inspiration on doctrines and practices when Paul called him out publically?

Because this is not a doctrinal issue but a behavior issue. Papal authority does NOT mean that a pope will not make behavioral mistakes. John Paul II went to confession DAILY. Most evangelicals mistakenly believe that the Catholic Church teaches that popes are sinless.

Paul emphasizes that the issue is not doctrinal. The issue was about insincerity. Peter is just falling short of the Christian calling here. This in no way undermines his authority. Remember Jesus in Matthew 23:2-3 tells the crowd of people and the disciples 'The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses seat. So practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do for they preach but do not practice'. Someone can have legitimate authority and yet fail in their behavior.

 

[JesusFan]

Because this is not a doctrinal issue but a behavior issue. Papal authority does NOT mean that a pope will not make behavioral mistakes. John Paul II went to confession DAILY. Most evangelicals mistakenly believe that the Catholic Church teaches that popes are sinless.

Paul emphasizes that the issue is not doctrinal. The issue was about insincerity. Peter is just falling short of the Christian calling here. This in no way undermines his authority. Remember Jesus in Matthew 23:2-3 tells the crowd of people and the disciples 'The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses seat. So practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do for they preach but do not practice'. Someone can have legitimate authority and yet fail in their behavior.

Peter was agreeing with Judaizers, that was indeed doctrinal issue, and since all Apostles had same authority and inspiration as Peter, why was he said to be Pope?

 

[Walter]

Peter was agreeing with Judaizers, that was indeed doctrinal issue, and since all Apostles had same authority and inspiration as Peter, why was he said to be Pope?

I disagree. in Galatians 2:11-14, Paul rebuked Peter publicly for acting hypocritically, not for a doctrinal error, but for failing to live out his own teachings regarding table fellowship with Gentile Christians, a matter of conduct, not doctrine, which is why the Catholic position is that this passage doesn't undermine papal authority

 

[JesusFan]

I disagree. in Galatians 2:11-14, Paul rebuked Peter publicly for acting hypocritically, not for a doctrinal error, but for failing to live out his own teachings regarding table fellowship with Gentile Christians, a matter of conduct, not doctrine, which is why the Catholic position is that this passage doesn't undermine papal authority

Her was giving agrrement to them that one had to follow Jewish dietary laws in order to be saved

 

[Walter]

Her was giving agrrement to them that one had to follow Jewish dietary laws in order to be saved

Nope, Paul’s rebuke did not impugn Peter’s authority. If a pope’s behavior causes scandal, he should be rebuked by someone. Catherine of Sienna rebuked the pope in her day, and she is regarded as a doctor of the Church. As the Catechism points out in Paragraph 891, “The gift of infallibility is this: when a supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful, that is the Pope, who confirms his brethren in the faith, that’s coming from Luke 22, 29 through 32. He, the Pope, proclaims by a definitive act, a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. That’s the boundaries of the gift of infallibility: definitively proclaiming a doctrine of faith or morals.” Okay? So, anything outside those boundaries, such as not doing the right thing, the gift of infallibility does not cover. That doesn’t fall under the umbrella of the gift of infallibility.

 

[Walter]

'The word pope is derived ultimately from the Greek πάππας (páppas) originally an affectionate term meaning "father", later referring to a bishop or patriarch.'

Matthew 23:9, And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Houston, we have a problem!

One example is 'Father Abraham'. As a Baptist, my Sunday School class loved to sing: 'Father Abraham had many sons, many sons had Father Abraham, etc.'

This excerpt is borrowed from Catholic Answers forum. I usually don't do this but I am under time constraints today:

"St. Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, says, “For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” St. Paul calls himself “father” because he recognizes his cooperation with God in begetting the spiritual life of the community entrusted to his care. There are several other passages, such as Acts 7:2; Acts 22:1; Corinthians 4:15; Galatians 4:19; 1 John 2:12; and Philemon 10, which show that the title “father” was applied to others besides God and biological fathers in the New Testament."

 

[RootBeer]

Most evangelicals mistakenly believe that the Catholic Church teaches that popes are sinless.

This is a popular Catholic myth. Those poor misunderstood Protestants just don't understand.

When I was a Catholic, I heard what you said stated multiple times.

In practice, I have never once heard a competent evangelical misunderstand what the Catholic church means by papal infallibility.

Before you read too much into the word "competent," I think it's important to compare apples to apples. Sure, you can find some ignorant strip mall preacher who doesn't understand...just as I can name Catholics who very much say that saints grant their prayer requests and Mary helps them be saved and as long as they die wearing a brown scapular they can't go to hell. Neither group is representative. I'm referring to reasonably well-educated people. Most Catholics (remember that includes much of the global South) couldn't explain papal infallibility.

Papal infallibility is a simple concept. It's wrong, but it's a simple concept

 

[37818]

Houston, we have a problem!

One example is 'Father Abraham'. As a Baptist, my Sunday School class loved to sing: 'Father Abraham had many sons, many sons had Father Abraham, etc.'

This excerpt is borrowed from Catholic Answers forum. I usually don't do this but I am under time constraints today:

"St. Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, says, “For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” St. Paul calls himself “father” because he recognizes his cooperation with God in begetting the spiritual life of the community entrusted to his care. There are several other passages, such as Acts 7:2; Acts 22:1; Corinthians 4:15; Galatians 4:19; 1 John 2:12; and Philemon 10, which show that the title “father” was applied to others besides God and biological fathers in the New Testament."

Ignoring or being obvious as to the.reason that instruction.was given.

 

[RootBeer]

I can give other references to show Matthew was originally written in Aramaic if you like.

And there is plenty of scholarly argument that it was written in Greek.

From DA Carson's Introduction to the New Testament:

- If Matthew depends on Mark (the overwhelming scholarly view), the detailed dependencies (in the Greek) argue strongly that Matthew was written in Greek.

- Many quotations from the OT are unambiguously from the Septuagint, a Greek document. Others are apparently the author's own translations from a Hebrew original. if it had been originally written in Aramaic, we would have expected the author's own Aramaic translations, not a mix of language sources.

- Matthew does not read like "translation" Greek. The Semiticisms are largely restricted to the sayings of Jesus.

- The view that Matthew was written in Aramaic or Hebrew comes first from Papias, but we have only Eusebius's quotation and it's not a clear what he meant.

Or if you prefer a Catholic scholar, how about Raymond Brown's Introduction to the New Testament, where he notes that "the vast majority of scholars contend that the Gospel we know as Matthew was originally translated in Greek". He notes also that Matthew in many cases polishes Mark's rough Greek, which again argues that Matthew was written in Greek.

To be fair, I'm out of my depth and am only repeating what scholars say - though unless you are doing your own PhD-level research, so are you. But scholars seem pretty uniform in the view that Matthew was written in Greek. Virtually everything in NT scholarship is subject to competing opinions - after all, scholars are rewarded not for being right but for being clever - so you can certainly find people who argue for Aramaic. But it's a minority opinion.

 

[Walter]

And there is plenty of scholarly argument that it was written in Greek.

From DA Carson's Introduction to the New Testament:

- If Matthew depends on Mark (the overwhelming scholarly view), the detailed dependencies (in the Greek) argue strongly that Matthew was written in Greek.

- Many quotations from the OT are unambiguously from the Septuagint, a Greek document. Others are apparently the author's own translations from a Hebrew original. if it had been originally written in Aramaic, we would have expected the author's own Aramaic translations, not a mix of language sources.

- Matthew does not read like "translation" Greek. The Semiticisms are largely restricted to the sayings of Jesus.

- The view that Matthew was written in Aramaic or Hebrew comes first from Papias, but we have only Eusebius's quotation and it's not a clear what he meant.

Or if you prefer a Catholic scholar, how about Raymond Brown's Introduction to the New Testament, where he notes that "the vast majority of scholars contend that the Gospel we know as Matthew was originally translated in Greek". He notes also that Matthew in many cases polishes Mark's rough Greek, which again argues that Matthew was written in Greek.

To be fair, I'm out of my depth and am only repeating what scholars say - though unless you are doing your own PhD-level research, so are you. But scholars seem pretty uniform in the view that Matthew was written in Greek. Virtually everything in NT scholarship is subject to competing opinions - after all, scholars are rewarded not for being right but for being clever - so you can certainly find people who argue for Aramaic. But it's a minority opinion.

Either way, the Greek still doesn't support the argument that Jesus was really talking about Himself as the rock for the reasons I already stated.

BTW, Raymond Brown was professor of New Testament studies at Union Theological Seminary in NYC when I was there in the late 70's and I was still a Baptist. He was VERY liberal. If you know anything about Union, their current president is atheist and the seminary students when I attended were committed to Liberation Theology.. Brown actually wrote in such a way that he was still able to receive the imprimatur in his books but in class you doubted if he believed that Jesus was anything more than an historical person.

But, I am not discounting his opinion on Matthew being penned in Greek just because he was a liberal. I think it is clear what Eusebius's quotation means. Plain as day to me


I appreciate your participation on this thread and welcome to the BB, I hope you view the debating between James White and various Catholic apologist. I have a lot of respect for James White but have always believed that when in a direct debate with Catholics he comes up short. When just listening to him present his positions without challenge from Catholics he sounds good, right?

 

[Walter]

Seminary President Says She Doesn't Believe in Heaven, or The Resurrection — Fulcrum7

The pervasive idea of an abusive God-father who sends his own kid to the cross so God could forgive people is nuts.

www.fulcrum7.com

Just of interest to some on how far some seminaries have slipped

 

[37818]

. . . . the Greek still doesn't support the argument that Jesus was really talking about Himself as the rock . . . .

The interpretation "this rock" in Matthew 16:18, to mean Himself is based two passages. Christ is the foundation of His church He is building, per Ephesians 2:20, . . . Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner. And Him being called a "Rock" in 1 Corinthians 10:5.

Personally I am persuaded that "this rock" to be what Jesus explained in Matthew 16:17, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Note also John 6:44, No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: . . .

 

[RootBeer]

BTW, Raymond Brown was professor of New Testament studies at Union Theological Seminary in NYC when I was there in the late 70's and I was still a Baptist. He was VERY liberal. If you know anything about Union, their current president is atheist and the seminary students when I attended were committed to Liberation Theology.. Brown actually wrote in such a way that he was still able to receive the imprimatur in his books but in class you doubted if he believed that Jesus was anything more than an historical person.

It's sad to me how many NT scholars and textual critics view it as some kind of abstract detective game. Yes, learning the background, textual history, different scholarly argumetns, etc. is all very important, but it's not as remotely important as the content! Seems some scholars lose perspective, sometimes hand-in-hand with losing their faith.

I appreciate your participation on this thread and welcome to the BB, I hope you view the debating between James White and various Catholic apologist.

I've seen the Fr. Mitch Pacwa debates but it's been a while. I should probably rewatch them at some point.

I have a lot of respect for James White but have always believed that when in a direct debate with Catholics he comes up short. When just listening to him present his positions without challenge from Catholics he sounds good, right?

I have a lot of respect for White simply because he debates, and he tries to go up against heavy hitters. He does not always come out on top, and even when he "wins" the debate I don't always agree with him. But I always learn things. I wish there were 100 people like him from all different walks of the faith debating constantly. That is a streaming service I would gladly subscribe to! As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another. (Proverbs 27:17)