Witness to my Roman Catholic Parents

So your mother said, "Jesus was speaking in Aramaic." and you answered with, "Prove Matthew was written in Aramaic."?????

Seems that you twisted her point to make your don't you think?

BTW, by not actually addressing her point that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and by pressing for "proof" of something that she did not even claim, I too get the feeling that you were disrespectful to your mother. If I were you, I would be thinking about apologizing to her.

Ron

 

You seem to be twisting my point to make yours.

Do you or do you not admit that your interpretation of Scripture is your opinion?

Or are you claiming some special knowledge?

Ron

 

The shame goes deeper, Grant. This poor mother said that Jesus spoke Aramic. Nimrod twisted her words and asked for proof of something that she didn't say, that Matthew was written in Aramic.

Lateria compounds the sin by his false witness that she believes in "slogans" and is more interested in clinging to a false religion than a relationship with Jesus.

Judgement of another person based on a one sided presentation of the discussion. It never ceases to amaze me that some take such liberty in speaking so poorly of another who is not even offered the chance to defend themselves.

It further amazes and dismays me that someone would hold their own mother up to public ridicule presumedly without her knowledge or consent.

Ron

[ January 02, 2003, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

We should stick to Scripture, and Scripture ALONE otherwise we are just giving our opinion. See 2 Tim 3:16.

Ridiculous. What you are saying then is that until the Council of Chalcedon in the fifth century, there was, in essence, no Church, no revelation, and no Christianity. You "sola scripturalists" are ludicrous at best.

These are some of the things my mother said that really bothered me.

Hope so. You should be bothered by falling for some half-baked heresies and apostacizing from the true Church of our Lord!!

You know what, it doesn't matter WHAT someone tells you, you have made up your mind and have been POISONED by the lies of Protetantism and NOTHING WE SAY is going to change your mind. The only reason I even come in here is that when folks like you set out your goofy misconceptions of the Church, I can at least (if I have the stomach for it) try to correct your misapprehensions.

There is more than one reason that St. Peter is the head of the Church. I could discuss an exegesis of Hebrews 8: 5 and its relevance to eclessiology. I could discuss covenant bodies and headship.

But you know what...I'm in a mood tonight that says to me "WHY BOTHER!?"

Early Church Fathers: She said the "Roman Catholic Church follows all the early Church Fathers and Councils." When I told her that the RCC doesn't agree will all the decrees in the councils she said "Well thats not dogma".

Some of the concicular decisions were of a local nature and were decided relevant to local problems. They have no bearing upon other parishes or dioceses.

I had an answer for that but she didn't want to hear it.

And your answer was......(this should be RICH!!!)

Overall I find that the information she has is false and she is getting it from some Roman Catholic source, I really would like to know where, we know she isn't learning this from going to Mass.

Oh, maybe she is studying her Church history and other good writings to confront her arrogant, know-it-all apostate son!!!!

Her Bible knowledge only dealt with the Roman Catholic faith. She knew very little about the entire Scripture as a whole.

Oh, STOP IT, PLEASE!!!!!!

Every time we give you Scripture, you claim it is wrong. Every time we exegete the Bible, you claim it is wrong. What you are saying is that her explanations are not based on YOUR INTERPRETATION....or better yet...YOUR DISTORTIONS of Scripture. Like John 6, which tells us straightforwardly that we must eat Christ's Flesh and drink His Blood to have eternal life.

Sheeeeesh!!!

I wish I spent more time in the Word with her and have her tell me what verses mean in the Holy Scripture.

Honest to Pete, I wish YOU would spend more time investigating Scripture and finding out that what you have been taught is not what the Church taught FROM THE BEGINNING....

Scripture alone,

Not taught from the beginning. You cannot find one verse which states that Scripture alone is appropriate.

Faith Alone,

Not according to the Bible. We must have works. Jesus said so and Jesus said that we will be judged by our works as to whether or not we receive the inheritance of eternal life.

Jesus Alone

And what do you mean by that exactly?

I hope your mother and father get seriously worked up and begin to read, read, read, apologetics books (of which there are hundreds out there) and the next time you want to beat them over the head with your Scofield Bible, they give you a good working over apologetically and make you go home and THINK!!!!

 

Would that be better exegesis than you used for Isaiah 62:5? Will you do it, or will you rely on what someone else has said without checking it?

I was just wondering where you had gone because after I pointed out your poor exegesis of Isaiah 62:5 in another thread you have been silent there. Hope all is well with you.

Neal

[ January 02, 2003, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

"I have Lutheran parents, who I would love to be Catholic. But that is not something I can do. Family is family, and seeing family differ in faith is painful, for both sides. Therefore every possible discussion is filled with high tentions and pent up emotional energy that usually explodes. You want your parents to believe like you do; it usually has nothing to do with allowing them to have their own faith. If you don't want us Catholics "forcing" our beliefs on you, how do you justify doing the same with your parents? Based on Nimrod's wording, he was very much trying to force them out of the their Catholic beliefs."

If you want to be consistnet in this then you should cease to post here with your efforts to convince us of the "truth" of RC doctrine.

Besides we are told to make the most of every opportuity to witness to the hopw that lives within us. That will, as Paul says, invovle persuasion. But that isn't force or assault. This is simply a false characterisation designed to elicit sympathy.

"Nimrod raised the issue, not she. Not everyone is prepared to discuss every aspect of their faith. I think that they should, but that's out of my control. I doubt every Baptist is fluent on Church history and doctrine as to be able to fully explain it to someone who isn't familiar with it. This is a moot argument, because the fact that they can't accurately defend it does not make the belief false."

No, she raised the issue. As soon as she asserted that the Greek text should be superceded by some posited Aramaic orignal, shew bound hereself to defend that. Now, I know that you would like to say that "Jesus spoke Aramaic" as if that settles it. But consider some things. 1) There is god evidence that says that Jesus spoke Greek. That would support the idea that there is no aramaic underlying matthew at all. 2) Even if Jesus spoke Aramaic, you have to look at the word that would underly "church". Semantically, it doesn't reflect the ecclesiology that you would have Peter being the foundation of.

Those are two very pertinent issues. If she wants to use them as a defense, then she should be conversant with them.

I did not suggest that the fact she was not familiar with her own defense made it an invalid defense as such. No, the evidence which lines up agasinst it does that. What i said was that her lack of familiarity did not qualiffy her to use the argument.

"I guess this is just a problem that Catholics have? I forgot that every else is perfectly knowledgable about the faith they hold to. Riiiiight. But you don't state that, do you. You make is out to be a Catholic-only problem. For that, you should be ashamed."

I never suggested that this was a uniquely RC problem. I said it specifically in connection to these parents. It is you and you alone who are trying to make it a sweeping statement. Nothing I said makes it out oto be a RC only problem. That is a lie. It is a deliberate misrepresentation, designed only to poison the well and elicit more sympathy.

Quite franlky I think that the cheap sloganeering technique has adherents on both sides of the divide. I don't appreciate them regardless of which side they come from.

So cool the rhetoric, make your apology for misrepresenting me, and let's move on.

 

Maybe because you tend to eisegete, not exegete.

I was just thinking of something. You keep saying that we can't find one place for Scripture alone being our authority, but can you find one place for a pope and the teaching that he is infallible in the Bible? I mean, one that makes it clear, not Matt. 16:16 which does not say "Peter, you are the pope and are now infallible, and people following you will be infallible." I mean, we at least have II Tim. 3:16-17 which tells us what Scripture is for on our side.

Neal

 

At 15 in Catholic UK you go to "confirmation classes".

In Catholic schools you would normally be taken to a Mosque, Buddist Temple, Jewish Synagogue and of course a Hindu temple (at about 10 to 13 years of age). At 15 you would then go onto Catholic "confirmation classes".

What I don't understand is why didn't you go to confirmation classes at 15 with all the other Catholic children?

How come you ended up being a Baptist at 15. This is extraodinartly weird by UK standards?

Net.

[ January 02, 2003, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]

 

Neal --

The only reason I backed up a bit on Isaiah was that I do not understand the nuances of the language used there. Scott Hahn uses this passage in his tape series and I am very sure that he could do more than an adequate job of explaining the relationship between the Blessed Virgin and Jerusalem. It's there, but I have not studied it, so rather than make myself look like a complete idiot by trying to defend a passage that I am not ready to defend, I simply concede the point for now. It does talk about Jerusalem, but there is a secondary context in which the Blessed Virgin is seen. What it is, I do not know, so I shall not try to discuss it any further.

As for your snide remark about eisogesis, that is a Protestant perogative. For someone, for instance, to take Acts 2: 38 or Acts 22: 16 and say that this does not teach that baptism washes away sins is typical of such positions. Any time a Scripture proves a Catholic/Orthodox position, you folks do exegetical handstands to try to deny the obvious. It looks especially pathetic when you do this in that century after century of Greek speaking men, doctors of the Church, exegeted this in the Catholic way.

Now WHO'S doing the eisogesis?

I am well. Hope the same for you.

Brother Ed

 

Both Catholic and Baptist churches run Alpha Courses to bring people to an understanding of Christainity. So why don't you bring yourself, with your parents to an Alpha Course at a Catholic Church?

This church runs Alpha courses:
http://www.stjo-guildford.co.uk/

You can double check at:
http://uk.alphacourse.org/findacourse/index.htm

 

Huh? Do you just like going around slinging off questions that have no substance to them, i.e. proof? What about what I asked you after my "snide" remark? I would like you to show me, just as you go around telling everybody to "exegete" and that there is nowhere in the Bible for Scripture being our only authority. Here is your golden opportunity, pallie boy, to show us your exegetical skills and show us where Scripture mentions the pope being an authority and infallible. Batter up!

Neal

 

I know of RC churches that run Alpha. I also know many that don't because it is too "protestant".

It is a tool that brings many to Christ. But some RCs pooh pooh it becuase it doesn't result in "properly RC" people. Ugh!

BTW, ther are people in a lot of denominations that do't like Alpha becuase it is too "Anglican" or "cahrismatic". It isn't just an RC problem.

 

Waste of time, Neal. Not up to it and going to bed in a few minutes anyway.

It would take considerable space which I don't care to go into.

No.....I am not afraid. I wrote a manuscript of over 100 pages for my Calvinist friends, detailing to them why the Holy Father is the covenantal head of the New Covenant on earth and why the Blessed Virgin is the New Eve of the New Covenant. You didn't accept the latter, but just blew it off as "eisogesis".

Why,then, would I waste my time proving the former?

Have a nice night.

Brother Ed

 

When "IT" gets deep on the farm we put our overshoes on.
Isn't this about a load though ?

"" Vatican II said that if a person is, through no fault of their own, ignorant
of the fact that the Catholic Church is the true Church,.........."

" A person who knows the Catholic Church is true and refuses to
embrace the Catholic faith would be accountable for the refusal of
God’s plan of salvation. "

 

"That would support the idea that there is no aramaic underlying matthew at all."

The early churchman, Papias, wrote that "Matthew wrote down the sayings in Hebrew and each translated it as he was able", (Eusebius, H.E. [the History of the Church], 3.39; cf. 3.24).

"Matthew published a written gospel for the Hebrews in their own tongue, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their passing, Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted to us in writing the things preached by Peter. Luke ... . Lastly, John ..." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.2; cf. Eusebius, H.E., 5.8)

Pantaenus, c.180s, an early church missionary and Bible scholar, travelled to India to preach the gospel but found that the apostle Bartholomew had gone there before and left behind Matthew's gospel, "in the actual Hebrew characters" (Eusebius, H.E., 5.10; cf. Jerome, De.Vir.Ill. 36).

Origen, around the end of the 2nd century, wrote in his commentary on Matthew that he only accepted, "the traditional view of the four gospels which alone are undeniably authentic in the church of God on earth. First to be written was that of the one-time exciseman who became an apostle of Jesus Christ - Matthew; it was published for believers of Jewish origin, and was composed in Hebrew letters/language. Next came that of Mark, who followed Peter's instructions in writing it ... Next came that of Luke, who wrote for Gentile converts ... Last of all came John's." (Origen cited in Eusebius, H.E., 6.25).

Athanasius and Epiphanius (Synops. sacr. Script. p. 134. Vol. 2.; Contra Haeres. 1. Haer. 29. & 30) confirm the above traditions as does Jerome (4th century, Catalog. Script. Eccles fol. 90. Tom. 1. ad Hedib. fol. 46. Tom. 3).
Eusebius, stated in his commentary on Matthew that:

According to Eusebius: "Matthew, also having first proclaimed the gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them, by his writings."

There are puns that make sense in Hebrew: Matt 7:6: "Do not throw your pearls before swine [chazir], lest they trample them under foot and turn [yichazru] to attack you."

 

Not sure if you could have the concept of "puns" in Bible-Alone-ism, surely that would be too flippent.
Not being Bible-Alone I'm quite happy with the "pun" concept.

 

First off, what little you did was eisegesis. That was not blowing it off, it was calling it for what it is. You offered very little in the way of explaining the concept of Mary as the second Eve and what little you did offer was from men and you tell me to THINK. So now we are supposed to trust other men and our own minds more than God's Word? Come on........

Second of all, if it was truth that you have, you would not hesitate to share it. Is proclaiming truth a waste of time? Do you not trust God's Holy Spirit to convict others with the truth if you have the truth? There is never a wrong time for truth. I don't see a bad time for sharing the gospel because who knows what God could use that moment for sometime down the road. I think you see your arguments as arguments that must be proved and are a waste of time to because others won't believe them. But if it was truth, it would stand on its own. Remember, God said that His Word would not return void. If you really have the truth then I don't understand why you would suppress it.

Good night,
Neal

 

This is what happens when you read apologists and not scholars.

You get people quoting Papias (as related in Eusebius) without mentioning that the translation is in dispute. The Greek "synextaxeto" could mean "composed, compiled. or arranged. "Ta logia" could mean "the sayings" as well as "the gospel". What he did was in the Hebrew "style", oe "language" (Some hold that this is a reference to th deliberate insertion of semitisms, the puns and such). Even the language is disputable as both Hebrew and Aramaic are denoted by the same Greek word. And it is not certain that what Papias referred to as being compiled by Matthew should be taken as referring to our gospel of Matthew. He may have been confused with another popular gospel of the 2nd century.

We know of the existence of a "gospel accordng to the hebrews:, a "gospel of the Nazareans", and a "gospel of the ebionites" in that time. These could be thre books, two or even one book referred to variously. But Epiphianus refers to a gospel written by matthew in Hebrew that the Ebionites used, as does Irenaeus.This suggests that there was ample oportunity to confuse canonical matthew with this other gospel.

Now there is no doubt that the early church thought that Matthew wrote his gospel first in Aramaic (or Hebrew). But there are serious problems with htis view.

1) The linguistic evidence does not support it. The many quotes from teh OT do not support the idea that they coem from a single text form. Some are obviously from teh Septuagint (hard to fathom if originally written in other than Greek), others are clearly translations from a semitic language. Still others could goeither way, and even some go aparantly neither way.

2) The obviuous literary relationship between Matthew and mark make it unlikely that Matthew was written in Aramaic. IOW, someone positing an Aramaic original musrt also defend Matthean priority. That cannot be done succesfully.

3) The Greek of Matthew doe not read like translation greek. Thgere are certainly semitisms and puns, as one would expect from an author who was semitic. But even these are almost exclusivcely in the sayings of Jesus and are likely placed there for effect since the author was also clearly able to write idiomatic greek expresions as well.

The scholarly consensus is that Papias was just wrong. He may have made a good guess.

The Fathers, for their part, may have simply assumed that Matthew was written first, being first in canonical order, and it is cetainly reasonable to assume that, since Jesus lived among Hebrews, that the first gosepl would be in that language.

There are serious problems that occur when one assumes that histroy is so perspicuous (unlike, as these folks hold, scripture) as to be taken at such a superficial level. It is also problematic to assume that hstory is normative, and that comments should be accepte uncritically.

 

Neal --

Let's start a separate thread on this subject...okay?

Look for it.

"Exegesis or eisogesis?"

I'll git it rollin....

Brother Ed

[ January 03, 2003, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: CatholicConvert ]