Ask Me Help Desk - What do you think will be in the tribulations?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

And that's a valid argument? It's always been done that way, so it must be right? And let's interpret to fit the agenda?

The argument, obviously, refers to the amount of study that has been put in over time - not that it's correct because "it's always been done that way".

As to agenda - are you saying Protestants have no agenda in this? Let's be honest - the Catholic Church is the big kid on the block - and is an easy target. Both sides have agendas. The trick is figuring out which one accords best with the facts. If dogma is left out (admittedly, not an easy thing to do), the meaning of the passage becomes clear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athos

If dogma is left out (admittedly, not an easy thing to do), the meaning of the passage becomes clear.

I see you've totally ignored your dogma and left it out. That was so easy too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dwashbur

Koine Greek was not a patois

Over the past 80 years or so we've come to realize that what used to be considered Aramaic influence on the Greek of the New Testament was nothing of the kind; we've found letters, shopping lists, bills of lading, certificates freeing slaves, you name it, from here and there around the ancient Roman world, and they show that this was "plain" Greek, not some Greek-Aramaic patois.

Thank you. "Patois" was a hasty choice of words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athos

There are very reasonable explanations for the language arguments/discrepancies. Google Matthew 16 and you will find them all - both Catholic and protestant. Too detailed to do them here.

One argument is that Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Greek. In Aramaic, only one word would have been used, eliminating the problem. Some maintain Jesus spoke neither Greek nor Aramaic, but Koine Greek - a kind of patois.

Others say Matthew's Greek was the only legitimate way to understand the passage since that Greek was inspired by the Holy Spirit - even though it was not the language Jesus used. I don't give any weight to that kind of argument.

I tend to come down on the side of the scholarship of the Catholic Church, especially since their position has been consistent for two millenia. There have been plenty of Greek scholars in the Church over that period of time.

Wow! There must be plenty of other things we Protestants are screwing up in translation and interpretation. I'll have to let everyone know and call a high-level meeting about this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

I see you've totally ignored your dogma and left it out. That was so easy too.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. You seem to be implying I have a "dogma".

Let me be perfectly clear about this. I have no dogma - no agenda - no ax to grind. My interest is simply getting to the truth of the passage we're discussing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athos

My interest is simply getting to the truth of the passage we're discussing.

So if we agree about the rock-Rock thing being Peter because of faulty translation and not knowing what Jesus REALLY said, what else are we wrong about?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Wow! There must be plenty of other things we Protestants are screwing up in translation and interpretation. I'll have to let everyone know and call a high-level meeting about this.

Your sarcasm is noted, and I'm at a loss to understand why you feel you must be sarcastic.

There is not a scintilla of doubt that Protestants, those of the fundamentalist stripe, have "screwed up" Biblical interpretation. No rational human being could possibly believe otherwise.

I'm sure the Catholic Church has its biblical "screw ups" also, and when those arise, be assured I will not defend them. But the Catholic Church is far more credible and intellectually solid regarding Bible interpretation when compared to the fundamentalists.

I do not think your position here in this discussion is fundamentalist. I think it is a disagreement, but I think the arguments for your position are not as worthy as those of the Catholic Church.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

So if we agree about the rock-Rock thing being Peter because of faulty translation and not knowing what Jesus REALLY said, what else are we wrong about?

Who's "we"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athos

Who's "we"?

All of us.

(Is it time for another Darvocet?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athos

I'm not sure what you're saying here. You seem to be implying I have a "dogma".

Let me be perfectly clear about this. I have no dogma - no agenda - no ax to grind. My interest is simply getting to the truth of the passage we're discussing.

I don't have any ax to grind, either. I follow the language wherever it leads. That's how I ended up where I am. I frankly couldn't care less what any church, synod, council, mucky-muck or anybody else says about doctrines, about what's "at stake," or anything else. If we believe the words of the Bible are inspired, then I'll spend my life working to understand them properly.

I've seen every interpretation of the passage out there, seen what they're based on, seen the language itself, and all the rest. This is where I ended up. The Rock is Jesus (not Duane Johnson), not Peter; we're told more than once that the church's cornerstone is Jesus Christ and no one else. I can see the alternate explanation that the Rock is Peter's confession, and hence the fact that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God, but it doesn't really explain the Greek pun. And I do conclude that it's a pun that Jesus deliberately made in Greek, simply because it works so well as a pun. If he had said it in Aramaic, the gospel writer would have had no good reason to use two different words for "rock." When something that subtle is there in the language, I like to take it seriously. I know others disagree, and that's fine. My approach is as purely linguistic as I can make it, partly because if our theology isn't based on the language of the Bible, then what is it based on? And partly because I just naturally hate theology.

You probably already know that this isn't the only Greek pun we have in Jesus' words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

All of us.

(Is it time for another Darvocet?)

I prefer Demerol myself...

Quote:

Originally Posted by dwashbur

I prefer Demerol myself...

Wow! There's something better?? I'll have to ask my doctor for a 'script for during the tribulation period (just to link this minor derailment to the OP).

Quote:

Originally Posted by dwashbur

... My approach is as purely linguistic as I can make it, partly because if our theology isn't based on the language of the Bible, then what is it based on?

The difficulty, of course, comes from the interpretation of the language.

(Btw, I've read the first chapter of your on-line novel. Fun, so far.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by dwashbur

Jesus didn't say Peter was the rock on which he would build his church. The name Peter is "petros," which means "a small stone," where the word Jesus used for "rock" is "petra," which basically means "a massive boulder." The "rock" he built his church on is himself, not any human.

As for the "keys to the kingdom" we can only speculate about what that meant. We do know that the passage about binding and loosing has been grossly misunderstood by some; what it says is "whatever you bind on earth will have [already] been bound in heaven" etc. The verbs are future perfects. Basically, Peter by his actions will acknowledge things that God has already established and decreed. My own view is that this refers to the spreading of the gospel beyond the Jews to encompass us Gentiles as well, which Peter initiated with Cornelius in Acts 10. It certainly isn't a blanket statement setting Peter up as the head of the church, and it says nothing whatsoever about any kind of succession.

That's as far as I'm willing to go on that front.

Peter was the first among equals, the first among the Twelver.. I like to show this by starting with Scriptural proofs. Afterwards, I'll show historical proof.

Scriptural Tradition: In the Douay Rheims the verse reads as follows:

And Jesus came into the quarters of Cæsarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

As you might know, Caesarea Phillippi is in the valley of Lebanon below Mount Hermon as mentioned in Josh 11:17 or Baal Hemon as mentioned in Judg 3:3. Of particular interest is a land feature of a massive rock face. One of the tributaries for the Jordan River flows through the area. The area was liberated by the Maccabean revolt in 167 B.C. In 4 B.C. one of Herod the Great s three sons, Philip, built the Roman Grecian of Caesarea Philippi to honor the Roman emperor.

If you will, imagine Jesus with this huge rock wall as a backdrop; he asked twice (not once but twice), “Whom do they say that I am?” None of the disciples could give the answer except Simon. Simon confessed Jesus as being both the Messiah and the “Son of the Living God.” God had revealed.

And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I can't claim any significance to the number of times “blessed art thou” is used in the New Testament. However, it is used only three times, twice in Luke 1: 42, and once in Matthew 16:17. It's only used once by Jesus. (This holds true in the NKJV as well) In my estimation, like Mary, God seats Peter in a special Chair for our salvation; the first of 266 whose “successor's gives judgment,” ( the first Vicar of Christ starts with St. Peter who is succeeded by St. Linus, St. Anacletus, St. Clement I, St. Alexander I, St. Sixtus I, St. Telesphorus, St. Hyginus… Benedict XVI)

Warren Carroll best expresses the petros/petra/kepha argument; “In regard to the Petros Kepha argument made by some, “the play of words involved in naming Simon “Rock” is as clear in Aramaic as in English, if we use the literal translation “Rock” for the Aramaic Kepha rather than “Peter” which is derived from the Greek Petros. In Greek the noun for rock is feminine. Therefore it is unsuitable for a man's name, and Peter is named Petros while the precise word for rock is petra, making the meaning a little less clear. But Christ's words to Peter were spoken in Aramaic and first recorded in Armaic in Matthew's Gospel; furthermore, we know that Peter was later often called Kepha or Cephas as well as Petros.” “Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom Vol 1, 1985, pg 349 footnote 135

And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

The “keys” are the keys to the kingdom of heaven, similar to the “keys” mentioned in Isaiah With the transfer of keys, one to another, power and authority is also transferred; Christ gives Peter the supreme authority over the Church and to bind and loose, both in heaven and on earth.

One interesting note is that in the book Revelations we see a discussion of the keys found in Matthew 16; especially the Key of David that the Holy One opens and no man shuts. Rev 3:7 “And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth: 8 I know thy works. Behold, I have given before thee a door opened, which no man can shut: because thou hast a little strength and hast kept my word and hast not denied my name.” The key of the House of David relate to the same earthly keys given Eliacim, son of Helcias. "the key of the house of David" which is conferred upon Eliacim, the son of Helcias, as the symbol of full and unlimited authority over the Kingdom of Juda. This too would be a direct reference to the Primacy of authority, a very good reason to accept St. Peter as the Prince of the Church Militant (the earthly Church). But I would suggest it wasn't the set of keys conferred on St. Peter, the keys to heaven the right to bind or loose in heaven and earth. The reason is that these keys in the book of Revelations are located in heaven, held by an angel church that is using the keys to keep open the door, presumably the door of holy righteousness. Another reason I don't think they are the same keys is because we see three sets of keys in sacred Scripture, the Keys of Heaven, the Key of the bottomless pit (hell), and the Keys of the House of David. Rev 9:1 “And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet: and I saw a star fall from heaven upon the earth. And there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit.” But in Revelations, where John is escorted through God's Kingdom in Heaven, we don't hear of the Key's of Heaven. Are we to presume that there are Keys to a earthly kingdom, a hellish kingdom, but no keys to heaven to heaven? The reason they're not mentioned is that the Keys to Heaven reside with the heirs of St. Peter.

Each time the Twelve are listed in Scripture; deference most always places Peter first among equals. For these reasons, and other not mentioned Catholics hold Peter the Apostle on which Christ built his Church, the first Pope.

JoeT

Quote:

Originally Posted by dwashbur

Actually, it's a pun. He's been calling Simon son of Jona "Peter" (or Cephas in Aramaic) for a long time, and he's pointing out that even though he's been calling him "rocky" so to speak, his church will be built on a much bigger Rock, i.e. himself.

There's an alternate interpretation, which suggests that the "rock" he's speaking of is Peter's confession of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God. I could go with that one, too. But what he's definitely NOT saying is that Peter himself is the "rock."

Excellent response. I agree completely. If we put ALL scripture into context I believe that is EXACTLY what Jesus was saying.

classyT, I very much disagree.
Why?
Because I believe all of that passage and do not pick what I want it to say.
Fred

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Peter was the first among equals, the first among the Twelver.. I like to show this by starting with Scriptural proofs. Afterwards, I'll show historical proof.

Scriptural Tradition: In the Douay Rheims the verse reads as follows:

And Jesus came into the quarters of Cæsarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

As you might know, Caesarea Phillippi is in the valley of Lebanon below Mount Hermon as mentioned in Josh 11:17 or Baal Hemon as mentioned in Judg 3:3. Of particular interest is a land feature of a massive rock face. One of the tributaries for the Jordan River flows through the area. The area was liberated by the Maccabean revolt in 167 B.C. In 4 B.C. one of Herod the Great s three sons, Philip, built the Roman Grecian of Caesarea Philippi to honor the Roman emperor.

If you will, imagine Jesus with this huge rock wall as a backdrop; he asked twice (not once but twice), “Whom do they say that I am?” None of the disciples could give the answer except Simon. Simon confessed Jesus as being both the Messiah and the “Son of the Living God.” God had revealed.

And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I can’t claim any significance to the number of times “blessed art thou” is used in the New Testament. However, it is used only three times, twice in Luke 1: 42, and once in Matthew 16:17. It’s only used once by Jesus.

It's a different word than in Luke 1:42. This one means "happy."

Quote:

(This holds true in the NKJV as well) In my estimation, like Mary, God seats Peter in a special Chair for our salvation; the first of 266 whose “successor’s gives judgment,” ( the first Vicar of Christ starts with St. Peter who is succeeded by St. Linus, St. Anacletus, St. Clement I, St. Alexander I, St. Sixtus I, St. Telesphorus, St. Hyginus… Benedict XVI)

While I appreciate all the effort you've put into this - you obviously know what you believe, and more important, you know why, which puts you miles ahead of most Christians - this drifts far off the "scriptural tradition" you were discussing. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Jesus was saying that Peter would be the "founding father" (for lack of a better term) of his church, nothing in the passage requires, or even indicates, any kind of succession.

Quote:

Warren Carroll best expresses the petros/petra/kepha argument; “In regard to the Petros Kepha argument made by some, “the play of words involved in naming Simon “Rock” is as clear in Aramaic as in English, if we use the literal translation “Rock” for the Aramaic Kepha rather than “Peter” which is derived from the Greek Petros. In Greek the noun for rock is feminine. Therefore it is unsuitable for a man’s name, and Peter is named Petros while the precise word for rock is petra, making the meaning a little less clear. But Christ’s words to Peter were spoken in Aramaic and first recorded in Armaic in Matthew’s Gospel; furthermore, we know that Peter was later often called Kepha or Cephas as well as Petros.” “Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom Vol 1, 1985, pg 349 footnote 135

Actually, both words were perfectly good nouns in Greek. I've already given the difference in meaning between the two. And if he's going off the tradition about Matthew that Eusebius described, he's making a flying leap by saying it was Aramaic, because Eusebius actually says it was Hebrew. Carroll's explanation is about as convoluted as anything I've seen in recent memory, and I'm not totally sure what his point is.

Quote:

And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

The “keys” are the keys to the kingdom of heaven, similar to the “keys” mentioned in Isaiah With the transfer of keys, one to another, power and authority is also transferred; Christ gives Peter the supreme authority over the Church and to bind and loose, both in heaven and on earth.

I already dealt with this. The verbs "bind" and "loose" are in a form that indicates the things described will have already happened; Peter's job is to acknowledge them on earth. He wasn't receiving any particular authority of his own. And the Isaiah passage is talking about something completely different that has nothing to do with this.

Quote:

One interesting note is that in the book Revelations we see a discussion of the keys found in Matthew 16; especially the Key of David that the Holy One opens and no man shuts. Rev 3:7 “And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth: 8 I know thy works. Behold, I have given before thee a door opened, which no man can shut: because thou hast a little strength and hast kept my word and hast not denied my name.” The key of the House of David relate to the same earthly keys given Eliacim, son of Helcias. "the key of the house of David" which is conferred upon Eliacim, the son of Helcias, as the symbol of full and unlimited authority over the Kingdom of Juda. This too would be a direct reference to the Primacy of authority, a very good reason to accept St. Peter as the Prince of the Church Militant (the earthly Church).

Uh, to use the vernacular, you pulled that out of left field. Clearly the reference in verse 7 looks back to the Isaiah passage, but there is NOTHING relating it to Peter at all. The one who has this "key" is Jesus himself, the speaker in the passage. How you get from that to Peter is beyond me, because if anything this contradicts your idea, and Jesus is saying that the one with ALL the keys is himself and nobody else.

I have no problem with you believing in Catholic tradition as well as the biblical material, but if we're going to discuss the biblical part let's stick to that and try to avoid reading tradition into it, especially in cases like this where it's just not there.

dwashbur,
I fully agree with JoeT.
That was one of the main understandings I came to when on the road from Protestantism to Rome.
I fully believe that Jesus made Peter the prime minister of Christ's kingdom with the keys to heaven.
It should be no surprise that Peter can forgive sins. You and I can do so.
I very often forgive everyone who has sinned against me.
The difference is that Peter's forgiveness is accepted as such in heaven while mine may not be.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcura

classyT, I very much disagree.
Why?
Beacuse I believe all of that passage and do not pick and choose what I want it to say.
Fred

AHHHHH Fred,

I believe YOU believe you don't pick. But you do. Catholics add way too much into that passage about Peter. It is what it is and no more. The same way you all read into the Lord's supper... when the Lord said to take eat of the bread it was his body. Clearly he was saying it was symbolic of his body. His BODY was right there attached to his head while he was talking to them.

If you take what the Lord was saying literally, how about when the Lord Jesus spoke to the woman at the well. He said whoever would drink of THIS water would never thirst again. He didn't mean physically thirst though and he wasn't talking about literal water... it was SYMBOLIC. See?

THEN when we are told to call no man our FATHER... Catholics call Priests Father and this blows my mind... the pope The HOLY Father. So... sorry Fredrick. You do pick. But hey... I still love you. ;)

Wondergirl, of course I call my father, Father or Popsey even. I was picking on Fred a bit. I believe the Lord was talking about calling anyone spiritually your Father. Only God is our Father.

The Apsotle Paul uses the term Father when he is speaking to them about provoking their children to anger and other places in the NT and OT it is certainly used.

Ex,

You making fun of me again? You believe the stuff I say about as much as you believe the moon is made of cheese... you ain't foolin me none. :)