Gibson's passion film 'too Catholic'

Belfast Telegraph ^ | 19 March 2004 | Alf McCreary

[Havoc]

John 1:42 happened long before Matthew 16. So, again, what are you trying to say? Peter having his name changed presumeably because there are two Simons in the group doesn't bug my britches any. And it certainly doesn't bear on word use in Matthew 16.

[broadsword]

How do you know that you alone are right and more than a billion Christians are all wrong?

[Petronski]

He's referring to John 1:42, in which John says Jesus renamed Simon as Peter on first meeting him.

But in Matthew's gospel, the name change is described in Matthew 16:18, where the reason for the change is given. Since this constitutes Christ's foundation of His Church, the Catholic Church, Mt 16:18 is uncomfortable for him.

[Petronski]

...presumeably because there are two Simons in the group...

Why 'presume' (falsely) when the most important reason for the name change is listed explicitly in Mt 16:18?

[broadsword]

Oh, thanks. (whew!) After reading this long and incredible thread, I was almost convinced that our dear and infallible lord Havoc had kicked God out of heaven and taken his place.

[Petronski]

What is the basis for your unchallengable authority?

He found it in the bottom of a cereal box.

[broadsword]

What is your authority for knowing that you are right and everyone else is wrong? What if REGGIE claims that same authority? Would we then have to leave you behind and start worshipping him?

Shudder the thought!

[broadsword]

He found it in the bottom of a cereal box.

ROTF! I expect his reasoning to be about as valid... and funny!

[broadsword]

I'm waiting, Havoc. What is it? There must be some power by which you treat all others as dirt beneath your omniscient feet.

[broadsword]

Hey, Petronski, do you hear that?


Neither do I.


Interesting.

[Havoc]

I didn't make a claim to infallibility. Interpretation is not the issue, though I'm sure you'd like to make it that.
Did I ever study logic, yes. Irving L. Copi. Still on my shelf. Peter was a fisherman. I'll leave that hanging there while you consider the number of people here you just attempted to insult who may not have a degree and have a pretty good grip on scripture. Elitism isn't new. Nor do credentials mean anything to you or I could Quote Walter Martin and be done with it.

Beyond that, you've merely thrown rhetoric. I've claimed no monopoly. That's standard rhetoric meant to try to single me out as a lone person rebuking your clergy. Couldn't be farther from the truth. If you want to debate, debate. If you can't win on the facts, slander is not going to win the argument for you any faster - it just shows the weakness of your position. It's the first resort of anyone losing an argument. And that is a well known fact. It's a gauge learned in first year debate to tell you when you're winning. I don't much need it; but, it's nice to see it still works.

[latina4dubya]

Please keep in mind that Catholics do not think that either.

i'm not saying that... what i was trying to say was that my friends seem to think that any regard for Mary is worshiping her... which is sad to me... it's not like she was just any woman... as a Protestant (and former Catholic) i have a high regard for her... just as i do for Paul, and other Christians from the past... that doesn't mean i worship them... for some reason, my friends would seem to think it's okay to hold Paul in high esteem... but not Mary... because of their fear of Catholicism, they missed the beauty of the movie...

[Petronski]

[crickets chirping]

[Havoc]

There may be a billion Catholics. God killed every living person on earth save for 8. What made Noah right while the Whole rest of the world was wrong? Numbers don't equate to rightness of positions.

[broadsword]

Nice dodge, but it isn't going to work.

The fact is: YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY to shout everyone else down.

All you have is a shrill and obnoxious tone, supported by fingers in your ears and the cowardly avoidance of the numerous questions you CAN'T answer BECAUSE YOU ARE WRONG!

Enjoy your sick little dead-end church of one. I have to shake your dust from my feet for now, but I will be back when I have time.

ROTFLMAO!

[Havoc]

Show me where in Matthew 16 that it states Jesus is changing Peter's name. It is a different place, different time and there is no mention of changing his name. He is called Simon Peter in verse 16. John establishes when Simon's name was changed and it was at the get go - not later on. You may have been taught that; but, it wouldn't be the only time you guys have been taught something that can be demonstrated so readily to be wrong.

[Havoc]

Go back and read. I think this subject has been broached and dealt with earlier. - with BChan if memory serves. Did you read the conversation or do you expect us all to redo this entire thread for you?

[B-Chan]

I recently wrote here that in my opinion the Inquisition and the institution of Christian Monarchy should be brought back.

I never said that the burning of heretics should be brought back.

Please note that I speak only for myself in my posts.

[Petronski]

He is called Simon Peter in verse 16.

Yes, by the narrator (Matthew), to make clear whom he means. In verse 17, Jesus Himself refers to Simon Peter as "Simon bar-Jonah", and then in verse 18, Jesus proclaims that he [Simon bar-Jonah] is Peter. If you cannot understand that Jesus means 'thenceforth,' nothing I can do can help you, for you do not have the necessary skills to understand context, and I am not qualified to teach remedial reading.