What a straw man argument.
I said, and it is verifiably true, that WW1 required U.S. intervention to end its stalemate.
You're off on a tangent. I spoke of no such Good vs Evil points regarding that first war, though a few could be made.
Posted on 04/19/2005 11:56:55 AM PDT by MadIvan
Everyone should know what the rock is. It isn't Peter.I'm sure you've seen this post before, but evidently it needs repeating...
Grammatically speaking, petra in Mt16:18 cannot refer to anything but petros. (Citations used below are from the following reference works: (1) A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, DeBrunner (tr. Funk), University of Chicago Press (“Grammar”); (2) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Arndt & Gingrich, University of Chicago Press (“Lexicon”))1. petros"Hellenization of Semitic personal names.... By translation." Cf. Jn1:42 – “you will be called Kephas, which means Peter.” (Grammar, 53(2e)). The name Peter is a Hellenization by translation of Kephas.2. kai
“The use of the article with personal names is varied; as a general rule ... the absence of the article merely names him.” (Lexicon, o, h, to, II.b.) Note that there is no article before petros in Mt16:18. In this part of the verse, Jesus is merely giving Peter his new name.“Epexegetical kai ... Emphatic with demonstrative ...” (Grammar 442/9.) Note the demonstrative adjective tauth, a contraction for th auth. So the sentence that follows kai is epexegetical of “You are Peter.” This epexegetical use of kai is reinforced by the following: “Kai with the future ... is used to denote a further result” (Grammar, 442(3)). Note the use of the future: “I will build my church”. The building of the church is a further result of the name change. (See also, Lexicon, kai, 3 ("Other explicative uses are kai tauto ... ").)3. tauth.o auto: An idiom composed of two words with one meaning: “same”. This word modifies petra. What same rock? There is only one other word in the verse with the base petr-, and that is petros. (Note: A Greek noun comprises two parts: a base that indicates basic meaning, and an ending that indicates grammatical gender (among other things). Although there is not necessarily a correspondence between a noun's grammatical gender and a thing's actual sex (e.g., petra is feminine gender, even though a rock is sexless), the gender of a personal name virtually always corresponds with the person’s sex (e.g., petros is masculine gender, just as Peter is a man).)4. th:"In its individualizing use it focuses attention on a single thing or concept as already known or more definitely limited: things and persons that are unique in kind. " (Lexicon, o, ei, to, II.a.) Thus, petra is preceded by the article th to indicate it is already known (compare with petros, above, which is not preceded by a definite article). Moreover, when combined with the demonstrative adjective tauth (same), the definite article becomes emphatic (the very same rock).Summary: We know that petra refers to petros because (1) the demonstrative adjective and definite article that modify petra indicate that the identity of the rock is known; (2) petra and petros share the same base and thus the same basic meaning; and (3) the sentence following kai is epexegetical of the sentence that precedes kai, the further result being that Jesus will build his church on the very same rock.
I hope this means that we will not be seeing him kiss the Koran in the future.
"It isn't Peter."
I belive you are incorrect. It IS Peter. In Psalms, the only ONE referred to as "rock" was God. By changing Simon's name to Peter, Jesus was saying, "from now on Simon, you are me", meaning that Simon Peter had authority and that the Church was established by Christ but rested and was built on the authority of Peter.
He got an awrd from them but is not one of them. You are reaching to force that fulfillment!
has been very busy...prayer ping for (now double his birth weight) Malachi.
I was intending to paraphrase Scott Hahn but I stand very impressed with your post!
Sure seems like this type of info would have come out when everyone was investigating the top contenders.
Then those "true conservatives" were true to tyranny, I'd rather be a patriotic conservative, then be thought a traitor to the country for the love of the crown.
Conservatives should never support crowns, the founding fathers were the founders of the right wing of this country today, and for that I'm greatfull.
Its a shame this country has not done enough to get rid of monarchies the world over, the founding fathers would no doubt be displeased.
Thanks. I did the research several years ago to refute the repeated assertion that Peter is not "the rock" of Mt16:18. What better day to trot it out again than the election-day of Peter's successor, Benedict XVI!
The Pope is 78....He was FORCED into Hitler Youth in 1943, and deserted the German Army in 1945...that was when he was 16 and 18 years old respectively!!! Geesh....you would think he was running the gas chambers.
Just check out a Catholic Mass....just once or twice....and make sure it isn't on a CAMPUS!
What a straw man argument.
I said, and it is verifiably true, that WW1 required U.S. intervention to end its stalemate.
You're off on a tangent. I spoke of no such Good vs Evil points regarding that first war, though a few could be made.
He's not a Benedictine as far as I have seen. I don't think he's an order priest.
Padded Pews??? :)
Pain is your friend. It builds character!!!!!
Nonsense. Quite to the contrary, U.S. forces were required to end both WW1 and WW2 stalemates (Germany could not conquer Britain, Britain could not beat Germany).
Moreover, after the U.S. ended the first stalemate, the Europeans started up the whole nonsensical affair again a mere few short years after U.S. troops left Europe.
After we ended their second round of senseless war, we chose to keep our troops in Europe rather than bring them home; where they remain today (and as long as they've been there, the major European powers have behaved themselves).
"In drawing up its regulations, we hope to set down nothing harsh, nothing burdensome. The good of all concerned, however, may prompt us to a little strictness in order to amend faults and to safeguard love. Do not be daunted immediately by fear and run away from the road that leads to salvation. It is bound to be narrow at the outset. But as we progress in this way of life and in faith, we shall run on the path of God's commandments, our hearts overflowing with the inexpressible delight of love. Never swerving from his instructions, then, but faithfully observing his teaching in the monastery until death, we shall through patience share in the sufferings of Christ that we may deserve also to share in his kingdom. Amen." ( From the Rule of St. Benedict )
More info here: St. Benedict
You said....Tonight on MSNBC Michael Newdow bursts into flames!!! LOL!! BUT....Spitting Chrissy Matthews will put him out!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.