Question for Freeper Catholics

I recently watched "The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc," starring Milla Jovovich. Not being a Catholic, I had some questions:

1) At the end, the notes said Joan was "canonized" 500 years later(approx. 1930s, I guess). Does canonization automatically mean one is "sainted?" Or are they different? If so, what is the difference?

2) What are the prerequisites to be either "canonized" or "sainted," if they are different?

3) Specifically to the movie---if anyone saw it---was the Dustin Hoffman character supposed to be Lucifer, the accuser?

4) I'm weak historically on this: was the film accurate about Joan often doing things on her own ("if you love me, fight for me") as opposed to leading the armies "in the name of God?" I suppose it depends on what you think of Joan, but among believers, is the consensus that she indeed received instructions from God, or that she was a fruitloop?

Well, let's see, your clergy dreamt up the lie and taught it to you. You repeat the lie. I suppose by assimilation that makes you a liar. Not a slur, just a statement of fact. If you don't like it, stop lying.

You throw the term around lightly enough, without any argument or evidence to back it up. Calling a slur a "fact" does not make it so.

No, they meddled where they didn't belong and added things that didn't belong next to scripture under the pretense that there medling was proper.

You've presented no analysis or evidence that "they" (whoever they are) "meddled" or "added things" so unfortunately, I can't address your missing argument here.

They had no authority to touch the OT - NONE. And by the testimony of Paul.

Finally, something that almost resembles a biblical argument. Presumably you mean that the Early Church Fathers had no authority to determine the canon of the OT. Gosh. Where in the Bible does it say that?

your clergy dreamt it up. When you claim something, your credibility is part of the equation. And given Rome's history of false claims, fraud - either creating it or being duped by it, ect, lying about their own past in order to pull the wool,.. are you getting the picture. NO CREDIBILITY.

This is about Peter being in Rome, right? Let's ignore for the moment that this issue has absolutely no bearing on whether Christ instituted His Church on Peter and we'll proceed from there.

What the Bible Says
Certainly, in 1 Pet 5:13, Peter claims to be writing from "Babylon". Are you trying to deny that this is a hidden reference to Rome? Remember, the use of the word Babylon as a hidden reference to Rome is quite common in early church documents and historical documents of that time. The relentless persecutions of Christians at that time made it a necessity.

For Babylon to be a reference to some other city, you'll need to show that a preponderance of the evidence supports your claim. Yet, the preponderance of the evidence is overwhelming in line with the Catholic position on this. For example:

Early Church Documents
The index of The Faith of the Early Fathers, by William A. Jurgens, includes 30 citations divided about evenly between the statements that “Peter came to Rome and died there” and that “Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy.” A few examples will have to suffice.

Ignatius of Antioch
"Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict"
-- Letter to the Romans, 4:3, 110 AD

Dionysius of Corinth
"You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time"
-- Letter to Pope Soter, 170 AD, in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8

Irenaeus
"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church"
-- Against Heresies, 3, 1:1, 189 AD

These and other patristic citations demonstrate that there can be no question that the universal, and very early position of the Church was that Peter certainly did end up in the "great city", the capital of the Empire.

Other Documents
Babylon is used as code for Rome in other historical documents like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f) and the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about 303 AD, noted that "It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon."

Allow me to repeat myself:
For Babylon to be a reference to some other city, you'll need to show that a preponderance of the evidence supports your claim. Yet, the preponderance of the evidence is overwhelming in line with the Catholic position on this.

Well, for one, you just called God a liar.

Sorry. This is a non-sequitur as far as I can tell. You'll need to connect the dots to prove your argument here.

protestant denoms don't exist because of their propensity for understanding scripture.

LMAO. So true, so true! Gosh, I could quote this one all day: "protestant denoms don't exist because of their propensity for understanding scripture." I better let the Protestants defend themselves against this slur.

Protestant denominations exist in plenty because they, like your religion, are trying to wrap scripture around their philosophies.. using scripture as it were to prove their opinions. It has nothing to do whatever with whether God is right at that point or whether scripture is right.

I do agree with your notion that "Protestant denominations exist in plenty because thay are trying to wrap scripture around their philosophies." Can't you see the inherent error in that Protestant approach? Trying "to wrap scripture around their philosophies" is exactly backwards. First comes the Word of God, and out of that comes the dogmas and doctrines that create and define a philosophy. To do otherwise is to engage in a causal fallacy.

However, assuming that you realize that you've engaged in wholesale condemnation of the Protestant approach, I can only conclude that you're a Fundamentalist. What say you? You are willing to defend your "philosophy" here, right?

Christians do know. That's the problem with your tack.

You're avoiding the question. Which Christians? All Christians? Everybody in your Bible study class? Just you? Put a stake in the ground and defend it.

You probably don't understand much of scripture yourself.

Ah, the last refuge of a scoundrel. A non-specific attack on my understanding of Scripture. Let's see now .. I cite Scripture .. you don't. I defend Scripture ... you engage in personal attacks. How very biblical of you.

No, My syntax and metaphors are quite plain.. Either a building is the pillar and foundation or God is.

Gosh, you need to go back and reread my argument. I did not say that a building is the pillar and foundation. Nor does Scripture say so. By trying to force the issue to be a choice between these two false alternatives ("building" and "God") you have built a straw man. Your argument is therefore fallacious.

say the church is the Body of Christ - that would be all Christians

Just a side issue here really -- how do you define "Christians"? Certainly you must acknowledge that the early church had to deal with heretics, like the Circumcisers, the Gnostics, and the Montanists. They claimed to believe in Christ. They quoted Scripture. Therefore there must be something more to being a Christian than just a belief in Christ and quoting Scripture.

Since you wish to say that you are fellow Christians with the protestants, then by your own testimony, Protestants become the pillar and foundation of truth. ROFL.

I suppose your non-sequitur would be funny if it made any logical sense. The first fallacy is that I did not call the building the Church. Another fallacy is your notion that someone who adheres to a falsehood can be a pillar of truth. (And no, my statement does not claim all Protestants adhere to falsehoods.)

Fortunately, they didn't bother to read what they were grabbing at and the context betrays them both for the frauds they are and for the fraud they were trying to perpetrate. Any thing else?

Again, your unilateral assertion that the context says something is insufficient. As shown above, your analysis relies on one or more fallacies and devolves into unsubstantiated personal attacks. However, my argument provides both contextual, syntactic, metaphoric, and lexical support for my view. You'll need to do better than that.

Oh, one more thing - the entire portion of the chapter is the author telling us as Christians How to behave ourselves.

The "entire portion"? You'll have to explain your oxymoron to me. Moreover, 1 Tim 3 is most definitely not Paul "telling us as Christians How to behave ourselves." I'm beginning to see why you don't like to use Scripture in your arguments.

The final verse states how we are to behave in the meeting place. Meeting places at that time were not big elaborate buildings. They were people's homes. Try to handwring that.

The "final verse" of neither 1 Timothy 3 nor 1 Timothy says anything of the sort. You have read the Bible, right?

Yep, seen this bogus lie countless times too. 'you are petros(small ungrounded piece of rock - stone) and/but on this the petra(grounded/immoveable massive rock) I will build of me my church..' Well, heck, why not just post the original:

kagw de - soi - legw - oti - su - ei - petros,
And I also - to thee - say[,] - that - thou - art - a stone

Say, do you specialize in oxymorons? What is a "bogus lie"? Never-mind. To the matter at hand.

You are relying on a faulty argument here, namely that "petros" means "little stone" or "small rock". Let's look more closely.

1 - In first century Koine (NT) Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They did indeed possess the meanings of "small stone" and "large rock" in some earlier Greek poetry. But by the first century this distinction was gone. Even Protestant Bible scholars are starting to admit this now. For example, see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Zondervan Books.

2 - Matthew's Gospel was not written in Greek originally - the Greek is a translation. Matthew wrote in Aramaic for the Jews. Moreover, we know Jesus spoke Aramaic to the Apostles because that is preserved for us in the Bible. The Lord's name for Simon was Cephas (Kepha), Aramaic for "large, massive rock". It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble — the Aramaic word for that is evna.

3 - The use of 'this' refers to the immediately preceding proper noun, Rock (Peter's name). Reference to any other noun or verb would require a 'that' at a minimum.

4 - In Greek, the word for "this" (taute) has a more immediate sense as in "this very" or "the same". Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter was:

"(Simon), you are large rock and on the same large rock I will build my Church (singular)."

5 - A then-contemporary rabbinic expression equated "rock" with Abraham as the father of the Jewish nation.

"'Lo, I have discovered a rock to found the world upon.'He called Abraham 'rock', as it is said (Is 51:1-2): 'Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn.'"
-- Yalkut 766 on Tanshuma B, Yelamdenu

Abraham, renamed by God from Abram to "father of nations", was the patriarchal head of God's chosen people. In like manner, God renamed Simon to Rock, to found his new church "to all nations" upon, the first patriarch of the new covenant. This is acknowledged in Protestant scholarship by William Barclay (The Gospel of Matthew, 2:140, Westminster Press, 1975) and David Hill (The Gospel of Matthew, 261, The New Century Bible Commentary, Eerdmans, 1972).

The Jewish listeners to Matthew's (Jewish) Gospel would immediately understand the import of these words.

6 - Peter alone is given the keys. In ancient Jewish culture, and in the OT (e.g., Is 22:22), the keeper of the keys was the chief steward under the King. Again, the Jewish listeners to this Gospel would immediately understand the import of these words. Jesus is appointing Peter to run things in his 'absence'. Jesus is King in heaven. Peter, as Steward, is to run His visible kingdom.

7 - Linguistically, renaming Simon to Rock is like renaming someone today as 'wall' or 'book'. If Jesus then says, "You are Book and upon this very book I will build my library" it is a clear disregard of linguistic rules to suggest that 'book' isn't referring to 'Book'.

8 - If Jesus had meant anything or anyone other than Peter, then introducing the passage with 'You are Rock' would just muddle things. If you believe Jesus is speaking plainly, (and if sola scriptura is true, then perspicuity reigns ;-) the reference is clearly to Peter.

9 - The whole point of Jesus renaming Simon as Cephas builds to this single passage. Don't forget, this is God renaming someone to Rock. That is no trivial event.

And since the use of "Rock" as a name is quite extraordinary, I'm surprised you aren't arguing for this point because these are the very words of Jesus.

10- Examine the way Matt 16:16-19 is structured:

Cephas acknowledges Jesus as Christ. (Cephas => Jesus)
In response,
Jesus acknowledges Cephas as blessed (Jesus => Cephas)
Jesus says Cephas had revelation from God (Jesus => Cephas)
Jesus reiterates Simon is named Cephas (Jesus => Cephas)
Jesus says Cephas is the foundation (Jesus => Cephas)
Jesus gives only Cephas the keys (Jesus => Cephas)
Jesus gives Cephas bind/loose power (Jesus => Cephas)

A few observations:

First, here in Mt 16:16 is Peter's first infallible statement of doctrine. It is confirmed by Jesus no less.

Second, as shown above, Jesus conveys a multi-fold blessing on Peter. In context, to suggest that right in the middle of it Jesus will diminish Peter's authority or is deliberately confusing the issue in front of the other apostles just doesn't make sense.

Listen to the contrary (Protestant) reading:
"Peter you are Blessed.
God in Heaven has directly given you a divine revelation.
I repeat, you are Rock (a name reserved for the divine or a founding father).
However, I really mean that you are a small pebble who can't be in charge.
(or, when I say I am going to build my church on this Rock, I don't mean you.)
But I'm going to give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven anyway.
And I'll throw in "loosing/binding" powers as well."

No matter how you twist the "however" clause, the Protestant interpretation just doesn't make any sense.

11 - The historical evidence. Time and time again the Church Fathers, those Christians closest to Jesus and the Apostles, clearly acknowledged Peter's primacy in writing. I've referenced a few above. Here are a few more:

Clement of Alexandria
"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? 'Behold, we have left all and have followed you' [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]"
-- Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved?, 21:3-5, 200 AD

Tertullian
"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the Church would be built' [Matt. 16:18] with the power of 'loosing and binding in heaven and on earth' [Matt. 16:19]?"
- Demurrer Against the Heretics, 22, 200 AD

Conclusion
So, the Catholic interpretation is supported by the linguistic, syntactic, contextual, historic, symbolic, and scriptural evidence. Your interpretation rests solely on a flawed translation. Which way to go, which way to go? I think I'll stick with the literal Catholic interpretation.

I'll take that as a serious question. Yes, there was a need to have an accepted, universal version -- there were spurious writings such as the Gnostic gospels claimed by some on this post to be true -- the Gospel of Thomas the twin, which was regarded by the early Church fathers as false (and since it was written intheir times, they'd be better judges than us) and conflicting views -- read the conflicts between Monophysites and us and other Christian thoughts (www.newadvent.com).

Gnostics had some good ideas as did adoptionists, ebionites, Netzarim, coptics etc etc. No reason for the Orthodox to get their underwear in wad. But when we witness how their descendants carry on its certainly understandable.

I dont' follow it very well, but here goes: Nestorians: One person, two hypostases, two natures. Catholics: One person, one hypostasis, two natures. Monophysites: One person, one hypostasis, one nature.

Blah blah blah.

This was a big debate in the 1st century and H*****, I barely get it. Well it clears out like this -- the church says that Christ was ONE man wholly human and wholly divine, the Monophysites (the Ethiopian Church) says that he was completely divine,only one nature -- divine. The Nestorians (who still exist in Persia) say that Christ was wholly human and wholly divine but that his earthly body was discarded (not sure about this)

And we'd know a whole lot more about this if the heretics were allowed to live and their writings weren't destroyed.

So, you see, these were the issues they debated about in the first centuries. The reason brought forth by many 'reformers' were already answered in these early debates.

Ya mean like the debate in Nicea where the majority did not believe in deity of Yeshua yet the minority opionion prevailed. Seems to have been hammered out in a "fair" manner.

Sure I have questions but I'd rather hear/read from more learned folks who debated this in earlier times.

Yep. The learned Orthodox who knew how to coerce politicians to enforce their belief. No thanx.

What the Bible Says Certainly, in 1 Pet 5:13, Peter claims to be writing from "Babylon". Are you trying to deny that this is a hidden reference to Rome? Remember, the use of the word Babylon as a hidden reference to Rome is quite common in early church documents and historical documents of that time. The relentless persecutions of Christians at that time made it a necessity. For Babylon to be a reference to some other city, you'll need to show that a preponderance of the evidence supports your claim. Yet, the preponderance of the evidence is overwhelming in line with the Catholic position on this. For example:

Propaganda as I said before. Babylon was settled by the Israelites in the diaspora after the Northern Kingdom fell to Assyria. The assyrians deported most of the people they took captive into that area. This is a matter of Historical fact. It is also a matter of historical fact that in the time of Christ, that area was the most concentrated settlement of Israelites on the planet. The Israelites do keep track of their history, unfortunately for you.

Secondly, your reference to Baruch is bunk - I've read it. That's the same cut and paste reference someone on the Chronicles tried to get by with over two years ago now. The Syballian Oracles quotation is dated as late as the start of the 3rd century ad. No help. And Eusebius was a lying quack. None of this puts Peter in Rome. None of it establishes Rome=Babylon as a common usage metaphor in Peter's time. And the only text written close to this time making this reference - for the first time I might add was Revelation - Written 35-40 years after Peter's epistle roughly and what about 33 years after his presumed death. Moreover, the text in which it appears was a recording of a divine revelation to it's author by Christ. The book itself states this. You've no basis for the claim of using a codeword.

Now, For the icing on the cake. At the same time Peter is writing his Work, Paul is writing II Timothy in which he sends letter by carrier to Ephesus to Timothy with the Charge to go get Marcus and Bring him to Rome. The Big problem with this is that Marcus was writing I Peter for Pete.

Pause.

That's right. If Paul has to send a letter to Ephesus to get the guy who's just down the block, there is a parallel universe thing goin on or something. We're in the real world. And Ephesus is some 1000 miles or more away by trade route. Come time for Pete to write his second letter, Marcus is no longer with him - how interesting. And if we look at The 13th chapter of Hebrews, who is Paul still waiting for...

Pete can't be writing from Rome if Paul has to send out of Rome to fetch Pete's writer. It would have helped for the frauds to have read scripture before they tried to defraud everyone with their lies about Peter. Peter's primary ministry was to the Israelites. And given the location of so many Israelites, not in Rome; but, rather in the area of Babylon, it is no secret where he would have been. Nor since Babylon was outside the realm of Roman control was there any reason whatsoever for Peter to be coy about his location - much less if he were in Rome where other apostles were coming and going as they pleased in Meeting with Paul in Jail. You can quote whom you will. The stories don't line up. Who do we believe - people who weren't there or the Apostles themselves.

Any more propaganda I should bat aside while we're at it? Peter didn't hold the keys to the kingdom alone. Nor did he hold binding and loosing alone. Paul opened the Church to the Gentiles without so much as a 'by your leave' from Peter. And why? Because it wasn't required. Peter was nobody important next to the other apostles - they were all equals and by Christ's own words. Why it is so necessary for you carnys to Raise him up on a pedastle is beyond me outside of Rome's lust for power. The funny thing is, if they'd had any brains when they tried defrauding everyone with stories that proved they didn't know scripture, they might have at least Chosen Paul to put on a pedastle, at least he'd been to Rome.

Even worse for those who can't accept anything as true unless it comes from a Catholic Apologist site. Who says atheists don't ever tell the truth?

The mere fact that the site you cite uses Bart Brewer is not a testimony to their integrity. The same is true if someone cites a Jack Chick comic book. So, yes, the presumption that the article is nonsense, that it contains logical flaws, is certainly there. That the article contains no credentialed author, confuses archaeologically findings from the tropaia with those from the hypogeum, and uses unrelenting anti-Catholic wording tells me that it is not a reputable article. That you would rely on it tells me a lot about you.

I am not qualified to argue Koine Greek and Aramaic. Are you? Your case would be much simpler if you could only come up with an original Aramaic version written prior to or at the same time as the Koine Greek version. As it is, the only Aramaic version is a translation.

The issue is not a language problem so much as it is a logic problem. The issue is extremely simple -- one word simple. Jesus called Simon "Cephas". Cephas is Aramiac for "large, massive stone". For a longer exposition, see my post 588 above. You don't need a degree in Greek to understand this. To plead ignorance is simply avoiding the truth.

All the pronouns in Matthew 16:18 are emphatic, contrasting the person of Peter with the mighty rock which is the foundation of the church.

What? As near as I can tell, this is a non-sequitur. And further, it is based on a faulty Greek translation of petros. Also, the key distincitve of the key pronoun "this" (taute) is its inflection which refers to the immediately proceeding noun, Peter.

The different genders (petros, masculine; and petra, feminine) emphasize a distinction in the references.

Another non-sequitur. Also moot when you consider the Aramaic that Jesus used. Cephas (Kepha) does not have different gender forms.

In this light Jesus means that he is the foundation of the church. He speaks of himself as the builder, and uses the expression "my church." So the New Testament ekklesia is built upon Christ's deity and Saviorhood, upon the efficacy of his blood, and upon the immutability and objectivity of truth

But strangely, the Bible doesn't say this. It literally says Jesus will build on Peter.

It is obvious that no human being could be the support of such a structure.

I need only quote Chesterton:

"When Christ at a symbolic moment was establishing His great society, He chose for its cornerstone neither the brilliant Paul nor the mystic John, but a shuffler, a snob, a coward -- in a word, a man. And upon this rock He has built His Church, and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it. All the empires and the kingdoms have failed, because of this inherent and continual weakness, that they were founded by strong men and upon strong men. But this one thing, the historic Christian Church, was founded on a weak man, and for that reason it is indestructible. For no chain is stronger than its weakest link. "
-- G. K. Chesterton, Heretics, ch 4

But Peter has no special position or prerogative above the other apostles. Nowhere in the New Testament is any supremacy assigned to him.

Actually, in Mt 16:19, only Peter is given the keys. See a longer exposition in 588 above.

Note: I didn't analyze the whole of your Rock response because I don't think it is necessary. It relies on some faulty assumptions and I pointed those out. The rest of the analysis that flows from faulty assumptions becomes moot.

The last time we see Jesus talking to Peter He called him Simon. Do you wonder why?

That in a different Gospel, for a different audience, Jesus uses the name Simon (which John goes out of his way to identify as Peter), doesn't affect the literal interpretation of Mt 16:17-18.

So again, Reg, ol' boy, if you can't disprove Peter is the Rock from sacred Scripture, then I must ask, when will you accept this divinely-revealed truth?

Pax Christi,

The whole point of Jesus renaming Simon as Cephas builds to this single passage. Don't forget, this is God renaming someone to Rock. That is no trivial event.

Uhmm, no, I think you need to go reread scripture. Simon was given the name Petros at first meating if memory serves - long before this and presumeably because there was an issue of names. John 1:40 One of the two which heard John [speak], and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. John 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. [42] And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

There were Two Simon's in the Group - Simon (called petros) and Simon the Caananite. For all we know the only reason for the name change was to prevent the confusion of calling Simon and having two people answer. No real reason to believe otherwise. He certainly wasn't named "a stone" for his ability to stand firm, His name rather symbolizes his inability to do so in denying christ three times. Petra is solid and immoveable, Petros is portable.

For everything you present I can punch holes right through it without so much as breaking a sweat. I've done it so many times it is old hat. And the problem is, that anyone with a bible and some time on their hands can do it. It isn't rocket science.

1 - In first century Koine (NT) Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They did indeed possess the meanings of "small stone" and "large rock" in some earlier Greek poetry. But by the first century this distinction was gone. Even Protestant Bible scholars are starting to admit this now. For example, see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Zondervan Books.

And Zondervan is owned by who? And how are the words used in Scripture. We can play the citation game. Done that before too. It's moot. Petra and petros are not synonymous any more that agapo and agapi are. Rewriting history and language in order to support a bad lie just makes it look worse. So then there is the next whopper..

2 - Matthew's Gospel was not written in Greek originally

Good, present the Aramaic original now. You can't because it doesn't exist and for all we know, never has. furthermore, Keph is Chaldee - the root of the Aramaic Kepha meaning "rock". The Chaldee Keph is "hollow rock" Not massive rock. Kepha in the Aramaic is a generic term. Greek is lacking in a generic term as it's a language of specificity. So there is no dilution. For petros and petra to be used as seperate references, there has to be a reason. Petra is used all through scripture to reference bedrock, mountains, cliffs.. All of which have words in Aramaic. If there needed to be dilution, it would have been proper to use petros twice. It was not so done. The problem you have is that you don't have a leg to stand on and are trying to manufacture one by beggeing credulity.. again.

3 - The use of 'this' refers to the immediately preceding proper noun, Rock (Peter's name). Reference to any other noun or verb would require a 'that' at a minimum.

No it doesn't. I'm typing at my keyboard. I'm going to sit my drink down on this. Oops. Again, begging credulity.

4 - In Greek, the word for "this" (taute) has a more immediate sense as in "this very" or "the same". Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter was:

Umm, now you're really begging. Been over this one before too. Kai means and, but..... Your reinterpreting the verse. That's a no no. this = the same in common language. It by no means points to the prior noun. It's just shorthand. Essentially, you're abusing language again.

And I care, I really do. But your church has said the testimony of peter is the rock of foundation. How do you square the two versions. They pulled that rug out from under you. Even Dave knows that.. He was involved in the conversation when that came out on the CC threads.

6 - Peter alone is given the keys. In ancient Jewish culture, and in the OT (e.g., Is 22:22), the keeper of the keys was the chief steward under the King.

Not so. The keys to heaven are symbolic. This has been gone over as well. Christ opens and no one shuts, shuts and no one opens. Not Peter. But through Peter, the kingdome was opened to the Israelites. Peter however did not open the kingdom to the Gentiles. That was Paul. Peter was not the only one with access to the keys. Every apostle had them or they'd not have been able to preach the Gospel and reap a single soul for the kingdom. This is common knowledge stuff which you who don't know scripture seem to take as magical events from ignorance.

8 - If Jesus had meant anything or anyone other than Peter, then introducing the passage with 'You are Rock' would just muddle things

No it wouldn't. It is a device of understanding. You are a rock (piece of) but on the Mountain from which you broke off, I'll build of me... It's a play on words for demonstrative purposes. Nothing more or less. It muddles nothing. And saying it is is just absurd reaching in order to get people to accept without thinking. Nothing more.

10- Examine the way Matt 16:16-19 is structured:

Who cares. We can go over the structure again and again. It still comes out the same way - Jesus stating that he will found his church OF Himself on the testimony of Himself. As Paul later states - to be born again, we must believe on Christ and confess him with our mouths. An act of faith through revelation and it's done - just as in Peter's example. All this junk about Peter is merely Rome's means to an end - that being to try and control the church by puffing Peter into something he wasn't. In the doing, they obscure the gospel truth.

The rest as I've noted before is the typical heresay we see from people who've no way of knowing first hand - they're merely passing on heresay and wives tales. There's no direct evidence Peter was ever in Rome. There is for Paul oddly enough - nothing for Peter. That isn't to say he never entered Rome. But scripturally there was no reason for it to happen. It may have been the center of the empire; but, the jews had been expelled from Rome at one point and Peter's ministry was to the Israelites. Doesn't do much Good for him to be in Rome. And by the time per your church's claims, Peter should have been in Rome, the Rabbis in Rome were clueless about Christianity - they'd heard about it; but, had no idea.. Either you're accusing Peter of not doing his job, or your simply lying or in error. Can I pick... lol

Babylon was settled by the Israelites in the diaspora after the Northern Kingdom fell to Assyria. The assyrians deported most of the people they took captive into that area. This is a matter of Historical fact. It is also a matter of historical fact that in the time of Christ, that area was the most concentrated settlement of Israelites on the planet. The Israelites do keep track of their history, unfortunately for you.

Were there Jews in Babylon? Sure.
But the city of Babylon fails a critical test if it is referenced as "Babylon" in the Bible.

From the Jewish Encyclopedia:

Darius Hystaspes captured the city of Babylon in 516 B.C., partially razed its walls, and carried its inhabitants into captivity (Herodotus, iii. 159; Justin, i. 10).

... When Seleucus Nicator founded Seleucia for his capital [312 BC], Babylon sank in importance and soon fell into ruins (Pausanias, viii. 33, 1; Dio Cassius, lxxv. 9).

"The Israelites do keep track of their history," yes they do. ;-)

And from the Encylopedia Brittanica:

A tablet dated 275 B.c. states that on the 12th of Nisan the inhabitants of Babylon were transported to the new town [Seleucia], where a palace was built as well as a temple to which the ancient name of E-Saggila was given. With this event the history of Babylon comes practically to an end

No matter how you slice it, Babylon was not "that great city" when the NT was set down, but a sleepy backwater. And there are plenty of references to Rome as Babylon.

...Eusebius was a lying quack. None of this puts Peter in Rome. None of it establishes Rome=Babylon as a common usage metaphor in Peter's time.

So, Ignatius, Dionysius, Irenaeus, Gaius, Clement, Tertullian, Eusebius, are all "lying quacks", and you are telling the truth? I'll have to get back to you on that one.

And the only text written close to this time making this reference - for the first time I might add was Revelation - Written 35-40 years after Peter's epistle roughly and what about 33 years after his presumed death.

Excepting of course, 1 Peter? The references in Revelation make perfect sense if they are referring to Rome. Those references can't be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation. Babylon was no longer a "great city." It played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the "great city" mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem. Rome makes the most sense (obviously).

At the same time Peter is writing his Work, Paul is writing II Timothy in which he sends letter by carrier to Ephesus to Timothy with the Charge to go get Marcus and Bring him to Rome. The Big problem with this is that Marcus was writing I Peter for Pete. Pause. That's right. If Paul has to send a letter to Ephesus to get the guy who's just down the block, there is a parallel universe thing goin on or something.

Neat. Where did you get the personal calendars of everybody involved? I gotta get me a copy. That is the only way you can know with such assurance that your dates are right. Was Mark with Peter when I Peter was written? Perhaps. Did Peter send Mark to Asia Minor as a courier for the letter? Perhaps. Was Ephesus a key city of Asia Minor? Yes. Could Paul therefore have written Timothy asking for Marcus to be sent back? Surely. Do you know with absolute certainty when I Peter and II Timothy were written? No. Can we conclude anything from the above? Only that you love to use ~~opinions~~ possibilities for facts.

Pete can't be writing from Rome if Paul has to send out of Rome to fetch Pete's writer.

Marcus didn't "write I Peter for Pete". Go read it again. Silvanus is widely acknowledged as the scribe.

It would have helped for the frauds to have read scripture before they tried to defraud everyone with their lies about Peter.

So true. Because you haven't "read scripture before [you] tried to defraud everyone with [your] lies" it's quite easy to turn back your "bogus lies". (did I use your oxymoron correctly?)

Peter didn't hold the keys to the kingdom alone.

Go read the verse again. Only Peter is given the keys. Gee. Have you read the Bible at all? Or are you just using the Cliff notes?

Paul opened the Church to the Gentiles without so much as a 'by your leave' from Peter.

Sheesh. Even the Cliff notes would help you with this. Go read Galatians 2:9. It is specifically by the leave of Peter and others that Paul goes to the Gentiles.

Phew. Your batting zero here. Given your "Fundamental" errors, perhaps you should go back to Bible class.

Uhmm, no, I think you need to go reread scripture. Simon was given the name Petros at first meating if memory serves - long before this and presumeably because there was an issue of names.

"Uhmm", you're presuming something I didn't say. I didn't say Jesus renamed Peter in Mt 16. (polemikos 1; havoc 0)

presumeably because there was an issue of names

Rrriiiggghhhttt. God renames somebody because "presumably because there was an issue of names". Sure. And He just happens to pick, out of the entire universe of possible names, an appellation (almost) exclusively reserved for the divine. (polemikos 2; havoc 0)

Petra is solid and immoveable, Petros is portable.

There's that faulty Greek again. And you're forgetting that he used Cephas originally. That's a double error. (polemikos 4; havoc 0)

Zondervan is owned by who? ... We can play the citation game. Done that before too. It's moot. Petra and petros are not synonymous

You don't recognize Zondervan? They're a huge Christian books publisher. And the author? He's a widely-read Protestant scholar.

D. A. Carson (Ph.D., University of Cabridge) is research professor of the New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. He is the author or coauthor of numerous books, including Gold Medallion Award-winners.

You really need to get out more. Since your argument reduces to "well-known biblical scholar bad" versus "havoc good" I think it's fair to say you lost that round too. (polemikos 5; havoc 0)

Good, present the Aramaic original now

Don't have to. That's the beauty of the argument. The Aramaic is preserved for us in the Greek translation. We know Jesus spoke Aramaic. We know he called Simon Cephas. We know Kepha means large rock.(polemikos 6; havoc 0)

For petros and petra to be used as seperate references, there has to be a reason.

There is. The Greek petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as a man's name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name —- at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word. (polemikos 7; havoc 0)

P: Reference to any other noun or verb would require a 'that' at a minimum.
H: No it doesn't.

Yes it does. Because for all non-Catholic interpretations, all the players (Jesus, Peter's confession, etc.) are specifically accounted for, whereas in your strained example, there is some implied object referenced by "this". There is no implied object in Mt 16:16-19 (unless you want to make one up just for the occasion ;-). Let's see, where are we? Oh yeah. (polemikos 8; havoc 0)

Kai means and, but..... Your reinterpreting the verse. That's a no no. this = the same in common language. It by no means points to the prior noun.

The "kai" argument rests on 2 faulty assumptions: (1) that there is a difference in meaning between the 2 uses of rock whereas it has been shown that there is not, and (2) the presupposition that there is a contrast going on. The use of the presupposition alone is enough to throw out such an analysis. Furthermore, the translation of kai as "but" would be highly unusual. It is translated as "and" about 95% of the time, but is translated as "but" only 0.4% of the time. Clearly the translational factors favor "and". And there is no lexical support for "but", only the doctrinal bias that you cited. While you are wrong on multiple aspects of your analysis, I'll only mark you off 1 point. (polemikos 8; havoc 0)

But your church has said the testimony of peter is the rock of foundation. How do you square the two versions.

Are you making an argument here somewhere? Go back and read my original. The rabbinic expression is completely compatible with Matt 16. Two different covenants. Two different actions of God. Two different peoples. There is no difference that needs to be squared. They are completely compatible and consistent, especially if you believe that "Scripture interprets Scripture".

Or are you trying to bring in the CCC here somewhat surreptitiously? Is "Rock" also a metaphor for Peter's confession of faith? Sure, but that's a symbolic interpretation. In a way the confession prefigures, but does not substitute for, Peter's role in building the church. It is God granting to Peter divine knowledge. But that also means that something extraordinary will now be required of Peter. Read that last sentence again. "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required" (Lk 12:48) This simple fisherman now has a church to run, and in the end, he'll be asked to make the ultimate sacrifice. Incredible poignancy. (polemikos 9; havoc 0)

P: Peter alone is given the keys. In ancient Jewish culture, and in the OT (e.g., Is 22:22), the keeper of the keys was the chief steward under the King.
H: Not so.

Not so? Not so? Your problem with my argument is the 2 facts I gave? Sheesh. Peter alone was given the keys. In ancient Jewish culture, and in the OT, the chief steward under the King was the keeper of the keys. Those are gimmees. Your argument suggests that they are not true. I gotta knock a point off for just for sloppiness. (polemikos 10; havoc 0)

Christ opens and no one shuts, shuts and no one opens.

But the Bible doesn't say that, now does it. And the passage you are referring to, Is 22:22, is talking about a steward, not a son of the king. Furthermore, in the whole of the passage, Is 22:15-25, the former steward is deposed, and the new steward is installed. The functions described are administrative, not salvational. The steward is not of the house of David, but represents the house of David. He never ascends to the throne, but represents the king. As a metaphor for the earthly leaders of Judaism/Christianity, the parallels are striking. Sorry, but your attempt to shoe-horn Christ into the passage just doesn't work. (polemikos 11; havoc 0)

You are a rock (piece of) but on the Mountain from which you broke off, I'll build of me... It's a play on words for demonstrative purposes.

There's that faulty Greek again. And you're forgetting (again) that he used Cephas originally. But I won't mark it as a double error this time, it's late. (polemikos 12; havoc 0)

P: Examine the way Matt 16:16-19 is structured.
H: Who cares.

Well, that sums up your attitude nicely. Havoc is on a truth diet. (polemikos 13; havoc 0)

All this junk about Peter is merely Rome's means to an end - that being to try and control the church by puffing Peter into something he wasn't. In the doing, they obscure the gospel truth.

I see several problems with this simplistic approach. First, the early church fathers held Catholic beliefs. Go get Jurgens and read it. You'll be amazed. Second, the early church fathers had to fight heresy. Sloppy belief systems were not allowed. Since the remaining belief system was Catholic, it is a "fundamental" error to say that they weren't. Third, Jesus says the gates of hell will not prevail against his church? When exactly do you claim that the gates of hell prevailed? For no matter when you think the early church became corrupt, it was the only game in town. And since it hasn't existed for 2,000 years until your "fundamental" flavor came along, then your argument reduces to "Jesus was wrong". No thanks. Along that path madness lies.

Final Score: polemikos 14; havoc 0

Thanks for playing. Now go hit the showers.

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.