Question for Freeper Catholics

1/27/04 | LS

[LS]

You may yell at me at any time. I'm used to abuse.

[AAABEST]

Well I can't possibly be expected to yell freely while I'm so busy empathizing.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Forget it. Your responses are too numberous and long. Your heresy hunting is boring. Cya.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Lol. You've got them all spitting up their soup. I'm glad you're living today because if this were 1500 years ago you wouldn't be around dude.

[OLD REGGIE]

So, the Catholic interpretation is supported by the linguistic, syntactic, contextual, historic, symbolic, and scriptural evidence.

Except neither Jesus nor the other Apostles agreed with the "Catholic" interpretation.

Luke 22:
[24] A dispute also arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.
[25] And he said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors.
[26] But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.
[27] For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves.

[Havoc]

Yep. I know. 22 replies over night. This is the chat version of a lynching rofl. Beware the doctrine of the pharisees ;) Their doctrine is more damaging than their rhetoric.

[Havoc]

Same old same old, Reg. You can say the same thing on 20 threads, quote the same material and if you didn't do it on this thread, the usual suspects pounce as though they'd never heard it before. (shaking head and laughing). Would be nice to just gather them all in one place and have done with it once and for all then let them all run off screaming for their pitchforks..

[OLD REGGIE]

(Reg) 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.

What different audience?

Do you imply John 21 isn't valid? That it is not true Scripture?

John quotes the words of Jesus. Is John lying? Does Jesus go out of His way to identify "Simon, son of John" as Peter?

You ignore Scripture which doesn't fit your little pidgeon hole.

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

Do you accept Scripture in it's face? Do you accept that the bulk of the New Testament was written in Greek rather than in Aramaic?

If Jesus wanted Matthew to be recorded in Aramaic rather than Greek He would have seen to it. In the meanwhile your argument of "what it would be if..." is nothing but noise.

Bleat away!

[1rudeboy]

Does anyone have a link to the article, posted a week or so ago, that described proposed changes to the Catholic Mass? I specifically recall a variation of the "And also with you" response. Thanks in advance.

[pegleg]

Does anyone have a link to the article, posted a week or so ago, that described proposed changes to the Catholic Mass? I specifically recall a variation of the "And also with you" response. Thanks in advance.

I believe you're referring to this:

"Gone is the familiar “And also with you” response to the priest’s greeting, “The Lord be with you.” According to the draft translation, the congregation would respond, “And with your spirit,” a more literal rendering of the Latin. "

Here's the link

New Mass Translation

[OLD REGGIE]

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.

Sheese. Did you ever wonder why James was listed before Peter? Did you ever wonder why Peter didn't have any authority over the other Apostles?

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?

What power did the "keys" give to Peter which wasn't given to the other Apostles? (Hint: NONE!)

[OLD REGGIE]

Matthew and Mark are thought to have been written in Aramaic -- they were aimed at a Jewish audience.

You know what "thought" did don't you?

[Havoc]

Backtracking - uh, no. It wasn't my charge. I merely said it isn't unbelievable on it's face because of prior catholic practice. You seem to have lost your mind on this one. Go back and read.

[Havoc]

My philosophy - no. I have no philosophy. I have Scripture and I have Christ as my Master. All I'm doing is showing the absence of any real proof on your own side. I'm not offering proof, just showing how simple it is to plausibly shoot you down with nothing more than scripture and common sense. You quote these "early fathers" of yours on Peter's presence in Rome yet there is no proof these men themselves were christian - much less that they had any direct evidence or knowledge that Peter ever went there. In court this is what is legally called heresay. And absent proper support for how a person comes to make statements that are otherwise unsupportable, any attourney worth his graduation papers would shred this and have it thrown out straitaway. Quoting people is not scholarship.
Quoting people who know something and can back it up is scholarship.

[Havoc]

A factual error - no. The reason that Koine Greek was used in Writing the New testament was primarily attributed to the fact that Koine Greek was the trade language of the time and especially in the regions for which the letters were written. This is why your side so regularly invokes the LXX in discussion. Whatever argument it takes for the moment - eh. Truthful or not...

[Havoc]

More "Arguments" from you. Christ was wholly human and wholly divine. To lead humans he would have accepted the limitations of being human -- or are you playing the temptor during the days in the desert? One of hte limitations would be the languages known to him.

Arguments from me - what did you expect, this is a discussion. You're the one who opined that Christ spoke Aramaic to the exclusion of other languages by way of insinuation. I'm just using your own position against you to show the absurdity of said position.

[pegleg]

What power did the "keys" give to Peter which wasn't given to the other Apostles? (Hint: NONE!)

FWIW a post on the "keys" from a very old Neverending Thread posted by dignan3:

Check it out

Hey Reg, the Pats gonna do it today?

[Havoc]

Proof Herr Goebbels?

So bankrupt you have to resort to name calling, huh. Not that I'm trying to score debate points; but, usually, if your position is defenseable, you work on your position. If it isn't then the name calling starts, etc. I'm amazed it took this long..

[Havoc]

Plenty of evidence from scripture? Where?

[Havoc]

No, Havoc prefers scripture to hearsay and philosophy and prefers facts to vacant claims. There is a two or three year old standing request in the Christian Chronicles to provide one single undeniable irrefutable solitary evidence that Peter ever was in Rome. Tax records, record of arrest, record of trial, record of purchase of property - things which btw exist in the archeological realm for Paul; but, amazingly not for Peter who your clergy claims to have been there for 25 years (in one of the many versions). Nada. I've been through these debates endlessly and not merely on this forum. I'm used to the cut and paste tracts that you guys post endlessly as though they mean something because they were authored by your clergy and reference statements that cannot be either corraborated nor supported.