Posted on 05/15/2008 8:29:34 AM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
In the beginning of the church (first ten years) all the believers were Jews. The church began and was established in Jerusalem where Jesus did a good portion of his preaching and was crucified and raised.
The gospel went out from Jerusalem "you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth" Acts 1:8
Luke 24:47-48 that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (see Acts 10:36-37)
It wasn’t until years later that the gospel went to the Gentiles Acts 8:1 “At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.”
It was Saul who was given the commission who bought the gospel to the Gentile regions, even Rome., Paul tells his story to Agrippa Acts 26:19-20 "Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea , and then to the Gentiles."
The "Jerusalem Council" in Acts 15 shows us a number of things- first, Rome was not headquarters of the Church; Jerusalem was the focus (not the head) because the Jewish leadership had to decide on how to act with the Gentiles being saved in great numbers A serious doctrinal disagreement had arisen with the Gentiles beginning to be saved. Paul was present because he was the main apostle sent out to the gentiles with Barnabas. Then the Apostles and Elders met to consider the matter (15:6). If Peter had any special authority above all the other apostles, he would have called the Council together, officiated at the meeting, and given his final judgment in these matters by himself, but he did not. There was no Pope over the church then. James, who was the pastor of the Jerusalem church stood up and became the central figure in this council, and his appeal was in agreement with the other elders, it was to the Word of God and the Spirit (Acts 15:13-21) not to the church itself.
It was not until the early 300’s the church stopped hiding underground from persecution and became a legal entity that the power was shifted to pagan Rome, specifically under Constantine the conqueror. The Pope became like the Caesars before him in Rome, only now with a Christian veneer. First there was little influence, but the doors slowly swung open to allow the pagans to enter the church through water baptism instead of a confession of faith. The church mixed other teachings not found in the Bible and polluted itself to becoming religious and giving meaning to the outward rituals not understanding their spiritual intent.
Christ Himself is the Head of the Church. He didn’t appoint anyone else to be the Head.
Yes, Cornelius "was" a "man of God", but he was NOT a Christian, yet. PETER was sent to bring him into the new Covenanat. What PAUL was doing at the time is irrelevant. The fact remains that PETER (supposedly "sent to the circumscribed") did the job---not Paul.
As to which Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, it doesn't matter. The key fact is that it was NOT Paul.
The facts on the ground say the notion that only Paul was to take the "Good News" to the Gentiles is BS. All Apostles preached to anyone interested in the message. Which is what makes sense.
Do you ACTUALLY think that Paul, after preaching to a crowd, and having a Jew come up afterwards and say "Master, I believe and want to be baptized", that Paul would say "Sorry, Charlie, but you're a Jew---you've got to wait 'til Peter or one of the other Apostles "sent to the Jews" shows up." I think not.
And the same (in reverse) applies to Peter. I can't imagine Peter, after preaching to the Jews, and having a Gentile ask for baptism, would refuse to do so.
But your interpretation is typical of Protestant exegesis practice of pulling verses out of context of the whole of Scripture to justify your anti-Catholic prejudices.
..”good point about James as first head of the “Christian Church”, not Peter...”
James was the first bishop of Jerusalem. I don’t think that translates into the first head of the “Christian Church”. Scripture repreatedly speaks of Peter as the head (both in the Gospels through the words of Jesus, and in Acts.), and the one to whom disputes were brought in the early church. Certainly Paul respected Peter as the head.
Both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome where a large group of Christians, both Jews and Gentiles has emerged.
The old Aramaic Peshitta of Matthew has Keepa/Keepa with no distinction like we find in Attic petros/petra, i.e. "You are Keepa, and upon this Keepa I will build my Church".
Here's a pdf of Matt 16 in Aramaic with the interlinear translation
So we shouldn't care what the early Christians said? The men who sat the feet of the Apostles and were personally appointed by the Apostles to head the Church after they died? We shouldn't care what the Christians of the catacombs wrote, before the pagans marched them off to hideous deaths for the name of Christ?
Besides, if these men were part of the pure undefiled Church of Antiquity before it was corrupted by Constantine, what harm would come from reading them? Wouldn't they be great ammunition to finally prove the Romanists wrong?
*
>> The “Jerusalem Council” in Acts 15 shows us a number of things- first, Rome was not headquarters of the Church; <<
At the time of the Jerusalem Council, I don’t think there was even a community in Rome, yet. But to say that there wasn’t one in the AD 30s is a far cry from saying there wasn’t any until the AD 300s. The rest simply has no relation to reality, but to show how ahistorical the notion of “Constantinian Catholicism” is.
>> The Pope became like the Caesars before him in Rome, only now with a Christian veneer. <<
There were emperors for 150 years after Constantine in the West, and for 1200 years after Constantine in the East, including several who were martyred for opposing the emperor, who retained full temporal control over the state. It’s an accusation that confirms Protestants’ prejudices, but is without meaning at all.
>> First there was little influence, but the doors slowly swung open to allow the pagans to enter the church through water baptism... <<
Yeah, that wasn’t biblical.
>> ...instead of a confession of faith. <<
Has the author ever been to, read, or even seen on television a Catholic mass? Has he ever heard of The Nicene Creed? The Apostle’s Creed? Confirmation?
At least it follows scripture....not fairy tales.
Let's count your errors in this short post.
The Apostles were FIRST directed to go to the Jews, because the Jews were to be offered the new Covenant first---only after they had rejected the Covenant did Christ then direct the Apostles to go "and make disciples of all nations" (note, not the "...Jews of all nations...").
The Apostles were not directed to the Jews first. They were sent to the House of Israel....[Matthew 10:5-6] all twelve tribes. The Jews were only one of the twelve!
The fact remains that PETER (supposedly "sent to the circumscribed") did the job---not Paul.
[Galatians 2:17] But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) The reason he did the job was because Our Lord had not yet made Paul available. Why do you think the Holy Spirit would have inspired the above verses if Peter's commission to the Israelites was not valid?
As to which Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, it doesn't matter. The key fact is that it was NOT Paul.
The fact it was not the Apostle Philip is extremely important. He was obviously obeying the command of [Matthew 10:5-6] and staying away from the Gentiles. When Peter and John go to Samaria at the behest of James [Acts 8:14] this whole can of worms....with Simon Magus and his "Universal" church, opens up.
The facts on the ground say the notion that only Paul was to take the "Good News" to the Gentiles is BS.
Love your language....by the way. I never said Paul was to only take the word to the Gentiles. His commission was to everyone: [Acts 9:15] But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.
All Apostles preached to anyone interested in the message. Which is what makes sense.
Simply not true. Would you care to provide Chapter & Verse?
O.K. Count "Em". Five major errors.....or.... just about everything you said!
It's all Greek to me :)
Anyway -- I wonder how many words there are for "rock" in the Aramaic, because in the Hebrew there are two main words for "rock" -- the Hebrew "tsur" and "cela" -- both massive rocks that can be used as foundations or strongholds.
But Jesus did not use those words for Peter's surname. Instead he called him "Cephas" -- "Keepa" in Aramaic from "keph" in Hebrew which means "a hollow rock".
A hollow rock is certainly not something that you would use as the foundation of your church [although many churches are built over grottos].
[although many churches are built over grottos].
;-)
Please not the difference between the NASB and the Douay
It adds to the Holy Word of Elohim !In order to support man-made tradition !
So, when the Apostle Thomas evangelized India, he was only evangilizing the Jews (excuse me--"people of Hebrew ancestry") in India?? Sorry, but I don't think so.
And the evidence of Paul evangelizing Jews AND Gentiles is found throughout the New Testament, so it is obvious that the "...to the circumcision..." and "...to the uncircumsized.." were not exclusive domains, but overlapped.
There is no substantive difference there.
The Greek in John 1:42 is (transliterating here) hermeneuetai. My Liddell-Scott Greek lexicon defines hermeneuo as “to interpret foreign tongues; to interpret, put into words, give utterance to.” Clearly there’s a range of meaning, but the first definition is to interpret foreign tongues, so “translate” in English would be perfectly appropriate.
Also, look at the other instances of that same verb in the NT.
John 9:7: “the pool of Siloam, which is interpreted (hermeneuetai) as Sent”.
Hebrews 7:2: “His name [Melchizedek] being interpreted(hermeneuomenos) “king of righteousness”.”
“Interpret” and “translate” are both perfectly acceptable renderings in English. Any way you slice it, what it means is clear. Cephas was the name in Aramaic which was then rendered Petros in Greek.
So we shouldn’t care what the early Christians said?
Especially those who recorded the words of Christ and wrote what we now accept as the Holy Bible. Why would anyone listen to them?
What is in [brackets] is not part of the text but is commentary.The D-R has added to the Holy Word of Elohim by removing the brackets.
Sorry for the confusion, but I added the square brackets just for context to show it was Melchizedek being referred to. The parentheses I added as well to show the underlying Greek form of the NT. Neither are in the Douay-Rhiems.
In any case, the point was that hermeneuo in Greek can certainly mean “to translate”. So Jn 1:42 can be correctly rendered “Cephas, which to be translated, is Peter.”
Where are you getting this derivation? Any Hebrew cognate of this word is interesting, but you can't use that cognate as evidence to supersede the meaning it actually has in Aramaic.
To wit, if you go to Jimmy Akin's site, you'll see this very issue of "hollow rock" is discussed.
Forget about the apologetic stuff there for the moment, and just skip down to the center of the thread, where you'll see a scan Jimmy has from "A Compendious Syriac Dictionary" by R. Payne Smith. Syriac is of course a dialect of Aramaic.
Take a look at the definitions there that are given for Kepha: stone, rock, stone vessel, column, idol, grindstone, whetstone, millstone, etc. Nothing there about hollowness. You could probably make a case for a vessel being a hollow stone. But there are plenty more meanings where you can't....whoever heard of a hollow grindstone or millstone?
Let's read the text in the NASBu and the Douay-Rheims.
NAsbU John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas " (which is translated Peter).
DRA John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona. Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.
Cephas GSN-3739 also used in 1 CO 1:12, 1 CO 3:22, 1 CO 9:5, 1 CO 15:5 Gal 2:9, Gal 2:11 & Gal 2:14
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
I have no clue why the NASBu translators put that in parentheses...that's commonly done because the phrase is not attested in all MS. But I'm not sure why here, I'll have to research that.
Meanwhile, take a look at this page:
http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B43C001.htm#V42
You will see that all the Greek texts cited here have the phrase in question: o ermhneuetai Petros . There are no parentheses in the original Greek, nor are there any indications that this phrase is "commentary".
The King James has no parentheses. The Noah Webster has no parentheses.
What we are seeing here is not the Douay-Rhiems translators taking something out, but the translators of the NASBu putting something extra in.
"The Bene Israel ("Sons of Israel") lived primarily in the cities of Bombay (now Mumbai), Pune, Karachi (now in Pakistan), and Ahmadabad. The native language of the Bene Israel was Judeo-Marathi. They arrived in India nearly 2,100 years ago after a shipwreck stranded seven Jewish families from Judea at Navagaon near Alibag, just south of Mumbai."
The above is from This Link!
When the House of Israel was exiled (721 B.C.) there is no Biblical mention of their return.....however the House of Judah returned (from Babylon) to Jerusalem from their exile (125 years later) in about 525 B.C. and is chronicled in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah.
These two Houses of The Lord God's chosen people constitute all of ancient Israel. This is to whom the original twelve Apostles were sent [Matthew 10:5-6]. After the Assyrian Empire imploded (600 B.C.) the Israelites taken there [II Kings 17:6] were then free to migrate throughout the world......which they did!
And the evidence of Paul evangelizing Jews AND Gentiles is found throughout the New Testament, so it is obvious that the "...to the circumcision..." and "...to the uncircumcised.." were not exclusive domains, but overlapped.
You are correct! Like I said in post #88....Paul was free to go anywhere he wished....to Gentiles or to Israelites. There was one time the Holy Spirit did not allow him to intrude on Peter's mission to the Israelites and you can find that here: [Acts 16:6-7] Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia, After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not.
Bithynia was in the area to which Peter had been given the responsibility of carrying the word to the Israelites. Let's look at it in scripture.
[1 Peter 1:1-2] Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
Do you see how Peter calls them "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God?" These folks were not Gentiles....as many have thought....they were remnant Israelites left over from the dispersion to Assyria 700 years earlier.
Strangers scattered........The Greek: 3927. parepidemos (par-ep-id'-ay-mos)an alien alongside, i.e. a resident foreigner......1290. diaspora (dee-as-por-ah')dispersion, i.e. (specially and concretely) the (converted) Israelite resident in Gentile countries.
In addition to Paul evangelizing just about anyone he wanted to talk to.....so were his companions allowed: Luke, Barnabas, Timothy, Mark....etc, etc., but the original Twelve were told to not go to the Gentiles or Samaria but to seek out the Tribes of Israel.....all twelve!
Now....if you can find me some scripture that would indicate Peter and the other original eleven spent their time among the Gentiles....I would be willing to read it. When you cast aside your phony traditions and really understand what The Lord is saying in the Holy Scriptures.....things start to make sense.
I'm sorry it took so long in getting back.....been an extremely busy day.
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.