Posted on 06/03/2009 12:00:38 PM PDT by blue-duncan
Well....you may think it's fixed.....but I'm not a Protestant and I don't know if that is their position or not. My theology is "First Century Christianity" which predates yours by about 300 years. The scriptures I have offered demolish your Church/State theology quite adequately. If you disagree with those passages it would behoove you to provide some of your own.....to show me my error.
When one is presented with Biblical passages that differ with their preconceived ideas, one should attempt to find the mistake in understanding of those passages instead of just casting about aspersions.
"There, I fixed it for you", tells me a great deal about your ability to discuss this subject.....so I'll understand it if you don't respond with proof of my error.
As a side note.....I am not a supporter of Martin Luther and his efforts to bring "Catholic Lite" to this world. In fact, I'm further from Protestantism than you are!
The Ru'ach HaKodesh chose to have it written in Koine Greek. You miss one important point, the Good News was not written in Aramaic !
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
“The scriptures I have offered demolish your Church/State theology”
...tells me a great deal about your ability to discuss this subject.
I believe I have already shown you your error.
What a simplistic view of biblical history...
St. Papias and Irenaeus stated that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic presumably for Aramaic speakers in Syria-Palestine, while the Gospel of Mark was written for the Greek speaking Christians of Rome, who would not have known Aramaic fluently, but who might have become familiar with certain phrases from the preaching of the Apostles or the liturgy, just as the words “Alleluia”, “Amen”, “Abba”, “Hosanna” and “Sabaoth” are still in common usage in the western liturgy.
Irenaeus lived from ~ CE to 202 CE Were they eyewitness' ? I don't think so. You would impugn the Holy Spirit (Ru'ach HaKodesh) There is lots of very good scholarly research to That is based on Hebraisms in the text. We know that the texts which we have are in Koine Greek. One needs to take the text at face value and not speculate.Papias lived 70 CE to 150 CE
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
and believe mortal men.
suggest that Matthew was first written in Hebrew.
Speculation leads to error. NAsbU Psalm 146:3 Do not trust in princes,
In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
You didn't show me one thing. What you did was post more of your "YADA YADA YADA"!
Your cut and paste included three scriptures [Matthew 16:13-20][Mark 8:27-30] & [Luke 9:18-21]. All these say is that He was addressing His disciples. We've already gone over Matthew in detail so let me show you your error in Mark and Luke.
[Mark 8:27-30] Douay-Rheims 27 And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi. And in the way, he asked his disciples, saying to "them": Whom do men say that I am? 28 "Who" answered him, saying: John the Baptist; but some Elias, and others as one of the prophets. 29 Then he saith to "them": But whom do "you" say that I am? Peter answering said to him: Thou art the Christ. 30 And he strictly charged "them" that "they" should not tell any man of him.
Don't you really think that by this time they had discussed among themselves just who this guy, "Jesus of Nazareth" really was? Peter was answering for the group! The rest of them were not standing around scratching their heads!
[Luke 9:18-21] Douay-Rheims 18 And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples also were with him: and he asked "them", saying: Whom do the people say that I am? 19 But "they" answered, and said: John the Baptist; but some say Elias; and others say that one of the former prophets is risen again. 20 And he said to "them": But whom do "you" say that I am? Simon Peter answering, said: The Christ of God. 21 But he strictly charging "them", commanded "they" should tell this to no man.
These two passages in Mark and Luke duplicate the passage of Matthew. Our Lord is asking all of them the questions. He responds to all of them as you can see by my highlights. The only thing different about Matthew is the fact, in that passage.....He refers to Himself as the Rock. I already proved that in my earlier post with my scriptures that back up everything that I said about it. Your response does not address those points........one iota!
How about the fact that the book was written in Greek.....not Aramaic?
How about the fact that John calls "Cephas" a stone [1:42]?
How about the fact that "Petra" is the Greek word used to describe Our Lord in [I Corinthians 10:4]?
How about the fact that "Petra" always describes a large rock.....or Christ in scripture [Matthew 7:24-25]?
How about the fact that even the Latin Vulgate agrees in [John 1:42] that Cephas is a little stone?
How about the fact that Our Lord again reiterates to all the Disciples in [Matthew 18:18-20] that they all have the power to loose and bind.....as He previously told them all in [Matthew 16:19]?
Everyone of these facts were not addressed but instead I received nothing but more Roman Catholic tradition. What I gave you was not just claptrap but inspired words from scripture......by the Holy Spirit. You, evidently thought they were unimportant.
Now, if you want to continue this discussion I would recommend you find something more substantial than myths and fairy tales to back up your position! You take one isolated passage and attempt to convince the world that Peter has preeminence. Balderdash! He didn't even go to Rome! The scriptures show him in Jerusalem, Lydda, Joppa, Caesarea, Antioch and Babylon. He is never heard of again after [Acts 15] until he writes his own books from Babylon. But you folks attempt build an entire theology around him because of an invented tradition!
[Galatians 2:7-9] 7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
To the lurkers in Rio Linda......this means that Peter was commissioned to go to the House of Israel [Matthew 10:5-6].....Jews and Israelites of the dispersion.......and they weren't in Rome! You gotta trust me on this....... Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles [Acts 9:15]. In fact, Paul is even in Rome (where there were Gentiles)....a couple of times in scripture. Who would have thunk? :)
That exclamation point at the end makes your answer so much more truthy!
LOL
Peter was the one in the group (which Jesus was addressing and continued to address) who answered correctly.
Your projection onto truth of what you want so much to be there does not put it there.
CE?
LOL
AD means “In the year of our Lord.”
CE is an effort to dump references to our Lord.
Someone who uses CE probably doesn’t even believe in the Blessed Trinity or the Divinity of Jesus Christ.
Oh....wait....
Your “facts” are not all that truthy.
...as per usual.
Ask yourself, in general, the value of arguing Christianity with people who don’t believe in the Trinity, who condemn the celebration of the birth of Christ and the Sunday when Christ was resurrected.
What is the point?
ROTFLMAOAPIMPRFI!
The Catholic Church was founded by Christ circa AD 33.
Your particular flavor of grave error came about around 1850.
OK, I get the ROTFLMAO what does AIMPRFI mean?
But it was not written in Attic Greek, the only Greek in which that distinction exists.
Petronski...you are a genius, really.
It’s a typo.
Should be APIMPRFI.
Oh yeah?
Well, I can out-maudlin you...I absolutely love that tagline.
lol...thanks :)
Tap tap tap
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.