Posted on 03/08/2015 10:34:58 AM PDT by RaceBannon
Another canard, but let me answer by using an argument that Roman Catholics have used -- "Well, the "Trinity" is never named in the Bible either, but it is true, no?"
Sola Scriptura states that all we need to know for salvation is contained in scripture... scriptures that were present in the form of what is now the Old Testament as well as the letters and writings that constitute the New Testament. The Roman Catholic Church compiled those scriptures and then withheld them from those it claimed to serve. The Bible that the Roman Cult abuses and misquotes and misinterprets to the danger of so many that cling to the cult.
As for completeness, that is your opinion; but what you said afterward is more telling: Catholics searching for completeness... as if they (or anyone) can obtain anything resembling completeness. And the saddest part is that Catholics need look no further than the scripture to find completeness in Jesus Christ. It's Christ, and Christ alone that provides completeness and completion. He completed the work of salvation on the cross for those whom the Father calls and who believe by faith alone in Christ.
But sadly, the Catholic Cult doesn't teach that -- it teaches a false gospel - -a gospel of faith AND works. Which isn't in the Bible anywhere, particularly not in the horrendously misinterpreted and falsely taught scriptures in James.
So, I hope, and I pray, that instead of searching for completeness, Catholics start trusting in Christ alone -- putting their faith in Christ alone -- and if they do that, they'll never long for completion ever again.
Hoss
Great post.
I’ve found He reals something even greater in the observation to Simon Barjona.
Think in terms of the roles of the persons in the Trinity. Discern their identity, and why they are presented to us.
Our Lord and Savior in hypostatic union, is acting in His humanity in this verse. He is trying to communicate a discerning feature between body, sou, and spirit in His observation.
He also manifests His intent to only perform the Will of the Father.
So He notes, He is going to base His Church upon those elected by God the Father. God the Father has the Plan, God the Son executes the Plan, and God the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son and the Plan in its execution.
The hinge is basing everything upon the Plan of the Father as He reveals to us through faith in what He has already established, provided, and maintains.
>>" but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—"<<
So his position is based on something they cannot prove but only speculation.
Christ spoke to Peter in Aramaic, not Greek.
There is no way to diagram Christ’s words to reach your conclusion in any language.
The twisting is all yours.
There is only one way to read and understand these words which Christ spoke to Peter in Aramaic, not Greeek:
“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Your pretend “exegesis” wasn’t INVENTED until the 16th century.
How do you know he spoke to Peter in Aramaic on this occasion? What is your source for that?
Just curious.
Hoss
The speculation is all yours and wasn’t found necessary until the lie began in the16th century.
Also from the site which you neglected;
The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic Kepha, which means simply “rock.” There would have been no “small rock” to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter.
Even well-respected Protestant scholars will agree on this point. Baptist scholar D. A. Carson, warites, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary:
[T]he underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (”you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses.
Same source:
“we have biblical evidence—John 1:42—that also points to Jesus using Aramaic in the naming of Peter: “[Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas’” (which means Peter).”
"I don't think it means what you think it means" -- "it" being the word exegesis.
What language are the texts for the New Testament written in that we have access to today?
Hoss
Correct; and I don’t think he knows what “exegesis” means. Apparently it wasn’t invented until the 16th century.
News to me.
Hoss
Same source? You mean the same incorrect source? The source that purposefully misinterprets scripture?
Wrong is still wrong.
Hoss
Jews, not Gentile Catholics.
Prove it. Besides, the Holy Spirit inspired the New Testament to be written in Koine Greek and God preserved it in the Koine Greek.
So prove that Matthew was originally written in either Hebrew or Aramaic. No one else has been able to. Maybe you know something they don't?
should be to learn from mistakes, not use them as a standard to always follow.
There have been many who try to use that Hebrew or Aramaic Matthew. None have been able to prove it. Everyone of them has backed Aramaic into the Greek text to try to make their case.
Sorry, but I can believe what the Greek actually says, or I can believe your interpretation derived centuries after the fact.
Not surprised there, CB; typical. If you can't prove it simply and outright, twist it, turn it, pull it inside-out, or just lie.... take your choice(s). I remember reading one commentary (Matthew Henry, maybe) who said something to the effect that until Rome started with it's garbage, this verse was pretty much understood to say what it says; it's only after Rome started trying to twist the meaning that things get hairy.
Yeah... no problem until the 16th century. Sure.
Problems started when Rome needed "proof" for its lies.
Hoss
Yep! Like including the apocrypha to justify false beliefs. The Catholic Church added it to what the Jews, who had been entrusted with the oracles of God, considered scripture. They then try to blame Protestants for removing them.
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.