Testimony of a Former Irish Priest

BereanBeacon.Org ^ | Richard Peter Bennett

[Cronos]

Iscool: "Peter means little rock"

MD: "Let me get this straight. You're saying Peter was from Arkansas? "

You impugn iscool, perhaps he means to say that Pete (or let's call him by the nickname Kepha) was born in Arkansas, but went fishing in Alaska and got a bit lost. Kepha then got on a Chinese junk heading to Aden and then hitch-hiked to Galilee.

[narses]

“Most Early Church Fathers DID NOT take this verse to mean that the Church was built on Peter.”

What fake pastor fed you that line of phosphate?

[Lera]

The point of my post was about state sanctioned religion.
When you have it and you are basically forced to pay to that religion it gives that religion power . The Roman Catholic Church was built on and gained it’s power this way.
(this is still going on in some south American countries and they are still persecuting Protestants too in areas which they controll)

It is not that I disagree that Spain had the right to expel muslims or fight them since they were invaders (invaders that also forced people to convert) But the state sanctioned Church also went after the Jews and forced them to convert or be killed (oh and they killed a lot of them after they converted also) The Jews btw have never forced their religion on anyone and they certainly did not in Spain either.

The Protestants are not free of this guilt either as the Lutherans basically did the same to the Anabaptist.

[Cronos]

one consequence of the utter neglect given to the period between, say, the reign of Augustus and the rise of Luther is that people have NO IDEA of the political turmoil and chaos all over the the Mediterranean littoral and Europe for hundred and hundreds of years. The idea that peoples from north eastern Europe stomped through Spain and occupied North Africa, or that Muslims went roaring back the other way and darn near got into France (and, much later ,Vienna) is just not known, and so its effect on society and on the wild fears of the people is not appreciated.

Truly spoken. Can you imagine it in your head? in 21 BC Octavian becomes Princep and the Republic is over, though no one realises it for decades until Caligula. Then, we have the year of the 4 Emperors in 69 AD, then, in another blink of an eye we have the 4 good Emperors starting with Trajan who extends the Roman Empire so that it rules over Iraq!

Then another 100 years and the Empire is in chaos from the time of Maximilian the Thracian. Then a century of chaos before Domitian

Then, in 300 AD, from out of nowhere, Christianity becomes legal and in a decade becomes the state religion!

Then in 430 AD, the Western empire falls and chaos reigns in Western Europe with Spain falling to Visigoths, North Africa to Vandals, Britannia to Jutes, Angles, Frisians and Saxons, Gaul to a new consolidated tribe, the Franks, Italy to the Lombards, Dacia to the Ostrogoths and Visigoths

And behind the scenes of this Germanic invasion of the Empire is the hidden forces that pushed the Germanics eastward -- the push of the Huns, the Cumans, the Bulgars (Onagur Bulgars being pushed west by Onagur Bulgars), the Magyars etc.

None of these posters realise that until the 7th century the Bulgarians were feared pagans who ruled over all of what is now the Balkans and threatened Byzantine (though in a strange turn of events, in 718 the Bulgar Khan Terzel saved Europe by destroying the Arab seige of Constantinople, pushing Arab forces back to lower Syria).

Do they realise that the Magyars were feared heathens until the 9th century, that Slavs were pagans until the 9th and 10th centuries and that Lithuanians were pagans until the 13th?

Mix that with Arabs coming out of nowhere and destroying the old enemy -- Persia and conquering it and then conquering all of NOrth Africa and pushing into Europe.

Tumultous times.

[Cronos]

Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant "small stone" and "large rock" in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant "rock." If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. The missionary’s argument didn’t work and showed a faulty knowledge of Greek. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).

And, you need to note that though the gospel was written In Greek, it was spoken in Aramaic. in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form). The word Kepha means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’

Probably you are right about some Church Fathers -- but which? Do you have any names or links, please?

[Cronos]

The Roman Catholic Church was built on and gained it’s power this way.

Actually, No. A cursory glance of history will show that your statement is incorrect. The Church post the fall of the Roman Empire had NO such power. From 303 AD until 430 AD, the concentration of power was in Byzantine and the Papacy had little say --> the major discussions were in the East, with the Pope chiming in and also involved in the Councils

From 430, the papacy had to fight for keeping civilisation alive in the midst of attacks and invasions by Vandals, Visigoths, Lombards, Burgundians, Franks, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Angles, Picts, etc. it had no power of this sort as the forces of power were Saxon or Arian (Visigoth).

Under the Carolingians it had control of spiritual matters but the initial kings were strong.

Despite these setbacks, the years from 430 to 900 saw a huge amount of proselytization led by The Church.

The "power" you claim was built on the Church spreading the Gospel, the Word of God to the pagans in the north, west and East.

You then agree that the State was right in converting Muslims?

Also, the state did not sanction the Church to go after the JEws -- have you READ the history of the reconquista????

The Jews were pushed out by secular authorities because the Sephardic Jews were generally sympathetic to the Moors (because the Moors had treated them generally well and had given them positions of power and also the Moors had flourishing trade while the Catholics were poor knights)

The Jews were exiled by the Spanish Kings, not the Church and they mostly went to another Catholic country -- the Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania.... moving from one CAtholic country to another kind of tells you that this was a political move, right?

Finally, your statement atht

"The Jews btw have never forced their religion on anyone"

is false -- under the Maccabees (aha -- now you see the reason for Maccabees 1 and 2), they conquered the Edomites (Idumeans) and forcibly converted them. These Idumeans later came to power in the form of Herod the Great's family. Incidently the Idumeans were also among those defending the city of Jerusalem from the Romans in 69AD, so it's kind of ironic that the descendents of Esau, the Edomites would be destroyed in the defense of Jerusalem.

Also, in Yemen, Around 517/8, a Jewish king called Yusuf Asar Yathar (also known as Dhu Nuwas) usurped the kingship of Himyar from Ma`adkarib Ya`fur Upon gaining power, Yusuf attacked the Aksumite garrison in Zafar, the Himyarite capital, killing many and destroying the church there. The Christian King Kaleb of Axum learned of Dhu Nuwas's persecutions of Christians and Aksumites, and, according to Procopius, was further encouraged by his ally and fellow Christian Justin I of Byzantium, who requested Aksum's help to cut off silk supplies as part of his economic war against the Persians.

[wagglebee]

But this scripture was written in GREEK not ARAMAIC and Petra(rock) and PETROS(small stone) are 2 different words. Conjecture about a fictitious Aramaic version is just that.

There is no conjecture about an Aramaic version,we are talking about what language our Lord was speaking in, NOT what it was later written in. Bear in mind that when Christ said this he was saying it to an unlearned fisherman, not a Greek scholar. Keep in mind that Saint Peter was given the gift of tongues (the REAL GIFT, not the demonic ramblings of some) until the Pentecost.

Most Early Church Fathers DID NOT take this verse to mean that the Church was built on Peter.

Which ones? Which of their writings said this?

They understood it to mean that the church was built on the Confession that Jesus is the Christ.

By this of course you mean Saint Peter's confession? It was not some generic confession, it was Peter's.

[Cronos]

Well, I take it you are a Baptist, hence the bit about Anabaptists.

Both Lutherans in Germany and Anglicans in England (both 1 Generation Protestant groups) persecuted the Anabaptists (2nd generation grouping). Then the Anabaptists birthed the Baptists under John Smyth around 1607 (3rd generation protestant grouping), and they split (not sure, but there was minor persecuting by Baptists on Anabaptists). Of course, most Baptists came to the US and stayed on until they split over slavery to form the SBC and the other Baptists groups. In the meanwhile the Anabaptists came to the US and their descendents are now the Congregationalists.

[Cronos]

Wagglebee, thank you for pointing “Bear in mind that when Christ said this he was saying it to an unlearned fisherman, not a Greek scholar” —> I missed that, that is very important. Jesus could not be accused of using a pun or anything in koine Greek when He spoke to Aramaic to an unlearned fisherman who most probably never left the banks of Galilee before he met Christ

[roamer_1]

the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek.

Then there is no reason to differentiate, and one or the other would have been used - Why use both in the very same sentence?

The more likely sense is in the terminology of construction (as Christ is speaking of building a Church), wherein "petra" is the foundation, or possibly cornerstone, and "petros" is a building stone... a part of the wall.

There is no great difference between building stones. All are more or less the same thing. What is important is Peters confession that Jesus is the Christ. That describes the nature of the "building stones" which Christ will select to build with.

It is the fact that the confession is enabled by the Father - THAT is the salient point... There is no difference among Christ's followers.

That Peter was named is a special thing. For he was the first to confess his Lord. But he is only the first of many such building stones... those hardy stones which form the walls which hell cannot prevail against.

This silly succession nonsense should stop. It is futile, vain, and carnal. There were 120 disciples at Pentecost. It is unknown where all of the twelve went, not to mention the full 120. IF a laying on of hands is necessary to transmit some needful thing, how many times has such exponentially occurred from the hand of each and every one? God only knows... And that, it seems, is how He wants it (that none should boast).

[wagglebee]

The thought has been expressed before on this forum that Jesus Christ would switch back and forth between Greek and Aramaic to somehow ridicule His Disciples.

[Natural Law]

"Sometimes words fail me."

Sometimes? Scan back through your posting history and get back to us with a frequency update.

[Cronos]

roamer: Then there is no reason to differentiate, and one or the other would have been used - Why use both in the very same sentence?

Sigh.... you haven't read the posts, have you? Let me repeat that more clearly for you. Because, as I posted earlier:
1. Jesus spoke Aramaic

2. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’

3. Kepha means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble

4. When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them

5. If kepha means the same as petra, why don’t we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’? Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?" Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures.

In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.

"You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word 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 Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name

. 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 meaning rock.

Is that clear enough -- you use two because of the grammatical structure in KOINE GREEK.


STOP trying to use English grammar to explain texts which were spoken in Aramaic and written in Koine Greek -- both the grammar systems differ from English.

If you spoke a language other than English or Spanish (which are both relatively simple grammatically), you would see that grammar can differ wildly across languages)

[Cronos]

This problem with using English to try and explain what was written in a different language leads to translation issues and is one of the key failing of the current 5th and 6th generation protestant groupings (not to mention the earlier ones) —> hence why sola scriptura fails so badly and so baldly

[Natural Law]

"Really -- check out the demographics statistics for Geneva CITY."

That blows a hole below the waterline in that load of bovine scat we keep hearing about what a model representative democracy Geneva was and how it formed the basis for the American Republic. That thuggish theocracy is more typified by the modern government of Iran than by any legitimate republic in history.

[Cronos]

The thought has been expressed before on this forum that Jesus Christ would switch back and forth between Greek and Aramaic to somehow ridicule His Disciples.

Ah, I see, and I suppose that the lot who voiced that also believed that He made limericks and other puns as well, playing practical jokes on the illiterate fishermen like Simon?

[Natural Law]

"I wouldn't worship in a Roman Catholic church."

Because the OPC doesn't worship. Its services consist of an alter pontiff preaching to the masses and appealing to their vanities with distorted scripture about their elect position and theological superiority.

[Cronos]

nl:

When one will stoop to citing the likes of the “Rev.” Ian Paisley and Jonathan Smedley to support their argument all hope of objectivity, truth and fairness have been cast aside in an effort to falsely arrive at a point. Their works do not support your argument, they actually undermine your credibility in that your only objective standard for truth is anything that satisfied your prejudice. It does, however explain your hours away from the thread. You were obviously frantically searching the web to harvest nuggets supportive of your position instead of participating in legitimate scholarly research. Its a good thing you never attempted to earn your living in academia or science. If you did you would be posting from the public library on a county owned computer.

Yes, our doc does seem to like Angelfire blogs to provide her "proof" and then dressing them up as impartial websites.

And, she hasn't responded to either of my questions:
1. She said she doesn't like the kneeling, the icons, the Crucifix, the incense and the Eucharist (True Presence of Christ) that is there in Catholic and Orthodox churchs and would go to any non-Church group. Yet, when confronted with the fact that both Lutherans and Traditional Anglicans DO have these, she does not respond. Evidently she can't

2. I asked her specifically if she supported Kenneth Copeland's teachings (the guy who says that we are "mini gods") and she is strangely mum --> I guess it's because Kenneth is non-Catholic, so perhaps any teaching is fine for the Doc as long as it is non-Catholic?

[Quix]

Thanks for your kind reply. Not sure what you’re asking of me.

SYSTEMS/NON-SYSTEMS is a very useful construct to me.

Of course I think it can be useful to discuss the timelessness of God and the implications of that.

I also think it is essential to discuss the human SYSTEMS of RELIGION (PRODDY AND RC) AND THEIR implications, strengths, weaknesses.