Posted on 12/10/2014 6:32:20 AM PST by marshmallow
Alas; you've outted me AGAIN!!!
|
To: ealgeone
Why do catholics persist with this false translation when it has been shown and explained this is not how the greek records it nor is it how it should be translated? I'm really curious.
shown and explained by who???those who wandered onto the scene 11,600 years after the event?? my Douay version states Luke 1:28 and the angel being come in said unto her: hail full of grace, the Lord is with thee,blessed art thou among women. Translated 1582. I have no idea of what the kjv says about anything and I'll take the translation from the Vulgate as pretty much the truth.
|
If the FR Catholics were not so darned PUSHY; all this information would have stayed below the radar.
We'll get blamed for not understanding it.
They are RIGHT!
I do NOT understand how they could FALL FOR IT!
You sure are a stubborn cuss!
“Why can’t your church decide which is RIGHT?”
The premise of your question makes no sense. The interpretations handed down are valid for what they are. They all present different facets of the truth about Christ and the establishment of the Church. What is “RIGHT” is to denounce only what is wrong - and that error would be to exclude the interpretation that Peter is the Rock. And that is exactly what the Church does.
“I posted quotes from YOUR leaders that AGREE with the Protestant view.”
No. First of all, what Protestant view? Here is a Protestant view:
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.
...
Craig S. Keener, another Protestant scholar, on page 90 of The IVP Bible Background Commentary of the New Testament, states: “In Greek (here), they (referring to petros and petra) are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period…” D. A. Carson points out the big/small distinction did exist in Greek, but is found only in ancient Greek (used from the eighth to the fourth century B.C.), and even there it is mostly confined to poetry. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek (used from the fourth century B.C. to the fifth century A.D.). Carson agrees with Keener and with Catholics that there is no distinction in definition between petros and petra.”
Okay, so there’s a Protestant view - that Peter is the Rock.
Or:
How about Oscar Cullman - another Protestant - in Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament:
“The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text . . . suggests a material identity between petra and Petros . . . as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. . . . Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . . . The idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable. . . . For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of “thou art Rock” and “on this rock I will build” shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.”
So, we see that the “Protestant view” can be more than one thing on this issue. Clearly sola scriptura has failed again.
Now, if you mean that the Protestant view is Peter’s confession and not Peter himself. you still have a problem. Let’s look at what you wrote: “I posted quotes from YOUR leaders that AGREE with the Protestant view.”
What you wrote there makes no sense whatsoever. It is an anachronism. There have always been Catholics who have written interpretations of Matthew 16 which emphasized Peter’s confession more than Peter’s person as the Rock. The reverse has also been true. The two interpretations are not mutually exclusive when one keeps in mind the four senses of scripture. If you read some early Christian books you’ll see BOTH interpretations side-by-side. What the Churhc teaches is that you can’t exclude the idea that Peter is the Rock - which is what some Protestants do and what I think you are trying to present as the “Protestant view” when I just showed you it is not as universal among Protestants are you might assume.
“I will wait for you (or any othetr Catholic reading this) to post QUOTES from Catholic Leaders that show the OTHER ‘interpretation(s)’.”
I posted where to find them. I also listed a paragraph from the CCC which shows the influence of both. So, keep on waiting if you don’t have the knowledge of how to use google.
“Someone needs to go back to logic class!”
That would be you. Enjoy the class.
“Oh; but I AM!”
Oh, you’ll get there eventually.
Read again what you wrote: You denied that Jesus is God, the Son, the Word, the Second Person of the Trinity.I did nothing of the kind.
Not only is that mindreading, but a personal slam which is untrue. [No, I did not and will not alert the moderator. Seeing you hanging from your own petard is epic confirmation of your error]
The rest of what you wrote?
A continuation of the same satanic propaganda such as your dissertation about Protestants.
Which completely has destroyed your credibility here.
Isn't it time for you to go in your little closet and forgive some sins, "preist?"
BTW, I believe you are a Catholic Priest, you've proven it by your total misunderstanding of Christianity.
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind...
“Alas; you’ve outted me AGAIN!!!”
Well, as anticipated, your post makes no sense. First you make a claim against terycarl because I quoted a Protestant Bible footnote. And I have no idea why you think terycarl would be opposed to its usage when it expresses the truth (i.e. Mary is the mother of the God-man, Jesus).
Then you post a post from terycarl where terycarl says: “I’ll take the translation from the Vulgate as pretty much the truth.” I like the Vulgate too. So? What is your point? Do you actually have one?
Or once not enough...
Both interpretations are allowed.
Oops mistaken identity.
It was not you that claims to be a Priest.
The rest of the last sentence in my previous reply stands.
So you agree that Catholics can obey their faith and go to heaven. We are making progress.
“I did nothing of the kind.”
Well, whatever you did you did it to Arthur McGowan so I suggested you post about it to him. This is his quote you open with not mine: “Read again what you wrote: You denied that Jesus is God, the Son, the Word, the Second Person of the Trinity.” Arthur McGowan is a smart man. I am sure he can set you straight.
I suggest that, in the future, you actually get right to whom you’re posting.
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.