Replies

I don't know about you but I am a one-man business with four homeschooling kids... I don't have time to respond to everything.

Then you should not have boasted that all you hear is crickets to your responses.

If you look at my posting history, you will see that I take as many challenges as one man can reasonably handle... I never shrink from a good debate.

You have not done so here much from what i can see. Maybe other regulars have seen you here more.

I don't claim to be the world's best Scripture scholar. I proclaim what I know and what I've learned. I could be wrong about the Aramaic assertion...

That argument as determinative is refuted by the very fact that the Holy Spirit choose to spread the word in Greek, and as can be seen by duplicate accounts, what He recorded is not necessarily even a verbatim record, as the same Spirit by which Christ spoke sometimes rephrases and expands what was said in providing a fuller revelation. That the Spirit sometimes records something in Aramaic testifies to this being an exception.

In addition, far from being determinative, this linguistical issue is an ongoing scholarly debate. As another among many researchers finds,

...an Aramaic word-play -- I should say, a possible Aramaic word-play, that nobody really understands -- is foundational to Roman and papal authority.

Both David Garland (“Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel”, New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1995) and Everett Ferguson (“The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today”, Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1996) point to the 1990 study by C.C. Caragounis, “Peter and the Rock” (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter)

Here’s Garland’s account:

C.C. Caragounis’s study of this passage carefully argues, however, that the rock refers to something other than Peter. The demonstrative pronoun “this” [in the phrase “on this rock”] logically should refer to something other than the speaker or the one spoken to and would be appropriate only if Jesus were speaking about Peter in the third person and not speaking to him. If Jesus were referring to Peter, it would have been clearer to have, “You are Rock, and upon you I will build my church” (Caragounis 89). Petros usually meant a free-standing “stone” that could be picked up; and petrausually was used to mean “rock,” “cliff,” or “bedrock.” But the two terms could reverse their meaning and no clear-cut distinction can be made between the two (Caragounis, 12, 15). If the two words were intended to refer to the same thing, petros could have been used in both places since it could be used to mean both stone and rock. The use of two different terms in the saying, petros and petra, implies that the two were to be distinguished from each other. More
In any case, the linguistical debate is endless and on going, and the answer is to examine what was said in context and how this is understood in the rest of Scripture.
taking the linguistic gymnastics out of it, Jesus did change Peter's name to "rock" at the exact same time that He discusses on which "rock" He will build His Church.
Peter was evidently named Peter before Mt. 16, but the Lord's use of it relates to his mission as the initial street-level leader among, not above, the 12, but which simply does not translate into the Roman papacy, that of Peter being the first of a line of infallible popes whom all the church looked as its distinctly supreme head in Rome. Nor is Peter the Rock upon whom the church was built, for in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the ancients concur with.
Haven't seen this particular line of reasoning but I'd like to see how your exegesis put Jesus in the role of Prime Minister rather than King. There are clearly defined roles being discussed in Is. 22.
The two offices are not mutually exclusive, Since "God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ," (Acts 2:36) then He is God's Prime Minister, while also being king of the Jews and believers, and must be for all nations in the future, (Rv. 11:15) before He delivers up the kingdom to the Father. (1Co. 15:25)

But first, contrary to the weight RCs place upon this, the Holy Spirit never saw it fitting to mention as being a fulfilled prophecy, and why even argue this unless it is this infallibly taught as referring to Peter as vicar? Is it even in the CCC? Does being read in Mass every 3 years along with Mat. 16:18,19 make it infallible teaching? Is a faithful RC to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of Scripture? No, and thus when i counter RC attempts to support their traditions by Scripture then they typically resort to telling me i need to submit to Rome since she gave me the Bible. Which logic has an interesting conclusion.
In any case, while the language and concept of a key and policing authority seen in Is. 22 is used in Mt. 16:18,19 this does not make it a prophecy of Peter's power (Paul even used language of the Philistines), much less necessitate that the real subject will have successors.
For instead, not only was this prophecy of Eliakim's ascendancy apparently fulfilled in the OT - as 2Ki. 19:1 2Ki. 18:18, 2Ki. 18:37 and Is. 3622, 37:2 all refer to Eliakim being over the house, (bayith, same in Is. 22:15,22) which Shebna the treasurer was, (Is. 22:15) and evidently had much prestige and power, though the details of his actual fall are not mentioned [and who may not be the same as "Shebna the scribe" (sâkan) mentioned later] - but the text actually foretells that,
"In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the LORD hath spoken it." (Isa 22:25)
Whether this refers to Shebna or Eliakim is irrelevant, as it means that being a nail that is fastened in the sure place does not necessarily denote permanency, as it did not here.
However, if we are looking for a future fulfillment with permanency, both the language concept of a key and being a father to the house of David corresponds more fully to Christ, and who alone is promised a continued reign (though when He has put all His enemies under His feet, He will deliver the kingdom to His Father: 1Cor. 15:24-28).
For it is Christ who alone is said to be clothed "with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle," (Rv. 1:13; cf. Is. 22:21) and who came to be an everlasting father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. (Is. 22:21; cf. Heb. 7:14; 8:8; 9:6)
And who specifically is said to be given "the key of the house of David," "so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open," (Is. 22:22) as He now “hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” (Rev. 3:7) and is a nail in a sure place who sits in a glorious throne in His father's house, (Is. 22:23; cf. Rv. 3:7)
And upon Him shall hang “all the glory of his father’s house, the offspring and the issue, ” (Is. 22:24) for He is the head of the body, the church, (Colossians 1:18) "from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,“ (Eph. 4:16) and in Jesus Christ dwells "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col. 2:9)
Thus neither Eliakim nor Peter are shown having this manner of fulfillment, nor does it necessarily denote successors (Christ has none Himself, but took over from the Father).
If this " a nail in a sure place" corresponds to anyone future then it is Christ, and nothing is said of Eliakim having a vice regent. Thus this prophecy is actually contrary to Peter being that Eliakim.
And the strawman that Protestant faith means that have have no appeal to ecclesiastical magisterium...
Can you point me to the infallible pronouncements of this overarching Protestant magisterium to which all must subscribe?
This misconstrues what was said to mean an infallible magisterium was claimed, when it was not, but which presupposition is based upon the premise that ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility essential for authority and the discernment and assurance of Truth, and preservation of faith and unity, while in FACT this is a novel and unScriptural premise. Which was never necessary nor promised, despite Roman extrapolation based upon spurious presuppositions.
But thus my fund. linked questions to you.
The reality is that the typical fund. evangelical must affirm basic truths, esp. if he will be in ministry, as a Rc is sppsd to, but the former is far more likely to be chastened in such a evang. church is he goes South then a liberal RC, who in contrast to the former can be quite comfortable in mother Rome, as Teddy K RCs were and are. And of course, comparing a multitude of churches lumped together as Protestant with Rome is a specious, basically meaningless comparison.
If you read the Gospels, you will see that St Peter is always the spokesman for the Apostles when they are gathered together. And he didn't have Scripture to cite to say that the Gentiles didn't have to be circumcised to be part of the Church.
Peter's leadership is not the issue, though his manner of leadership is contrary to Romes, but in Acts 15 Peter is not The spokesman of the Apostles, as instead he gives his testimony and consequent exhortation (that Paul evidently already held to), which is far from an infallible decree, and as such there was no attempt to argue from Scripture or oral tradition. But which Scriptural argument James supplied, showing this as being fulfilled prophecy, and then gave the definitive confirmatory sentence as to what should be done, which all then concurred with, rather than Peter's word being final and settling the debate.
Thus your argument that Peter did not have Scripture to cite and that this refutes SS and supports the infallible mag. is spurious, since Peter was not supplying the doctrinal argument, while James did have Scripture to cite in support of this realization of prophecy.
What came out of the Council of Jerusalem was new doctrine.
No it was not, as this conversion of the Gentiles was promised, as Paul also elsewhere states, (Rm. 15:11,12) as was the decree that the Gentiles abstain “from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood” (Acts 15:20,29; cf. 21:25) was itself based upon Scripture. (Gn. 35:2; Ex. 34:15-16; Ezek. 30:30,31; Gn. 34:1,2,31; Dt. 22:28,29; 2Chron. 21:11; Gn. 9:4; Lv. 7:27; 17:13,14)
Lots of assertions in a run-on sentence. Nothing here to hang my hat on.
Actually, it is a challenge for you to take your picks. It would make my post even longer to refute them all here.
That Rome did not stifle the translation of the Bible into the languages of the people but was just keeping it safe, with the laity relying upon what was read and explained in Mass so as to preserve (cultic) unity.
Until the advent of the printing press Bibles were copied by hand. They were primarily translated into the language of the learned, Latin. They were read to all at Mass and explained so that all could understand.
That is misleading, and i have a hard time believe you do not know that. What was read to all at Mass and explained was only a relative and select part of Scripture, and the "explained' part meant that they were indoctrinated and prevented from access to Scripture so that they may do what noble Bereans did, but which RCs are not to do today as regards determining the veracity of RC teaching. There was not great effort to enable the populace to read, and only a select few who were judged unlikely to deviate from RC teaching would be allowed access to Scripture.
Council of Trent Session XXV: Rule IV of the Ten Rules Concerning Prohibited Books
Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing.
Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/trent-booksrules.asp)
Contrary to what many RCs convey, even the preface to the Douay–Rheims Bible testifies to Rome attitude toward Biblical literacy.
“When English Roman Catholics created their first English biblical translation in exile at Douai and Reims, it was not for ordinary folk to read, but [primarily] for priests to use as a polemical weapon.—the explicit purpose which the 1582 title-page and preface of the Reims New Testament proclaimed. Only the Jansenists of early seventeenth-century France came to have a more positive and generous attitude to promoting Bible-reading among Catholics" (Oxford University professor Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation: A History, 2003, p. 406; p. 585.)
The Douay–Rheims Bible: Which translation we do not for all that publish, upon erroneous opinion of necessity, that the Holy Scriptures should always be in our mother tongue, or that they ought, or were ordained by God, to be read impartially by all, or could be easily understood by every one that readeth or heareth them in a known language; or that they were not often through man's malice or infirmity, pernicious and much hurtful to many; or that we generally and absolutely deemed it more convenient in itself, and more agreeable to God's Word and honour or edification of the faithful, to have them turned into vulgar tongues, than to be kept and studied only in the Ecclesiastical learned languages. (http://www.bombaxo.com/douai-nt.html)
Unity (cultic?) of Faith is what Christ desired for His Church (John 17:21, Eph 4:13). Why would the Church do other than it did from a truly historical perspective?
No, it is not the unity of John 17:21 which RCs carelessly invoke, as that is based upon regeneration, "I in them, and thou in me," which basic unity of the Spirit born again evangelicals spontaneously realize with others of like Spirit, due to a shared profound transformative conversion and Scriptural relationship with Christ, but rarely with RCs, whose talk and focus is on their church and have no testimony of conversion.
Nor is the fruit of Rome more unified in basic beliefs than those who hold most strongly to what RCs attack, that focus on the authority of Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God.
Nor is the unity Rome does have Scriptural, as it rests upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which cults also basically operate out of. Which is contrary to how the NT church began.
Look, I'm out of time and only halfway through your post. This is my problem with responding to you. If you could pick a topic for discussion, that would help me engage you... and I would like to engage in a good dialogue with you.
You are the one who asserted silence was the response to RC apologetic, and then provided a list, and so i challenged them. If you did not want them challenged then you should not have posted them. Regardless, begin with the above premise, as is it seems that the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God. Does this fairly represent what you hold to or in what way does it differ?
Take your time. I am tired also.