Replies

.
What a catholic would call a “reputable” protestant scholar has to be the true joke of the millennium.

You probably forgot that we have 28 strains of the gospel of Matthew in the original Hebrew, and they all show Peter as his life-long nickname ‘pebble,’ not rock.

Anyway, it would have been difficult for Yeshua to base his already existing assembly on the same weak mortal that denied him thrice at the home of the high priest.

The growth of the assembly began with Abraham anyway.

Why don’t catholics “know stuff?”
.

What a catholic would call a “reputable” protestant scholar has to be the true joke of the millennium.

:) Well... since you have no one "final authority" by which you can say which Protestant interpretation of Scripture is *correct* (and there are thousands of contradictory ones, so please excuse me if I missed a few), I'm afraid I had to default to scholars who have high credentials and better scholarly pedigrees (rather than more modern, polemical, fly-by-night "scholars" in the style of James White, etc.). But feel free to loathe my choices; it's all one, to me.

You probably forgot that we have 28 strains of the gospel of Matthew in the original Hebrew, and they all show Peter as his life-long nickname ‘pebble,’ not rock.

Er... you do realize that there are NO existing texts of Matthew in "the original Hebrew" (which could well have been Aramaic, anyway), WHATSOEVER? Where on earth are you getting these ideas?

Beyond that, are you not aware that there is one, and only one, Aramaic word used for rock, when applied to Peter (i.e. "kepha", transliterated "cephas")? See John 1:42, 1 Corinthians 1:12, Galatians 1:18 and 2:9 and 2:11 and 2:14. Kepha means "rock"--no more, no less. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus (Who was most likely speaking Aramaic, and not Greek) said, "You are KEPHA, and on this KEPHA I will build My Church."

I'd be stunned if you hadn't already heard of the explanation for the "petra/petros" ending--that (as a study of basic Greek would show) "-a" is a feminine ending, and "-os" is a masculine ending, above and beyond any other considerations. Simon, being a man, would not have been named with a feminine word (unlike the sexually confused practices of today); thus, "petra" was altered to "petros" to accommodate his masculine gender.

Anyway, it would have been difficult for Yeshua to base his already existing assembly on the same weak mortal that denied him thrice at the home of the high priest.

Forgive me, but you're sounding rather confused, here.

First, Jesus said that "on this rock I *will build* (Gk: oikodomEsO, future tense) My Church"... which sets up a distinction between any already-existing assembly vs. the "Ekklesia" which Jesus had in mind.

Second, you're obviously stating your raw opinion, here--and a bizarre one, at that: are you seriously saying that anything is "difficult" for the omnipotent God?! What, would it be more difficult than redeeming the entire fallen world? Creating it in the first place? Have some sense.

Third: does your Bible not have John 21 in it (where Jesus reconciles Peter's threefold denial with a chance to express his threefold lone and devotion)? Does your Bible not have Jesus saying, on that occasion (over a week after Peter's betrayal), "Feed my sheep, tend my sheep, feed my lambs"? Does your Bible not have Luke 22:31-32, when Jesus says to Peter, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have repented, strengthen your brethren"? Jesus knew, full well, that Peter would betray Him... and Jesus chose to entrust the care fo His flock to Peter ANYWAY. Welcome to salvation history, where God writes straight with crooked lines.

The growth of the assembly began with Abraham anyway.

Of course, it did, in one sense (though I'd say that it began with Adam and Eve)... but Jesus makes plain in Matthew 16:18 (and Matthew 18) that His Church will be qualitatively different, albeit in continuity with the old. It fulfills, rather than abolishes (cf. Matthew 5:17).

Why don’t catholics “know stuff?”

:) One might as easily ask: "why is it so common for internet commenters to make arrogant and nonsensical comments like that, only to fall on their faces and fail even by their own standards? Why does pride seem so often to come before a fall? (Proverbs 16:18)"