; It is beyond reasonable doubt Catholics and Protestants don't understand Mt 16:18

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 32
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    7,382
    Rep Power
    5

    Default It is beyond reasonable doubt Catholics and Protestants don't understand Mt 16:18

    Neither Catholic or Protestant apologists appeal to Matthew 7:24-25 when interpreting Matthew 16:16-18. That is proof they are wrong, it clearly is a parallel text. This video explains precisely the mistake both Catholic and Protestant apologists made when interpreting Matthew 16:16-18. There are at least four parallels common to both, and no incompatible properties. Logically speaking, that makes them the same---apples to apples and therefore both must be interpreted (eaten) precisely the same, what applies to one also applies to the other.

    See it fully explained here:

    Last edited by BornAgainChristian; November 9th, 2017 at 2:00 am.
    Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools (Rom. 1:22 KJV)

    Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD (Ps. 33:12 KJV)

  2. Sponsored Links


  3. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    somewhere over the rainbo
    Posts
    42,161
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    29

    Default

    The first of the listed verses is referring to actually being baptized by the Holy Spirit vs just claiming that you are. The second of the verses is saying that all of those that are baptized by the Holy Spirit are those who make up The Lord's Church.
    Friendly Neighborhood...Smyrnaman

  4. Sponsored Links


  5. Likes jwil59 liked this post
  6. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Age
    28
    Posts
    6,298
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Michael Heiser actually won me over to his interpretation.

    Here's his brief explanation, but is part of his larger body of work on the Divine Council:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw8I...Y&pbjreload=10

    Standard YouTube comment warning.
    "There is no such thing as a great man of God; only weak, pitiful, faithless men of a great and merciful God." ~ Paul Washer
    Playlist to the class I help teach on the book of Revelation
    .

  7. Sponsored Links


  8. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Bama Nation
    Posts
    75,852
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Deak2112 View Post
    Michael Heiser actually won me over to his interpretation.

    Here's his brief explanation, but is part of his larger body of work on the Divine Council:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw8I...Y&pbjreload=10

    Standard YouTube comment warning.
    Hey Deak. Great to see you my friend

    Interesting commentary by Micheal. I had never considered the part he talks about the Church being the one to administer the beating.
    Last edited by jwil59; October 4th, 2017 at 10:03 pm.
    “Wrinkles will only go where the smiles have been. ”
    ― Jimmy Buffett

  9. Sponsored Links


  10. Likes Deak2112 liked this post
  11. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Bama Nation
    Posts
    75,852
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    The link does not work for me. Video unavailable
    “Wrinkles will only go where the smiles have been. ”
    ― Jimmy Buffett

  12. Sponsored Links


  13. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    7,382
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Over 152 thousand views and counting!
    Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools (Rom. 1:22 KJV)

    Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD (Ps. 33:12 KJV)

  14. Sponsored Links


  15. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    7,382
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jwil59 View Post
    The link does not work for me. Video unavailable
    Fixed:

    Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools (Rom. 1:22 KJV)

    Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD (Ps. 33:12 KJV)

  16. Sponsored Links


  17. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Bama Nation
    Posts
    75,852
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BornAgainChristian View Post
    Fixed:

    Thanks man. It will take me awhile to get through that. Appreciate it

    “Wrinkles will only go where the smiles have been. ”
    ― Jimmy Buffett

  18. Sponsored Links


  19. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    42,494
    Blog Entries
    3
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Won't take any time to ignore it.
    .

  20. Sponsored Links


  21. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    7,382
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jwil59 View Post
    Thanks man. It will take me awhile to get through that. Appreciate it

    You'r welcome. 180.5 K views! I will do it better, provide more visuals of the proofs.

    Confirmation bias blinds many, the early church confused PETROS Firstborn/PeTeR with the Greek word petros/stone, and that is repeated in every lexicon and treatment of this text.

    When I first studied petros/Peter and notices John 1:42 was the only place where it unequivocally was a common noun, I suspected hasty generalization. Finding the Aramaic Petros which is spelled precisely like the Greek word petros stone, when transliterated, is consistent with that.

    Cognitive dissonance is manifest when treating this text, few review their assumptions, there is too much emotional attachment to the "classic interpretation".

    As Christ said, most prefer the old wine. But in this case, the correct interpretation is clearly better, from every aspect one views it.
    Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools (Rom. 1:22 KJV)

    Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD (Ps. 33:12 KJV)

  22. Sponsored Links


  23. #11

    Default

    So 'Peter' doesn't actually mean 'rock' and Jesus, who was as fond of metaphors as He was of parables was using yet another metaphor?

    Hmm I truly have gotten that point of trivia wrong all these years.

  24. Sponsored Links


  25. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Tornado Alley
    Age
    47
    Posts
    15,630
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jwil59 View Post
    Hey Deak. Great to see you my friend

    Interesting commentary by Micheal. I had never considered the part he talks about the Church being the one to administer the beating.
    Yeah, I'm gonna have to agree with Deak on this one. I think Michael Heiser's explanation makes the most sense. If we are going to take it literally, then why not be literal. Upon THIS rock (the place they were standing) Jesus would build His assembly. That was the place it (His "church") started. Every movement needs a starting point.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw8I...Y&pbjreload=10
    The great enemy of truth is not so much the lie (deliberate, contrived and dishonest) but the myth (persistent, persuasive and unrealistic).

  26. Sponsored Links


  27. Likes jwil59, Deak2112 liked this post
  28. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    7,382
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BornAgainChristian View Post
    Neither Catholic or Protestant apologists appeal to Matthew 7:24-25 when interpreting Matthew 16:16-18. That is proof they are wrong, it clearly is a parallel text. This video explains precisely the mistake both Catholic and Protestant apologists made when interpreting Matthew 16:16-18. There are at least four parallels common to both, and no incompatible properties. Logically speaking, that makes them the same---apples to apples and therefore both must be interpreted (eaten) precisely the same, what applies to one also applies to the other.

    See it fully explained here:


    358K views and counting, wow!
    Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools (Rom. 1:22 KJV)

    Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD (Ps. 33:12 KJV)

  29. Sponsored Links


  30. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Tornado Alley
    Age
    47
    Posts
    15,630
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BornAgainChristian View Post
    You'r welcome. 180.5 K views! I will do it better, provide more visuals of the proofs.

    Confirmation bias blinds many, the early church confused PETROS Firstborn/PeTeR with the Greek word petros/stone, and that is repeated in every lexicon and treatment of this text.

    When I first studied petros/Peter and notices John 1:42 was the only place where it unequivocally was a common noun, I suspected hasty generalization. Finding the Aramaic Petros which is spelled precisely like the Greek word petros stone, when transliterated, is consistent with that.

    Cognitive dissonance is manifest when treating this text, few review their assumptions, there is too much emotional attachment to the "classic interpretation".

    As Christ said, most prefer the old wine. But in this case, the correct interpretation is clearly better, from every aspect one views it.
    I'm going to quote pensateomnia from orthodoxchristianity.net forum here because you apparently need a reminder.

    First, any exegesis has to be placed within its context in the pericope and the broader structure of Matthew. Doing so dismisses any Papal interpretation of the text, regardless of the theoretical Aramaic substratum, so this entire crusade is totally unnecessary.

    Second, even if the above were not true, any argument based on the Aramaic substratum is hypothetical. It's tantalizing, but it proves nothing. We can never know what the Aramaic was (or even if it was). The text we have is Greek. And that's what we have to deal with.

    Third, if we ignore that reality, and focus on an imagined Aramaic substratum, we still get no where, since, as Caragounis showed, there are a variety of Aramaic terms that could have been behind πέτρα as well. In fact, for those interested in the imagined Aramaic, the substratum of πέτρα is far more significant (that of Petros being obvious). See Thomas Finley's "'Upon this Rock': Matthew 16.18 and the Aramaic Evidence" in Aramaic Studies, Vol 4.2 (2006): 133-151.

    Fourth, putting that aside, before one could accept your novel idea (against the clear indication of the NT sources and the Church Fathers), one would have to establish in many independent Aramaic sources from the time period that "Petros" was an actual Aramaic word (not a borrowed Greek word) and it meant "Firstborn" in first-century Aramaic. I haven't seen any such proof. In fact, most of the secondary sources quoted in your original post say exactly the opposite. With one exception, they make it clear that Petros is a "Greek name," not an Aramaic name, which was borrowed from Greek and transliterated into Aramaic. Their point, contra Oscar Cullmann's wild speculation, is that "Petros" is well attested as a Greek name in the prosopography of the time. In fact, you'll find it transliterated into several languages in Italy, Greece, Asia Minor, Palestine, and Syria. Simply because it appears in these various languages doesn't mean it's a Latin name or a Syriac name or an Aramaic name (it's not). It means it's a reasonably common name, which all kinds of ancient peoples borrowed from Greek.
    You apparently have been trying to drum up support for you eisegetical view and this idea that petros is an Aramaic word meaning "firstborn" is completely unsupportable. It's nothing but speculation on your part. 7 or 8 years is a long time to be holding on to wishful thinking. The logical view is that the place they were standing when Simon Peter made his confession is the "rock" or Petra upon which Christ would build (and start) His Church (ekklesia).

    When in doubt the simplest explanation is usually the right one. The law of parsimony aka "Ockham's razor" is preferable to more complex theories because they are more testable. Your theory relies on speculation and quite frankly "wishful thinking". So, your Youtube video got a bunch of "views". That proves nothing in and of itself. Perhaps it only "proves" that you've been promoting it and unless I'm mistaken, promoting your personal video or website on this forum is against the rules. Self promotion is not allowed (unless the mods are slacking on this rule or changed it).
    Last edited by Christian; November 27th, 2017 at 10:26 pm.
    The great enemy of truth is not so much the lie (deliberate, contrived and dishonest) but the myth (persistent, persuasive and unrealistic).

  31. Sponsored Links


  32. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    7,382
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian View Post
    I'm going to quote pensateomnia from orthodoxchristianity.net forum here because you apparently need a reminder.

    You apparently have been trying to drum up support for you eisegetical view and this idea that petros is an Aramaic word meaning "firstborn" is completely unsupportable. It's nothing but speculation on your part. 7 or 8 years is a long time to be holding on to wishful thinking. The logical view is that the place they were standing when Simon Peter made his confession is the "rock" or Petra upon which Christ would build (and start) His Church (ekklesia).

    When in doubt the simplest explanation is usually the right one. The law of parsimony aka "Ockham's razor" is preferable to more complex theories because they are more testable. Your theory relies on speculation and quite frankly "wishful thinking". So, your Youtube video got a bunch of "views". That proves nothing in and of itself. Perhaps it only "proves" that you've been promoting it and unless I'm mistaken, promoting your personal video or website on this forum is against the rules. Self promotion is not allowed (unless the mods are slacking on this rule or changed it).
    Incorrect, my claim is the Greek is clear, authentic. The reference to Aramaic is in proof of that. You have completely misunderstood the argument. Peter petros is NOT stone/petros, that is clear from a study of PETROS in the Greek NT, its always a proper name except in Jn 1:42 where it is an an alternate translation given by John for Cephas, an Aramaic word.

    In other words, the ONLY place in the Synoptic gospels where PETROS is the Greek word meaning stone, is in Jn 1:42.

    All other places its a transliteration of the Aramaic word PeTeR, or Hebrew (6363, Strong's).

    Like a few other other Aramaic words (for example, BATOS: see note below) transliterated into our Greek New Testaments, Petros Peter is only spelled like the Greek word stone/petros.

    AND that explains how precisely Catholics are wrong and ancient Orthodox Greek Christians are right when they deny Peter is the rock of the church.



    NOTE:
    In our Greek versions there exists many transliterated Aramaic words: abba; bar; batos; elooi; ephphatha; kokrban; korbanas; lama; mamoonas; maran atha; rhabbi; rhabbouni; rhabitha; rhaka; sabachthani; talitha koum, for example.

    Transliteration does not change meaning, even where this results in a homonym.


    For example, the Aramaic BATH “liquid measure” in Luke 16:6 (943 βάτος), does not become the Greek BATOS (942 βάτος), which is a homonym meaning "bush” in Mk. 12:26; Lk. 6:44; 20:37; Acts 7:30, 35.

    The only place in the Synoptics where PETROS is a common noun meaning "stone", is in Jn 1:42. All other occurrences it is a transliterated Aramaic word spelled like "petros stone", but means first born. That is clear from John 1:40 and Mat. 4:18, where Simon is shown to have had the name PETROS before he met Jesus, yet scripture is clear Christ surnamed Simon PETROS Cephas the common noun for "stone" just as He surnamed John and James the "sons of thunder", a describing who they are in Mark 3:16-17.
    Last edited by BornAgainChristian; November 27th, 2017 at 11:27 pm.
    Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools (Rom. 1:22 KJV)

    Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD (Ps. 33:12 KJV)

  33. Sponsored Links


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •