Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 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. #16
    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
    Incorrect, <snip>

    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), it is spelled precisely like the Greek BATOS (942 βάτος), and is a homonym meaning "bush” in Mk. 12:26; Lk. 6:44; 20:37; Acts 7:30, 35.

    Once again, perhaps a reminder is necessary here. This came from one of your own posts. So obviously you were aware of this.

    That there was in Aram. a proper name Petros (Str.-B., I, 530) which perhaps meant “firstborn” (Levy Wört., s.v., פֶּטֶר; Dalman Wört., s.v.) might have influenced the preference for Petros, but this is by no means certain.
    Aram. Aramaic.
    Str.-B. H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum NT aus Talmud und Midrasch, 1922 ff.
    s.v. sub voce.
    Dalman Wört. G. Dalman, Aramäisch-neuhebräisches Wörterbuch, 1901.
    s.v. sub voce.
    Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964- (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

    Do you not remember this citation??? When you have to use words like "might" and "perhaps" and follow those words up with "this is by no means ceratin" this PROVES that it is nothing more than speculation!

    Look, I applaud your efforts and think you put in a lot of effort to develop this particular interpretation. But the TRUTH is that we have no real evidence to say for certain that petros was an Aramaic word that meant "firstborn". None! Zip, Zilch, Nada! For the love of God, please STOP trying to convince people that petros is an Aramaic word (when it has been shown repeatedly to you) that it is NOT (perhaps a borrowed word, I'll give you that). But nothing shows that it means "firstborn" no matter how badly you want it to mean "firstborn". It's a nice theory, but your theory simply is weak at best. Better to focus on something more concrete.
    The great enemy of truth is not so much the lie (deliberate, contrived and dishonest) but the myth (persistent, persuasive and unrealistic).

  4. Sponsored Links


  5. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Tornado Alley
    Age
    47
    Posts
    15,630
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    BTW, I do not agree with Roman Catholics in their interpretation of Mathew 16:18 and up until recently agreed with the Orthodox interpretation. However, it seems more likely to me that "upon this rock" is simply the rock that they were standing upon. It could have a double meaning. I'm not ruling that out. But it does seem strange that Christ did not say "upon you [Peter]" I will build my church. Or conversely, "upon Me [Christ]" I will build my church. But rather, Upon THIS rock. What rock? The rock [Petra] upon which they were ALL standing. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best one.
    The great enemy of truth is not so much the lie (deliberate, contrived and dishonest) but the myth (persistent, persuasive and unrealistic).

  6. Sponsored Links


  7. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian View Post
    BTW, I do not agree with Roman Catholics in their interpretation of Mathew 16:18 and up until recently agreed with the Orthodox interpretation. However, it seems more likely to me that "upon this rock" is simply the rock that they were standing upon. It could have a double meaning. I'm not ruling that out. But it does seem strange that Christ did not say "upon you [Peter]" I will build my church. Or conversely, "upon Me [Christ]" I will build my church. But rather, Upon THIS rock. What rock? The rock [Petra] upon which they were ALL standing. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best one.
    You seem more than a little confused. The quote is "upon this petra (foundation stone) I will build my church". Petros is simply the name given to the "worthless shepherd" (Zechariah 11;17), Peter, which means little stone. The foundation stone is "flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven". Matthew 16:18 is simply a set up for Yeshua to fulfill prophecy (Mt 5:17) by appointing Peter as keeper of the keys of the house of David, whereas he would eventually shame "your master's house" (Isaiah 22:15-25).

    Keep trying, maybe you will expose your own misconceptions to yourself.

    By not knowing that it is the Spirit of God, the "my Father" of (Mt 16:17), that reveals all things, and which is the "petra" (Mt 16:18), upon which "I will build my church", you become part of the "flock" "doomed for slaughter" (Zechariah 11:7), which is shepherded by the two "staffs", Peter and Paul, the two horns like a lamb, which were taken by the "beast" Constantine, to build his church of hell.
    Last edited by 2ndpillar; November 28th, 2017 at 7:20 am.

  8. Sponsored Links


  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Tornado Alley
    Age
    47
    Posts
    15,630
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndpillar View Post
    You seem more than a little confused. <snip>
    Nope, not confused at all.

    If you knew the place upon which they were gathered, you'd understand what Yeshua was saying. But since you ignore the location, you miss the obvious.

    Last edited by Christian; November 28th, 2017 at 11:19 am.
    The great enemy of truth is not so much the lie (deliberate, contrived and dishonest) but the myth (persistent, persuasive and unrealistic).

  10. Sponsored Links


  11. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian View Post
    Nope, not confused at all.

    If you knew the place upon which they were gathered, you'd understand what Yeshua was saying. But since you ignore the location, you miss the obvious.

    The "rock" the church is built on is neither a place nor a mineral. It is a "tested stone" (Isaiah 28:16), "firmly placed", located "in Zion". Being as Yeshua talked in parables, so that those without eyes or ears to hear, were unable to understand, for they had not been baptized in the Spirit of Truth. (Mt 13:13). That would pertain to the "many" (Mt 7:13), who follow the "false prophets" (Mt 7:15) to "destruction". The Spirit of Truth, such as the Spirit of Revelation/prophecy (Revelation 19:10), is the rock the church is built on.

  12. Sponsored Links


  13. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    7,382
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian View Post
    Once again, perhaps a reminder is necessary here. This came from one of your own posts. So obviously you were aware of this.

    That there was in Aram. a proper name Petros (Str.-B., I, 530) which perhaps meant “firstborn” (Levy Wört., s.v., פֶּטֶר; Dalman Wört., s.v.) might have influenced the preference for Petros, but this is by no means certain.
    Aram. Aramaic.
    Str.-B. H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum NT aus Talmud und Midrasch, 1922 ff.
    s.v. sub voce.
    Dalman Wört. G. Dalman, Aramäisch-neuhebräisches Wörterbuch, 1901.
    s.v. sub voce.
    Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964- (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

    Do you not remember this citation??? When you have to use words like "might" and "perhaps" and follow those words up with "this is by no means ceratin" this PROVES that it is nothing more than speculation!

    Look, I applaud your efforts and think you put in a lot of effort to develop this particular interpretation. But the TRUTH is that we have no real evidence to say for certain that petros was an Aramaic word that meant "firstborn". None! Zip, Zilch, Nada! For the love of God, please STOP trying to convince people that petros is an Aramaic word (when it has been shown repeatedly to you) that it is NOT (perhaps a borrowed word, I'll give you that). But nothing shows that it means "firstborn" no matter how badly you want it to mean "firstborn". It's a nice theory, but your theory simply is weak at best. Better to focus on something more concrete.
    Strack and Billerbeck (also cited) weren't hesitant at all, they cite it as fact. Might have doesn't mean "is not," your argument is flawed, lacking proof.
    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. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Tornado Alley
    Age
    47
    Posts
    15,630
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndpillar View Post
    The "rock" the church is built on is neither a place nor a mineral. It is a "tested stone" (Isaiah 28:16), "firmly placed", located "in Zion". Being as Yeshua talked in parables, so that those without eyes or ears to hear, were unable to understand, for they had not been baptized in the Spirit of Truth. (Mt 13:13). That would pertain to the "many" (Mt 7:13), who follow the "false prophets" (Mt 7:15) to "destruction". The Spirit of Truth, such as the Spirit of Revelation/prophecy (Revelation 19:10), is the rock the church is built on.
    You remind me of a dog that got a hold of a bone and just won't let go. Enjoy it while it lasts.
    The great enemy of truth is not so much the lie (deliberate, contrived and dishonest) but the myth (persistent, persuasive and unrealistic).

  16. Sponsored Links


  17. #23
    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
    Strack and Billerbeck (also cited) weren't hesitant at all, they cite it as fact. Might have doesn't mean "is not," your argument is flawed, lacking proof.
    If you can't see the irony in your statement, well . . . then nothing more needs to be said. Enjoy your bone.
    The great enemy of truth is not so much the lie (deliberate, contrived and dishonest) but the myth (persistent, persuasive and unrealistic).

  18. Sponsored Links


  19. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian View Post
    You remind me of a dog that got a hold of a bone and just won't let go. Enjoy it while it lasts.
    You remind me of Proverbs 26:11, whereas you think you have been released from the Law (Romans 7:6), and continually serve "the law of sin" with your flesh (Romans 7:25). Someone has to be among the "many" of Mt 7:13, who follow the wide way to "destruction".


    Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returns to its vomit, so fools ... - Bible HubIf they feel temporary compunction, and reject their sin by partial repentance, they do not really shake it off wholly; it has become a second nature to them, and they soon relapse into it. Septuagint, "As when a dog goes to his own vomit and becomes hateful, so is a fool who returns in his wickedness to his own sin." The LXX

    It is probably just as well, for you provide a good laugh for the Lord (Psalm 37:12-13).

    12The wicked plots against the righteous And gnashes at him with his teeth. 13The Lord laughs at him, For He sees his day is coming.

  20. Sponsored Links


  21. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    7,382
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian View Post
    If you can't see the irony in your statement, well . . . then nothing more needs to be said. Enjoy your bone.
    Diagram the irony, detail it precisely. Either you don't know the meaning of the word, or cognitive dissonance is evident in your statement.

    A delusion only.

    If you can't prove it exists, it wasn't predicated upon reality.
    Last edited by BornAgainChristian; December 1st, 2017 at 2:42 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)

  22. Sponsored Links


  23. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Tornado Alley
    Age
    47
    Posts
    15,630
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndpillar View Post
    You remind me of Proverbs 26:11, whereas you think you have been released from the Law (Romans 7:6), and continually serve "the law of sin" with your flesh <snip>
    Have you been released from Sharia Law? Or are you still under it?
    The great enemy of truth is not so much the lie (deliberate, contrived and dishonest) but the myth (persistent, persuasive and unrealistic).

  24. Sponsored Links


  25. #27
    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
    Diagram the irony, detail it precisely. Either you don't know the meaning of the word, or cognitive dissonance is evident in your statement.

    A delusion only.

    If you can't prove it exists, it wasn't predicated upon reality.
    Is it not "ironic" that you replied to me "your argument is flawed, lacking proof"? You don't see the irony in your statement because clearly you don't see that your argument is "flawed, lacking proof". And yet, THAT is the REALITY of the situation.
    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. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    7,382
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian View Post
    Is it not "ironic" that you replied to me "your argument is flawed, lacking proof"? You don't see the irony in your statement because clearly you don't see that your argument is "flawed, lacking proof". And yet, THAT is the REALITY of the situation.
    Similar to bait & switch, NOW you think A DIFFERENT post has irony, but the one you first claimed as its repository, does not...

    proving Cognitive dissonance. I rest my case.
    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)

  28. Sponsored Links


  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian View Post
    Have you been released from Sharia Law? Or are you still under it?
    The "Law" you apparently keep is the law instituted by the king of Rome, Constantine, which includes keeping the "day of the Sun" holy, per his 321 AD edict, worshipping Sol Invictus, by following along with the vision Sol Invictus gave to Constantine in 312 AD, and adopting the false Trinity dogma, set in stone during Constantine's Council of Nicaea, which incorporates the other two. By keeping the laws of the "beast with two horns like a lamb" (Rev 13), Constantine, you have set yourself up to drink from the cup of God's wrath (Rev 14:10. Looking at current events, that time may be at hand.
    Last edited by 2ndpillar; December 7th, 2017 at 4:57 am.

  30. Sponsored Links


  31. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Tornado Alley
    Age
    47
    Posts
    15,630
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndpillar View Post
    The "Law" you apparently keep is the law instituted by the king of Rome, Constantine, which includes keeping the "day of the Sun" holy, per his 321 AD edict, worshipping Sol Invictus, by following along with the vision Sol Invictus gave to Constantine in 312 AD, and adopting the false Trinity dogma, set in stone during Constantine's Council of Nicaea, which incorporates the other two. By keeping the laws of the "beast with two horns like a lamb" (Rev 13), Constantine, you have set yourself up to drink from the cup of God's wrath (Rev 14:10. Looking at current events, that time may be at hand.
    Before I get into your conflation above, why are you avoiding the question I asked? Have you been released from Sharia Law?

    You clearly need to learn church history 101.

    As for "Sunday worship" see: http://www.churchhistory101.com/feed...ay-worship.php

    You would do well to learn some facts about Constantine and not just the opinions of ignorant men who vomit conspiracy theories to bolster their anti-Christian rhetoric.
    The great enemy of truth is not so much the lie (deliberate, contrived and dishonest) but the myth (persistent, persuasive and unrealistic).

  32. 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
  •