Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Meaning Of The Trinity
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1546 of 1864 (909135)
03-28-2023 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1545 by candle2
03-28-2023 2:13 PM


Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
candle2 writes:
some, especially the RCC, use certain Bible
verses to show that they have power to forgive sin.
In the Catholic Church, only priests have the power to forgive sins ... through Jesus Christ.
Only God can perform miracles, yet there are many examples in the Bible of humans performing miracles.
Only God has "the keys of the kingdom of heaven", but Jesus gave this divine power to Peter (Matt 16:19). Please explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1545 by candle2, posted 03-28-2023 2:13 PM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1550 by candle2, posted 03-29-2023 9:37 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 1562 by candle2, posted 03-31-2023 1:12 PM Dredge has not replied
 Message 1563 by candle2, posted 03-31-2023 1:18 PM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1547 of 1864 (909136)
03-28-2023 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1545 by candle2
03-28-2023 2:13 PM


Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
candle2 writes:
The Apostles were responsible for the churches they
started.
The Apostles and their churches were under the control of Peter ... it was only to Peter that Jesus gave "the keys of the kingdom of heavens" and it was Peter whom Jesus said was was the "rock" on which he would build his Church (Matt 16-18-19).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1545 by candle2, posted 03-28-2023 2:13 PM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1549 by candle2, posted 03-29-2023 8:21 AM Dredge has not replied

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 827
Joined: 12-31-2018
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1548 of 1864 (909151)
03-28-2023 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1543 by Dredge
03-28-2023 11:26 AM


Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
Dredge, Paul states in 2 Timothy 1:11 "Whereunto I am
appointed a preacher, and an Apostle, and a teacher to
The Gentiles."
Once again the Bible states the Paul was sent to the
Gentiles.
Romans 15:16 "That I should be the minister of Jesus
Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God,
that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable,
being sanctified by the Holy Spirit."
In 56-56 AD, the church at Rome had not been
established. Paul's states this very clearly in Romans
1:11. Paul tells them that he would like to impart unto
them some spiritual gift that they may be established.
The RCC would have us believe that it was started 10 or
11 years earlier under the reign of Claudius.
Paul states in Romans 15:20 that he would not build
upon another man's foundation. He would not preach
where Christ had already been named.
If Peter had indeed started the church at Rome ten
years earlier, this would have been an insult to Peter.
In fact, it would have been a major insult.
In the 16th Chapter of Romans, Paul greeted 28 people,
but Peter is never mentioned. This would have been at
least a decade since the RCC claims that Peter was the
first pope.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1543 by Dredge, posted 03-28-2023 11:26 AM Dredge has not replied

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 827
Joined: 12-31-2018
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1549 of 1864 (909185)
03-29-2023 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1547 by Dredge
03-28-2023 2:29 PM


Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
Dredge, around 45-46 AD, the Apostle Peter was thrown
into prison in Jerusalem. You can read about this in
Acts 12:3-4.
It was in Antioch, around 51 AD, that Paul confronted
Peter to his face. Paul confronted Peter for refusing to
sit and eat with the Gentiles.
Imagine that! The so-called Bishop of Rome would not
eat with the Gentiles.
1 Peter 5:13 states that (around 65-66 AD) Peter was in
Babylon among the Jews. At that time there were as many
Jews in Mesopotamia as there were in Palestine.
Remember, Peter was an Apostle for the circumcised.
The Bible clearly shows that Peter was not in Rome.
Who are you going to believe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1547 by Dredge, posted 03-28-2023 2:29 PM Dredge has not replied

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 827
Joined: 12-31-2018
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1550 of 1864 (909186)
03-29-2023 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1546 by Dredge
03-28-2023 2:21 PM


Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
Dredge, "given the keys of the kingdom" does not mean
what the RCC says it mean.
In Isaiah 22:22 we read where Eliakim (priest) was given
The key to the house of David.
Speaking of Eliakim, David stated "so he shall open, and
none shall shut; and He shall shut, and none shall open.
Eliakim would not let anyone into David's house that he
(King David) did not want in his house.
Neither could Peter, nor any of the Apostles, allow anyone
access to the Kingdom of God without His approval.
God is not obligated to bind that which, or those who, are
ungodly.
The Apostles were led by the Spirit of God. They had the
key (knowledge) of how to get into the kingdom. Their
job was to spread this knowledge.
Peter was not the only Apostle with the key. In Matthew
18:19, Jesus used the "second plural form of you, which
Is "ye" to show that all the Apostles had the key to the
Kingdom.
Spirit led pastors today are allowed to tell a repentant
sinner that their sins have been forgiven by God.
Paul states in 2 Thess. 3:14 that the Church is not
obligated to keep company with an unrepentant sinner.
He states that "he (the sinner) may be ashamed.
What Jesus said in a nut shell is that the Apostles and
Spirit led pastors of His church have the authority to
represent Him.
In Matthew 16:19; 18:18; and, John 20:23 the actions are
called "future perfect passives." God had already
determined what is good and acceptable. The Apostles
were not given authority to change God's laws.
They were merely given authority to represent Him and
His laws. Never were they given authority to change His
laws.
Matthew makes in clear in 7:24-25 that Christ is the Rock
The the Church is built on, not Peter.
So does Ephesians 2:20 and 1 Corinthians 10:4.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1546 by Dredge, posted 03-28-2023 2:21 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1551 by Dredge, posted 03-29-2023 1:05 PM candle2 has not replied
 Message 1552 by Dredge, posted 03-29-2023 1:28 PM candle2 has not replied
 Message 1554 by Dredge, posted 03-30-2023 5:46 AM candle2 has not replied
 Message 1556 by Dredge, posted 03-30-2023 6:02 AM candle2 has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1551 of 1864 (909200)
03-29-2023 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1550 by candle2
03-29-2023 9:37 AM


Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
candle2 writes:
Peter was not the only Apostle with the key. In Matthew
18:19, Jesus used the "second plural form of you, which
Is "ye" to show that all the Apostles had the key to the
Kingdom.
Every interlinear Bible I've consulted says "you" in that verse is SINGULAR, not plural. So Jesus is speaking to ONE person, Peter.
Show me an interlinear Bible that agrees with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1550 by candle2, posted 03-29-2023 9:37 AM candle2 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1553 by dwise1, posted 03-29-2023 3:34 PM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1552 of 1864 (909202)
03-29-2023 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1550 by candle2
03-29-2023 9:37 AM


Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
candle2 writes:
Matthew makes in clear in 7:24-25 that Christ is the Rock
The the Church is built on, not Peter
If Peter is not the "rock" in Matt 16:18, why did Jesus tell Simon - the very first time they met - that his name would later be changed to Peter, which means "rock" (John 1:42)?
Furthermore, according to you, in Matt 16:18, Jesus begins his sentence by directly addressing Peter ("And I tell you, you are Peter"), but then starts talking about himself, which makes no grammatic sense. The sentence makes sense only if what came after "And I tell you, you are Peter" applies to Peter!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1550 by candle2, posted 03-29-2023 9:37 AM candle2 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 1553 of 1864 (909214)
03-29-2023 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1551 by Dredge
03-29-2023 1:05 PM


Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
candle2 writes:
Peter was not the only Apostle with the key. In Matthew
18:19, Jesus used the "second plural form of you, which
Is "ye" to show that all the Apostles had the key to the
Kingdom.
Every interlinear Bible I've consulted says "you" in that verse is SINGULAR, not plural. So Jesus is speaking to ONE person, Peter.

Show me an interlinear Bible that agrees with you.
Jessica H. Christ!
Screw the translations! Go straight to the original Greek!
Κατα Μαθθαιον 18:19 clearly starts with (apologies for not being able to add diacritical marks):
quote:
Παλιν λεγω υμιν οτι ...
("Again I say to you that ...")
"υμιν" is the dative declension of the second person plural personal pronoun. The singular form (again, the dative declension) would be σοι.
{ABE: NOTE: candle2's "second plural form of you" makes no sense, which is one clue that he's a monoglot -- monoglots are notorious for not understanding grammar. I assume he was trying to say "second person plural personal pronoun". Undoubtedly he just miscopied something he barely read in a concordance or the like. }
Therefore, the "you" in that verse is PLURAL, not singular. At least in the original Greek, which says nothing about however it had been subsequently mistranslated. Also, my Metzger Greek New Testament, which includes extensive footnotes concerning alternative text, says nothing about there being alternative versions of this particular verse.
I have little doubt that the both of you are monoglots and hence are unfamiliar with the act of translation. The first half of my college career was as a foreign language major (primarily German, but I also studied about a dozen others though I'm only proficient in four -- that's not including Italian or Russian, though I'm fairly good at understanding written Italian and I often surprise myself at how much Russian I still remember nearly half a century later), so I am rather familiar with how grammars work and what the act of translation entails.
I have been a polyglot for such a large part of my life (well over half a century) that I cannot remember nor even imagine how a monoglot thinks, not unlike the challenge for me to try to imagine what scientific illiterates like creationists think about how things work (eg, how the sun "burns its fuel" which confounds Mr. Kent Hovind).
I would imagine that a monoglot would naïvely think that translating from one language to another is just a matter of substituting the words in the source language with equivalent words in the target language. That couldn't be further from the truth! Languages do not even remotely work that way, especially when the two languages are more remotely related to each other. Rather, the translator must read and understand what the source text is saying and then express in the target language his own understanding of what that source says. This is why it is preferable to translate from a foreign language into your own, since you would be more familiar with expressing ideas in your own language.
That means that every translation is an act of fallible human interpretation. Reading a translation means that you are not reading what the original actually says, but rather what the translator thinks it says. Yes, professional translators use various techniques to minimize that effect, but the fact still remains that you are reading an interpretation, not what it actually says. That is one of the problems I have with biblical literalism, especially when it depends on translated works (eg, the KJV which King James I of England (VI of Scotland) commissioned for the political purpose of strengthening his policy of the Divine Right of Kings).
An additional issue in translating is the loss of information as well as the "reconstruction" of "missing information". One example would be the past tenses in that the tense used carries a lot of information which is missing in English (though that information can be reconstructed periphrastically into English). The choice between the imperfect and the perfective tenses (addressing the question of whether an action in the past was completed or not -- "not" can also include any notion of the action continuing over time), but is very fundamental to the entire Russian verb system wherein verbs are given in pairs: the imperfective and the perfective. Greek took the perfective idea a step further by differentiating between the aorist and perfect tenses, both denoting a single action completed in the past, but with the perfect denoting the result of that action continuing into the present whereas the aorist offers no such information -- expressing that in English could prove cumbersome.
Even translating the second person personal pronoun can be problematic. English has lost the distinction between familiar and formal (AKA "polite") forms of "you", whereas many other European languages have retained it. I have read and watched humorous scenes in Spanish and in French which hinge on the romantic couple having an argument in which they start to shift back and forth between the familiar and the polite (usually the first salvo is to shift to the polite, thus creating emotional distance). That works very well in the original, but the translator for the subtitles had a helluva time expressing that in English.
So to recapitulate, if you want to know what a source really said, read it in the original!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1551 by Dredge, posted 03-29-2023 1:05 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1555 by Dredge, posted 03-30-2023 6:00 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1554 of 1864 (909240)
03-30-2023 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1550 by candle2
03-29-2023 9:37 AM


Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
candle2 writes:
Peter was not the only Apostle with the key. In Matthew
18:19, Jesus used the "second plural form of you, which
Is "ye" to show that all the Apostles had the key to the
Kingdom.
Sorry, I got my wires crossed. I thought you were referring to Matt 16:19, so I'll start again:
Yes, in Matt 18:18-19, the "you" is plural, so Jesus is speaking to all the apostles ... but unfortunately for your argument, there is no mention of the "keys".
The "keys" are mentioned only in Matt 16:19, where the "you" is SINGULAR, which means Jesus gave the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" to ONE person, Peter. Little wonder you want to ignore this verse and talk about Matt 18:18-19 instead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1550 by candle2, posted 03-29-2023 9:37 AM candle2 has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1555 of 1864 (909241)
03-30-2023 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1553 by dwise1
03-29-2023 3:34 PM


Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
Oui, vous avez raison. I got my wires crossed ... candle2 was referring to the "you" in Matt 18:18-19, but I thought he was referring to the "you" in Matt 16.19.
The "you" in Matt 18:18-19 are indeed plural (although only v.18 is relevant to the discussion). The "you" in Matt 16.19 is singular.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1553 by dwise1, posted 03-29-2023 3:34 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1557 by candle2, posted 03-30-2023 3:13 PM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1556 of 1864 (909242)
03-30-2023 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1550 by candle2
03-29-2023 9:37 AM


Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
candle2 writes:
Peter was not the only Apostle with the key. In Matthew
18:19, Jesus used the "second plural form of you, which
Is "ye" to show that all the Apostles had the key to the
Kingdom.
I think you mean Matt 18:18.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1550 by candle2, posted 03-29-2023 9:37 AM candle2 has not replied

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 827
Joined: 12-31-2018
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1557 of 1864 (909274)
03-30-2023 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1555 by Dredge
03-30-2023 6:00 AM


Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
Dredge, you are bound and determined that Peter is the
head of God's Church. You are hung up on one ambigious
verse.
You throw away major portions of the Bible in order to
stick with what you have been led to believe.
Acts 12:3-4 clearly states that in around 45 AD Peter was
in prison.
In 49 AD Peter was at the Jerusalem Council. Acts 15.
In Antioch in 51 AD, Peter was in Antioch, where Paul
confronted him to his face. Why did Paul confront Peter?
Paul confronted him for not sitting and eating with the
Gentiles when other Jews were around.
This in no way sounds like someone who would move
among the Gentiles and start a church.
Peter writes that in 66 AD that he was in Babylon. There
were as many Jews in Mesopotamia at that time than
there were in Palestine.
Many scholars insist that Peter's writings have a definite
Aramaic tinge. The type of Aramaic spoken in Babylon.
Once again Peter was an Apostle to the Jews. Paul was
the Apostle to the Gentiles.
The Bible clearly proves that Peter was not in Rome.
It is not good when someone puts their faith in men who
can change Biblical laws with the drop of hat.
They then have the wherewithal to make a follower
believe almost anything.
Christ states that He is the head of the church; no one else.
Christ also states the church is His bride and He the
bridegroom. He never says a mortal man is the
bridegroom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1555 by Dredge, posted 03-30-2023 6:00 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1558 by Dredge, posted 03-30-2023 7:48 PM candle2 has not replied
 Message 1565 by Dredge, posted 03-31-2023 5:06 PM candle2 has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1558 of 1864 (909285)
03-30-2023 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1557 by candle2
03-30-2023 3:13 PM


Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
It might interest you to know that I wasn't always Catholic ... I was once very anti-Catholic, having been deceived by all the same lies and nonsense you espouse. But the Holy Spirit eventually opened my eyes to the truth of the Catholic Church.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1557 by candle2, posted 03-30-2023 3:13 PM candle2 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1559 by AZPaul3, posted 03-30-2023 11:43 PM Dredge has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1559 of 1864 (909295)
03-30-2023 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1558 by Dredge
03-30-2023 7:48 PM


Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
I keep telling you ... those crackers ... well, not the crackers per se but the 2000 year-old jesus-meat. You let that get into your brain and lost the real universe in return.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1558 by Dredge, posted 03-30-2023 7:48 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1560 by Dredge, posted 03-31-2023 6:11 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1560 of 1864 (909297)
03-31-2023 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1559 by AZPaul3
03-30-2023 11:43 PM


Re: Burning The Candle At Both Ends
"none of the wicked shall understand"
Daniel 12:10

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1559 by AZPaul3, posted 03-30-2023 11:43 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1561 by Tangle, posted 03-31-2023 8:24 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024