Catholicism is not Biblical (2)

Reading through his arguments for round 1, I feel that he is very intelligent and will offer a good challenge to me over the course of this debate. The Papacy 1) I did not acknowledge that Matthew supports the Catholic view of a papacy. I merely said that the verse supports the papacy according to Catholics. This does not indicate that I believe it is true. I said that Catholics believe it provides support for the papacy, not that it actually does. 1A) First off, I would like to point out that arguing from the Aramaic language is unreliable, since we do not have an Aramaic text of the New Testament. The original passage is in Greek, not Aramaic. Therefore, the argument that Jesus called Peter and the church-rock both “Kipha” does nothing to help the Catholic, since no texts exist to support this claim. It is true that Jesus spoke Aramaic, but it is also true that he spoke Greek (he spoke to a Roman centurion, who certainly spoke Greek). Getting down to my point, one can look at the Greek text of Matthew 16:18 and clearly see that Jesus refers to two different types of rocks. When he says, “I also say to you that you are Peter,” the word he uses for Peter is “petros,” literally meaning “stone” or “boulder. ” Then, when Jesus says upon this rock I will build my church,” he uses “petra. ” The contrast here is that “petra” means “a solid mass of rock,” or even a cliff. So we see that Jesus calls Peter a “stone” that can be easily moved, and properly calls the rock He on which the church will be built an immovable mass of rock. Note Romans 9:33, where Jesus is referred to as a rock again, with the very same word: petra. (In a Lexicon you may see “petran,” which is still the same word, only grammatically different. ) Therefore, I stand by my argument that Jesus refers to himself as the rock on which his church will be built. As to why Jesus changed Peter’s name, since his new name refers to a movable stone, He is referring to Peter as an instrument with which Jesus will add souls to His church. 1B) To say that Peter’s obtainment of the keys to the kingdom denotes supreme authority over the church is a misrepresentation of the context of the New Testament. We must first understand what the keys were supposed to be used for. The best explanation of this is by Alfred Barnes: “When the Saviour says, therefore, he will give to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he means that he will make him the instrument of opening the door of faith to the world—the first to preach the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles. ” This interpretation is supported simply by what Peter did afterwards- he and the other apostles preached to the multitudes, resulting in the baptism of 3,000 Jews, thus resulting in the opening of the doors of the kingdom. The interpretation that Peter has now received the church is inaccurate, which is made clear by other verses in the New Testament (Acts 10:26, which shows us that Peter is only a man; Ephesians 5:23, where we see that Christ is head of the church. Con will have to explain these passages to successfully argue that Peter was made head of the church). 2) Perhaps I should have been more clear- of course we are all called to holiness! I meant that Mary is not the supreme figure she is made out to be. 2A) One must only look at the original Greek text of Luke 1:28 to derive the true meaning of this verse. “Hail, favored one” is translated from χαQ50;ρε κεχαριτωμ^1;νη. The first Greek word there is translated as “greetings,” and the second one means “to make graceful, to endow with grace. ” It can also be translated as “favor,” but notice what I’m getting at. First of all, nowhere is there indication from the Greek that Mary was “full of grace,” as is recited in the Hail Mary. Only twice in the New Testament do we see “full of grace” used: once for Jesus and once for Stephen (John 1:14, Acts 6:3-5). So Stephen was a sinner, yet, with the Holy Spirit, he is full of grace and not Mary? Next of all, why are there are others in the Bible who are “favored by God? ” Acts 7:46 tells us that David was favored by God. We see that he was given a special duty, that is, to make God a dwelling place. So he had a special duty, and was favored by God. Why don’t we recite a Hail David? Nowhere do we see evidence, then, that Mary was exalted to a high position in Christianity. 2B) Nowhere in the original Greek do we see “most blessed. ” Indeed, Mary was highly blessed with the privilege of being Christ’s physical mother, which is why Elizabeth calls her most blessed among women. I do not see how one can extrapolate a meaning of supreme holiness from this passage. 2C) It may not be the key verse, but it certainly is relevant. It is in fact used by many Catholics to support the claim that Mary is a mother of sorts to all of us, since Christ said to John “Behold your mother! ” My argument against this claim still stands. 3) Con seems to think that the books of the Apocrypha had always been accepted as canonical until the Protestant Reformation. This is false, and I provided arguments for this in the previous debate. The Hebrew Canon never included the seven books, and none of them are in Hebrew, the sole language of the inspired Old Testament writers. The Jews, along with Ancient sources such as Josephus, rejected the Apocrypha as valid texts (see previous debate). Jerome himself, who translated the Vulgate at the behest of Pope Damasus, rejected the books. Bottom line, the rejection of the Apocrypha predates the letter of Athanasius. I might also point out that the Apocrypha was not officially established as canon until 1546, in the Council of Trent. It also seems deceiving to argue from the notion that the Catholic Church established what was in the Bible and was used to create it. Unfortunately, I cannot expound on this, since this debate is not about whether or not the Catholic Church was the true church established by Christ. That’s another debate for another time. 4) Con asks me if a person goes to heaven if he accepts Christ as his Savior but dies before he is baptized. This seems to me to be a usual question asked by those who dispute the necessity of baptism as a personal decision. Normally, it is asked in a form such as, “What if a person decides to be baptized, gets in the car to go to a lake or something, but dies in a car crash on the way? ” The short answer to this question is: there is no way to know for sure. Con says that if the answer is yes, then what is the Biblical purpose of baptism? I would like to point out that there is a difference between deciding to be baptized but dying before you get the chance, and deciding that baptism is not necessary and rejecting it altogether. The Biblical purpose of baptism is guaranteeing a place in heaven with God. The command to decide to do it at one’s own personal discretion is clear: “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins…” Can an infant repent? I would also pose a similar question to Con that he asked me: what happens if an infant is stillborn? In response to Con’s conclusion: I interpret the Bible out of what it says, not by any specific authority except the Bible itself. He asks the question: “But where does the authority of proper interpretation come from? ” I may ask him the same question. I have shown what the Bible directly says in its original text, and it does not support any of the teachings of mainstream Catholicism. Sources: Strong’s 4073 and 4074, from Strong’s Concordance Strong’s 5463 and 5487 An online lexicon for Matthew and Romans: . http://biblehub.com...http://biblehub.com... Notes on the New Testament: Matthew and Mark by Albert Barnes, 2005, pg. 171. Italics are in the original. . http://www.bible.ca...