From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The Lord's Table (Part 1 of 2)
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:05:17 GMT
Organization: Fermi Lab

In article <Aug.18.02.28.08.1992.27368@aramis.rutgers.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu
(Charley Wingate) writes:
>K. Paulson writes:
>>(Christ is the rock mentioned in Matthew 16:18.)
>
>This is quite untenable, as it makes a hash out of the greek.  Peter is the
>rock because "Peter" is "rock".  What this means exactly is another issue,
>of course, but insisting that Jesus is talking about himself is quite
>contrary to scripture.
>
>>Jesus Christ has ALWAYS been the Rock.  "And have ye not read this
>>scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the
>>corner:"  Mark 12:10.
>
>This is a linguistic fallacy.  The same symbol need not always stand fo the
>same thing, even within the same text.

Why don't we just stop arguing about the interpretation of this text.  It has
been hashed over by men of greater scholorship than any of us, and they too
came to different conclussions.  Let's just agree that it is not a verse that
any dogma can be built upon, and leave it at that.  If the RC builds its
apostalic session primarily off of this, then it is tenuous at best.  The true
dogma's of the CHurch have the authority of the entire 66 books as a basis.
  
If we wanted to get into a real discussion about the eastern concept of "rock",
we could, but that would be getting into archeology, and the interpretation of
the old mystery religions which clh has indicated that he does not favor.  Just
as there is a depth of meaning behind "logos"  so there is behind "petros" 
especially relevant to the worship of Saturn in Rome during the days that it
and Christianity were combined to form a state church.  There are many, many
books that attest to this marriage, unfortunately most of them are next to
impossible to get hold of now a days. I had the privilge to read several that
were owned by the Episcopalian Bishop of Chicago several years ago. 
Unfortunately I have lost contact with him and no longer have access to those
books. I have searched far and wide to obtain a further investigation of these
manuscripts, however, even the library of congress refused me to see some of
them, stating that they don't exist even though I found them listed in the
index catalogues.  But they are quoted at length in other works, though some
are rather diatribical, nevertheless the text is quoted.  

Some of the later works are:  "The Papacy", Dr. J.A. Wylie (1867),  "An Outline
History of the Church by Centuries," Joseph McSorley (1944); "A History of the
Catholic Church,"  Dom. Charles Poulet (1939); "Handbook of Ppery,"  Beggs
(1856);
"Lives of the Popes," Bowers (1750).

Of the most important of all works, and the absolute hardest to find is Austen
Henry Layard's, "Babylon and Nineveh"  (1853), L of C # D570 L435.  I recently
ran across several books at the L of C on Roman antiquities that also spoke
about the early days of Rome and their two primary religions of Saturn and
Christ worship and how the state had married them into a state religion which
evolved into the RCC. [I apologize if this strikes any RC as heresy, but the
historical record is there for any who want to read it.] 

I have only mentioned this for those of you who have time on your hands and
like to do project studies.  Study either early Rome, or if you're more
adventurous, study the ancient mystery religions back from Rome, to Greece, to
Egypt, to Assyria, back to Egypt, the far East, and of course ending in
Babylon.  

If anyone out there has access to Layard's book's (he has several) please
contact me as I'd love to read them again for reference.

pray for the peace of Jerusalem 
(and for the coming elections in the country),
Rex

[I agree with Rex that arguments over this passage are not useful.  In
fact some of the classic arguments seem to be receding.  I note that
many evangelicals now seem to be more willing to consider a
straightforward translation of Mat 16:18.  As an example, the NIV
adopts a translation equivalent to the one used by Catholics in the
past.  However whatever the passage means, Papal authority certainly
cannot be (and isn't) based on it alone.  There are reasonable
readings of the passage from a Protestant perspective, even given the
recognition that Jesus' pun refers to Peter.  

However this argument was started, not by Catholics, but by a
Protestant (whose posting I probably should not have accepted).
--clh]