Protestant writer and Aramaic scholar George Lamsa writes of binding and loosing, “ ‘He has the key’, means he can declare certain things to be lawful and others unlawful; that is, to bind and loose, or to prohibit or to permit, or to forgive” (Old Testament Light).
It should be noted that, as far as I’m aware, George Lamsa was not a Protestant unless you mean by that term anyone not Roman Catholic (I gather he was a member of the Assyrian Church of the East). Furthermore, his expertise in Aramaic is somewhat questionable: almost all scholars disagree (on very good grounds) with his assessment that the Peshitta was the original from which the Greek NT was translated (this is a point of doctrine for Lamsa’s church). I believe Lamsa’s reading of the OT was also adversely influenced by this belief.
Martin
Lamsa is a native Aramaic speaker. By your own admission previously, you do not speak Aramaic. Lamsa is not Catholic, so does not submit to the authority of the Pope. So his reading of the OT may not be influenced by his beliefs.
Donna
Martin
Perhaps I could suggest other protestant scholars who also agree with Lamsa:
D.A. Carson (Protestant Evangelical)
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Zondervan, 1984), volume 8, page 368, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 17-18)
..Moreover, the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses. .....the Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses.....
R.T. France (Anglican/Protestant Evangelical)
The name Peter means Rock, and Jesus played on this meaning to designate Peter as the foundation of the new people of God. His leadership would involve the authority of the steward, whose keys symbolized his responsibility to regulate the affairs of the household. Peter would exercise his leadership by his authority to declare what is and is not permissible in the kingdom of heaven (to bind and to loose have this meaning in rabbinic writings).....(France, New Bible Commentary with consulting editors Carson, France, Motyer, Wenham (Intervarsity Press, 1994), page 925, 926)
Oscar Cullman (Lutheran) from Kittel’s Greek standard Theological Dictionary of the New Testament:
The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and materia identity between petra and petros: petra=Kepha=petros...Since Peter, the rock of the Church, is thus given by Christ Himself, the master of the house (Is 22:22; Rev 3:7) the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he is the human mediator of the resurrection, and he has the task of admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection....The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story.......To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Cullman, article on “Rock” (petros, petra)trans, and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley)
The list of other protestant scholars who agree goes on. W F Albright, Keener, Blomberg, Ridderbos....
Lamsa is a native Aramaic speaker. By your own admission previously, you do not speak Aramaic. Lamsa is not Catholic, so does not submit to the authority of the Pope. So his reading of the OT may not be influenced by his beliefs.
Donna, my point was only to question your description of Lamsa. He was not Protestant, contrary to your claim. Furthermore, Lamsa spoke a modern dialect of Syriac (he’s dead, so I’m not sure that I would say “he is a speaker"), this is not the same as the Aramaic language that was spoken in the first century (although it is similar to it and related to it), but this can sometimes be more a hindrance than a help in understanding the original.
As to his reading of the OT, I’m not sure on what basis you claim that Lamsa’s reading was not influenced by his beliefs. From what I’ve read, he also believed that the Masoretic Text of the OT was translated from the Peshitta. It is difficult to see how that would not have had some impact on his reading of the text.
Martin
In my haste I failed to mention I was quoting from “Upon this Rock” when referring to Lamsa. So strictly speaking, I am not saying he is protestant. Apologies for that. In any case, there are others, as I pointed out, that agree with his findings.
I was pointing out that if Lamsa makes a Catholic conclusion about the primacy of Peter and is not Catholic, then his reading of the OT may not always be influenced by his beliefs. I personally do not hold Lamsa is any high regard. I wanted to use non-Catholic sources for Ken’s purpose. He seems to think I am up to trickery, so I thought this would at least dispel that myth.
Regards
Donna
Paul mentions that he did not come to Rome to preach the gospel, because that foundation had already been laid by another. Paul is stating that someone had already founded the Church in Rome. Who is Paul referring to? Another apostle you may say. Why not Peter?
Donna, I have read from historical sources that it was thought that people who were converted by the Pentacost phenomenom, and who went to Rome, began the original Roman Christian Church, which Paul visited, before Peter arrived.
Remarkably, little reliable knowledge has come down to us about the personal history of the various apostles. Their work has endured, but in many cases their own personal history has perished. The same applies to the founding of some very great and important churches.
Thus, we have only a vague knowledge that Mark founded the church at Alexandria. Reliable history has no knowledge as to who founded the world famous churches at Rome and Carthage. Men returning to their own lands, from Jerusalem after the day of Pentacost must have done much to spread the gospel, as did Christian businessmen somewhat later.
What was the message delivered by the Church in those days? It is briefly summed up by Paul in 1 Cor 15:1-11
Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you— unless you believed in vain.
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
Through the ‘Good News’ which they preached, the lives of men and women were transformed. As the whole narrative shows, the chains of vice were broken and sinners were cleansed and raised to a higher spiritual plane by the power of God. The broken hearted were comforted, the weak were made strong, the selfish learned to love their fellow men and sacrifice themselves for the cause of Christ.
Superstitions were swept away, idolatry vanished. Even the slave, who was treated less than human, and who could be sold or killed at the pleasure of their owner, was now given a place in the Christian Church as a child of God, and sat down at the same Communion Table with his master. And the effects of this on all first century communitees was more than any of us can realize.
Donna, I have read from historical sources that it was thought that people who were converted by the Pentacost phenomenom, and who went to Rome, began the original Roman Christian Church, which Paul visited, before Peter arrived.
Remarkably, little reliable knowledge has come down to us about the personal history of the various apostles. Their work has endured, but in many cases their own personal history has perished. The same applies to the founding of some very great and important churches.
Thus, we have only a vague knowledge that Mark founded the church at Alexandria. Reliable history has no knowledge as to who founded the world famous churches at Rome and Carthage. Men returning to their own lands, from Jerusalem after the day of Pentacost must have done much to spread the gospel, as did Christian businessmen somewhat later.
Ken, Perhaps you could provide us with your historical sources. Whilst, I agree that the personal history of various apostles has perished, I do not apply it to the founding of the churches. If you state that there is no reliable history as to who founded the churches in Rome and Carthage, then why do you hold to the belief that it could not have been Peter?
As I mentioned previously, many scholars hold that Babylon is a reference to Rome:
“The tradition connecting St Peter with Rome is early and unrivalled. Against it can be placed only the silence of the New Testament...The identification of ‘Babylon’ in 1 Pet 5:13 with Rome seems highly probable” (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1989), 1068).
Protestant Alan Stibbs states in his commentary, “The name ‘Babylon’ is used in Rev 17, 18 to refer to Rome, and it can be so understood here. Only at and since the Reformation have some preferred to treat the word literally as a reference either to Babylon in Mesopotamia or to a military station called Babylon in Egypt. (The First Epistle General of Peter, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids, Mich.;Eerdmans, 1981).
So, if Babylon is a reference to Rome, then Peter by his own admission was there.
Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Eerdmans, 1910) “.......Rome was equally sought as a commanding position by heretics and theosophic jugglers, as Simon Magus, Valentine, Marcion, Cerdo, and a host of others. No wonder, then, that the bishops of Rome at an early date were looked upon as metropolitan pastors, and spoke and acted accordingly with an air of authority which reached far beyond their immediate diocese.” (Schaff, volume 2, page 157). Schaff then provides a succession list of bishops in the apostolic see of Rome for the first two centuries:
Peter, Linus, Anacletus, Clement I, Evaristus, Alexander I, Sixtus I, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius I, Anicetus, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor I (page 166)
This same list is given by Irenaeus in his “Against Heresies 3:3:1-3c 180-199 AD), as does Hegesippus (160AD) in “History of the Church by Eusebius”.
As to the message that Paul gives in 1 Cor, I agree. No argument with you on that one.
Donna
So, if Babylon is a reference to Rome, then Peter by his own admission was there.
I have said Peter was there, for the last two years of his life, according to historical sources. I furthermore stated he could not have been the first Pope, if you read my first post, and do not ignore the points in there. You are only proving my point. Your other quotes are typical Catholic apologetics, which can be read on Catholic websites, which only see things from one point of view.
It is interesting that Catholic sources try to establish that the papal sucession from Peter was unbroken. An example of another error is that of saying that Clement was the third Bishop of Rome.
The epistle of Clement was probably one of the earliest sub-apostolic writings. It was written in 96 AD to the church in Corinth where there had been certain unpleasant divisions.
Irenaeus writing over a century later says that Clement was the third Bishop of Rome. There is however no suggestion in Clement’s epistle that he had authority over any church other than his own. In fact Clement himself, like Paul and Luke (in the book of Acts) always usesthe terms ‘bishop’ and ‘presbyter’ as being interchangeable. Clement made constant appeal to scripture (OT and NT) especially the Pauline epistles, and had a deeply evangelical tone whenever he speakes about the atonement of sin..
The Roman Catholic Church has always made appeals for the supremecy of itself on the basis of relating certain people to the Bishopry of Rome, whilst history does not really support many of these views. Except by Rome saying so itself.
The Epistle of Clement was rad at public services in Corinth oir two hundred years.......
Ken says:The Roman Catholic Church has always made appeals for the supremecy of itself on the basis of relating certain people to the Bishopry of Rome, whilst history does not really support many of these views.
Please give us the evidence ..tht is an erroneous statement..gtranted you make it in good faith.
The Epistle of Clement was rad at public services in Corinth oir two hundred years.......
Ken says:The Roman Catholic Church has always made appeals for the supremecy of itself on the basis of relating certain people to the Bishopry of Rome, whilst history does not really support many of these views.
Please give us the evidence ..tht is an erroneous statement..gtranted you make it in good faith.
I thought I gave good evidence that Peter, an apostle, was never the first Bishop of Rome, and that Clement was not the third Bishop of Rome.
Therefore, the RCC cannot claim this succession from Peter etc. It is only wishful thinking.
It was up to Leo 1 to first claim, at the council of Chalcedon (451) that the term ‘pope’ be reserved exclusively for him and his successors at Rome.
It was remarkable that before Leo, the one Roman bishop who could be regarded as really outstanding. This was Hippolytus, died 235, who was bishop of a sect and much opposed to the official Roman bishops.
It was later Pope Gregory 1 (590-604) who renewed the claim for supremecy of the Church. He also made the ludicrous claim of being the ‘successor of Peter’ and the ‘Vicar of Christ on earth’, which clearly implied supremecy over all the Church.
So, if Babylon is a reference to Rome, then Peter by his own admission was there.
I have said Peter was there, for the last two years of his life, according to historical sources. I furthermore stated he could not have been the first Pope, if you read my first post, and do not ignore the points in there. You are only proving my point. Your other quotes are typical Catholic apologetics, which can be read on Catholic websites, which only see things from one point of view.
Ken
Your objections are typically anti-Catholic ones that I have read in books like Lorraine Boettner’s, Roman Catholicism. Still, we await your evidence.
It is interesting that Catholic sources try to establish that the papal sucession from Peter was unbroken. An example of another error is that of saying that Clement was the third Bishop of Rome.
Not just Catholic sources, as I have provided for you.
The epistle of Clement was probably one of the earliest sub-apostolic writings. It was written in 96 AD to the church in Corinth where there had been certain unpleasant divisions.
What does that prove?
Irenaeus writing over a century later says that Clement was the third Bishop of Rome. There is however no suggestion in Clement’s epistle that he had authority over any church other than his own. In fact Clement himself, like Paul and Luke (in the book of Acts) always usesthe terms ‘bishop’ and ‘presbyter’ as being interchangeable. Clement made constant appeal to scripture (OT and NT) especially the Pauline epistles, and had a deeply evangelical tone whenever he speakes about the atonement of sin..
Show me what you mean by “there is no suggestion in Clement’s epistle that he had authority over any church other than his own”.
The Roman Catholic Church has always made appeals for the supremecy of itself on the basis of relating certain people to the Bishopry of Rome, whilst history does not really support many of these views. Except by Rome saying so itself.
J.N.D. Kelly (Anglican scholar) in The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (pg 5-6) says:
“The papacy, through successive popes and councils, has always traced its origins and title-deeds to the unique commission reported to have been given bgy Jesus Christ to Peter, the chief of his Apostles, later to be martyred when organizing the earliest group of Christians at Rome.....
Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church on St Clement of Rome:
“..it can hardly be denied that the document (Clement to the Corinthians) reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked (as far as appears), gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unit in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising if St John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome.” (vol 2, pg 158)
Good to see a lot of interesting discussion going on here. When I started this thread, I was looking to coax out some discussion on a few areas of protestant and catholic belief. I note that catholic belief has had plenty of attention, but protestant belief hasn’t had the same level of scrutiny. One I am interested in debating but which doesn’t seem to have gotten much air time, is predestination. It seems to me that hard line predestination is a logical outcome of “faith by grace” and that that predestination is essentially nihilistic. Any views?
Re your post #291, I have been away and apologise for my tardiness in response.
Put simply, your statement is no more than your own faith statement and is not verifiable in the sense of logical positivism. It is also circular, A=B and therefore B=A.
Re your posts #292 and #298. Your guess is wrong and is a straw man in that it misstates Catholic doctrine. I think Donna has discussed this point quite eloquently elsewhere.
I would be interested in knowing your view on the real presence in the eucharist and on baptism in terms of what the scriptures have to say for themselves.
Re your post #291, I have been away and apologise for my tardiness in response.
Put simply, your statement is no more than your own faith statement and is not verifiable in the sense of logical positivism. It is also circular, A=B and therefore B=A.
regards
John
Hi John
So is the authority higher than God himself and his Word
the Roman Catholic Church, logic or your opinion?
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
