Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by mattgulptosser, Apr 29, 2018.
This is a very interesting passage indeed. In verse 16 (Matthew chapter 16) Peter acknowledges Jesus as The Christ or Messiah. In the next verse (17) Jesus says Peter is blessed because God told him this and it wasn't from flesh or blood. In verse 18 Jesus says "...you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church;" The word for rock that is used in the original Greek transcripts was the word petra, a feminine form of the word for rock. Curious.Jesus was really pointing out that what Peter said here, his testimony was accurate. It's Peter's eye witness account that the church would be built on. All the apostles were stones the church would be built on, and scripture (the only thing valid to interpret other scripture with) tells us that Jesus is the corner stone of the church. If we read in 1 Corinthians 3:10-11 we can see that is further substantiates this. "According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ."
Contrary to the teaching of our catholic brothers and sisters, ONLY Christ can be declared the foundation of The Church, The Gospel and the entire teachings of both the Old and New Testaments. Peter and the others were merely building on the foundation which Jesus laid.
Jesus called Peter the rock, and 6 verses later he called him Satan. Tough stuff to wrap your head around sometimes but let's let scripture interpret scripture and it all lines up clear as day.
No, the factual truth's needs to be spoken about. Jesus commanded us to evangelize. Is this not Scriptural? He also wanted one faith, one truth, one church. How is it you pick and choose what you wish and ignore the rest?
You say you're sources come from Catholic & ex-Catholic friends? Really? Do you know that only 20% of Catholic even practice their faith? That means 80% do not know it. On the other hand, I know it and practice it. I didn't learn the "truth" it from ex-Catholics.
A word of advice ... think twice about claiming you "idolize" God. You worship Him, right? Big difference!
Can you tell me what James meant here? FYI, Marten Luther, the 1st Protestant, wanted James removed from the Canon because it destroyed his very own faith ideology of "Faith Alone."
James 2:14-26 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
Faith without Works Is Dead
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,” and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder. 20 Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren? 21 Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. 23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.
I've already told you we do not idolize the pope, yet you choose to attempt getting mileage from it. Why? To make your point defend your statement by showing any Catholic source that supports your "idolization" accusation. If true it should be very simple and you should be able to prove it, easily!
When did Rome get it's "pagan fingers'' on the good church? Can you give me a year? Bare in mind, Peter & Paul went to Rome only a couple of decades after Christ's death & Resurrection. Was it already ruined by then? Because if it was, then toss your Bible in the circular file, because that wasn't formulated until the very end of the 4th Century. You know what that means. The God and Chirst you "idolize", know and read about were chosen by those "Pagan finger's" you mentioned.
you're too much. step back and breathe for a minute. You seem to have a lot of problems with the bible. You referred to me as idolizing the bible and I responded that I "idolize" God, using the same words. I get that it is a poor choice of words. But I am done responding to you. You have a chip on your shoulder and are very hell bent in your responses. You only respond to certain replies not all. You act as if the bible was "made up" 400 years after the fact. when the disciples were teaching what is in the bible. Yeah there may not have been 1000s of copies but the teachings of Jesus and original writings were there and the disciples were spreading the same Gospel that was written down in your words, 400 years later. I am done with this never ending fight. Peace be with you! Your very last sentence above speak like if Rome (my quote "Pegan Fingers") didnt exist, neither would have God and Christ. Seems you hold your traditions above God. Hopefully I am wrong. Again, Peace be with you!
This only verifies what I stated last night. My point was that since the NT was written in Greek, however specifically "Coined" Greek.
You argue that Jesus did not mean that his Church would be built on Peter but on something else? Please, remember also that the NT was not "just" written in Greek. It was written in ''Koine'' Greek!
While arguing that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet you ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modified to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for obvious reasons. If you deny this, then you must either believe that Peter was a girl. We know that isn't true and we know that Peter was not Satan, either. He was chastized by Jesus, and he was prophesized to deny Jesus 3 times. Jesus also offered a three-fold opportunity for forgiveness, as is described in John 21:15-19. Peter is hurt when Jesus asks him a third time because it made him recall his own three-time denial of Jesus. This story emphasizes the prominence of Peter among the Apostles and demonstrates how, despite his denials, Peter is restored ... he is reconciled with Jesus, through Jesus’ forgiveness of sins.
You also neglect the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church."
Also, realize what name changes meant in the Bible. When the name of a person was changed by God, it always meant something very significant, ie: Abraham in Genesis 17:5 and Jacob in Genesis 32:28. It was a very big deal, and you did not recognize this. Although you mention that all of the apostles were told that the fact that the Lord promised to them that Hell would not prevail against it ... Peter was the only one that was given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, an occurrence that is still significant today ... when a specially chosen person is given the ''keys to a city.''
Peter was the leader of the Apostles. God chose Peter to be His representative, as the leader of His Church on earth. Peter was the first Pope and given the unrivaled responsibility to lead God's Church on earth (with the guidance of the Advocate or Spirit of Truth, he would also logically be in need of successors since this church would be free from error until the end of time. That is why there have been 265 that have followed Peter, in an unbroken chain that dates back to Peter himself.