Posted on 07/26/2013 2:04:17 PM PDT by NYer
That post fits with my narrative of not reading the first 11 chapters of Genesis literally.
Matthew 16:18 - http://bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm
Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.
Greek: 4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros (”small stone”) then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra (”cliff, boulder,” Abbott-Smith).
“4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff” (TDNT, 3, 100). “4074 (Pétros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (pétra), a projecting rock, cliff” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – “a mass of connected rock,” which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is “a detached stone or boulder” (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a “solid or native rock, rising up through the earth” (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.
4073 (petra) is “a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
It’s also a strange way to word the sentence that He would call Peter a rock and say that on this I will build my church instead of *on you* as would be grammatically correct in talking to a person.
There is no support from the original Greek for the idea that Jesus meant Peter to be that which He was going to build His church on. The nouns are not the same as one is feminine and the other masculine and denote different objects.
You may have a very poor sense of sarcasm, or . . .
I smell a troll.
At least fake Jews, unlike real Catholics, don't think G-d is a liar (chas vechalilah!)
ZC, why don’t you write to him and ask him if he believes in Biblical inerrancy?
Rest assured, that God, whether he’s a Catholic, snake handler, or a fake Jew, appreciates your omitting the ‘o’ when you say or write His name.
Write whom? No Catholic on this forum will answer such a question, and the subject of the article has made it clear that origins (and thus the historical details of Genesis) aren't important.
Well, if you don’t like bible thumpers perhaps you should find a different forum. This forum stands for GOD and country. Lots of us “bible thumpers” enjoy our freedom to post here in this more or less atheist-free island of conservative sanity.
Rest assured that poking fun at Jewish customs on a conservative web site probably isn't a good idea.
Understood.
The word *grace* in Luke 1:28 that is used by the angel, is the same word *grace* that appears in Ephesians 1:6
Ephesians 1:3-10 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
I know. Only mocking Catholic customs and calling the Pope ‘anti-Christ’ is accepted at a ‘conservative forum’.
I don’t understand the bickering on this forum between Catholics and protestants. All who believe in the one true Judeo-Christian God are welcome to post here.
Please reserve the insults for other forums.
And you know this how? How are you privy to this information? Did God come down and tell you how He did these things?
Got some Scripture verses to support that doctrine?
Give it a rest.
B.
Definitely *B*.
I will, Jim. I only come here for the jokes, as they say.
No Catholic is even theoretically capable of acknowledging that I have a legitimate point about anything. But I'm sure stabbing at my deep psychic sores from my unfortunate experiences in your . . . "mother church" . . . delights you to no end. But then, who wants a redneck? Even mothers, after all, have their standards.
You've got a n00b co-religionist claiming that the virgin birth was real but Adam and Eve aren't, but don't you worry about that. Nothing but solidarity in the face of us awful snake-handlers. But even this snake-handler knows that Pius XII taught in Humani Generis that Adam and Eve were actual people and that polygeny is not permitted. Actually, you have at least one other "traditional" Catholic rejecting monogeny as well, but . . . after all, it's only creation. Not important at all.
I think I shall simply have to forego reading your next little poisonous barb. There is such a thing as self-preservation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.