| Thanks for all of that from the Bible Mr. Elsie... |  |
...or is it MRS??? |
Posted on 06/22/2012 8:48:35 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
It is within the bounds of “open” Religion Forum town square style debate for a Freeper to express his hatred of a belief. But such posts are never allowed on RF threads labeled “prayer” “devotional” “caucus” or “ecumenical.”
It is never within the bounds on the Religion Forum for a Freeper to express his hatred of people who hold a particular belief when any Freeper is part of the belief group.
For example:
It is ok to express hatred towards CatholicISM on “open” Religion Forum threads. It is never ok to express hatred towards Catholics because some Freepers are Catholic.
It is ok to express hatred towards ProtestantISM on “open” Religion Forum threads. It is never ok to express hatred towards Protestants because some Freepers are Protestant.
It is ok to express hatred towards SatanISM and Satanists both because no Freeper is Satanist.
Some political posters are now venturing onto the Religion Forum probably because Romney’s beliefs are at issue in this election.
If you do not wish to see RF posts, do NOT use the "everything" option on the Free Republic browse option list. Instead, browse by "News/Activism." When you log back in, the browse will reset to "everything" - so be sure to set it back to "News/Activism."
Finally, whereas posters may argue vigorously for and against beliefs on “open” Religion Forum threads it is never tolerable to use ad hominems in religious debate because they invariably lead to flame wars when the subject is one’s deeply held religious beliefs.
For something to be "making it personal" it must be speaking to another Freeper, personally.
"Protestants are heretics" is not making it personal. "You are a heretic" is making it personal. "Catholics worship Mary" is not making it personal. "You worship Mary" is making it personal. "Mormons worship many gods" is not making it personal. "You worship many gods" is making it personal.
However, when a poster paints with a brush that accuses an entire religion of criminal behavior - his post will be pulled as flame bait. For example, posts that say "Protestants kill babies" or "Catholics molest children" or "Mormons kill non-Mormons" will be pulled. However, if the post is specific about a non-Freeper, I will not pull it. For example "Rev. Doe says abortion and infanticide are not sin" or "Father Doe was convicted for molesting those kids" or "Mormons killed non-Mormons at Mountain Meadows" would not be pulled.
Statements formed as questions are rarely "making it personal."
"Are you a heretic" is not making it personal. "You are a heretic" is making it personal.
Forms of "making it personal" include mind reading, attributing motive, accusing another Freeper of telling a lie (because it attributes motive, the intent to deceive) - making the thread "about" individual Freeper(s), following a Freeper from thread to thread and badgering a Freeper over-and-again with the same question.
When in doubt, avoid the use of the pronoun "you" and Freeper's names - or put yourself in the other guy's shoes.
Despite all these efforts to eliminate ad hominems, there is nothing I can do to keep you from "taking it personally."
If you keep getting your feelings hurt because other posters ridicule or disapprove or hate what you hold dear, then you are too thin-skinned to be involved in “open” RF debate. You should IGNORE “open” RF threads altogether and instead post to RF threads labeled “prayer” “devotional” “caucus” or “ecumenical.”
Yes, what's an inquisition or two among friends? The sale of indulgences, meh? The imprisonment of Galileo for suggesting the earth goes around the sun instead of what the Church taught (that the sun goes around the earth)was just more truth coming out, right? Yes, only the truth. Good thing they didn't slide priests around to avoid prosecution for child molestation because that would look bad. Thank goodness for the beacon of light that shines from Rome.
Sinfulness does not equal errant doctrine, yet you pretend otherwise (you sound like a liberal).
Erroneous science does not equal errant doctrine.
Not that you are interested in truth, but the fact is that it was the prevailing scientific community that doubted Galileo - and the Church suppressed Galileo in large part because it wanted to squelch protestant criticisms that Rome’s scientists contradicted protestant ideas of scripture (which protestants at the time thought required the earth to be at the center of the universe). Also, while Galileo’s ultimate conclusion was right, but his explanation was erroneous. And the Church simply told him he had to teach it as a possible theory because he had no proof. It was only when he refused and instead taught that he was 100% correct that he was suppressed because he was being anti-scientific and also agitating protestants. You must certainly know that it is the lieberals that posit the claim that the Church is anti-science when in fact the Church invented the university and funded almost all science until about 1600.
It certainly does not equal TRUTH either.
I'm sure you believe the spin your Church has put on the Galileo story but the fact that they bullied an old man who was correct speaks volumes about how they put their interests above Gods. Jesus would not have condoned this act.
” I abhor Catholicism almost as much as I do Mormonism. “
What a shame that you abhor the Church that Jesus Himself began at Pentacost.
Reading is a good thing, you might try it sometime. Where did your church start, who started it? What is the history of Jesus’ church?
I belong to the First Church of Christ. I’m a Catholic.
“Hi! My name is ELSIE and I freep WAY too much.”
And Elsie is a guy. So what is truth, Elsie?
To: Alex Murphy
...the promise of instantanous death to anyone who dared to touch her.
I dated a gal once whose DAD said this!
4,282 posted on September 19, 2011 3:59:07 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don’t believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
| To 4239 |
To: Elsie
***********
...the promise of instantanous death to anyone who dared to touch her. I dated a gal once whose DAD said this!
***************
Elsie is a guy? Or is Elsie a girl? Or is it Elsie so that we think he/she is a girl?
Elsie - Definition [el-see] (n.) Female given name, form of Elizabeth Dictionary.com . See all 1 definitions »
4,333 posted on September 20, 2011 5:05:04 AM PDT by Not gonna take it anymore (Catholic, Easter vigil 2008)
| To 4282 |
To: Not gonna take it anymore
Not gonna take it anymore is a guy? Or is Not gonna take it anymore a girl? Or is it Not gonna take it anymore so that we think he/she is a ???
Not gonna take it anymore - Definition [see Fed Up] (n.) Descriptor usually found at bottom of reply. Frequently describes an attribute of poster.
See Howard Beale
Not gonna take it anymore
4,367 posted on September 20, 2011 9:48:21 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don’t believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
| To 4333 |
To: Elsie
I do not have a girl’s name.
Are you a girl? Or are you a guy with a girl’s name.
My name is asexual. It describes a feeling not a sex.
You can take it anyway you want. Or you can ask me. I’m not hiding anything.
4,404 posted on September 20, 2011 7:16:06 PM PDT by Not gonna take it anymore (Catholic, Easter vigil 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4367 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
The word that is translated *church* in Scripture is *ekklésia* meaning *assembly*. There is no term for the Catholic church in Scripture. The Catholic church co-opted the verse and misapplied it in a bid to claim absolute authority on the earth.
The real church, the body of Christ, is founded on the Rock, that is Christ. HE is the head of the church and Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to ALL believers and that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth. It isn't for a select few. The same Holy Spirit resides in all believers and guides all believers into truth.
Jesus told the apostles and their successors, the popes and the bishops, “He who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16).
Chapter and verse? Where is the term pope and bishop used by Jesus? And that verse can apply to any believer, not just a select few who fancy themselves some sort of guardians of truth to dole out to others as they see fit.
Another courtesy ping to AM and Elsie to let them know they were being talked about since a courtesy ping was again neglected.
This is the News/Activism forum.
The Philosophy forum is down the hall.
And now back to our regular programming...
The real church, the body of Christ, is founded on the Rock, that is Christ.
|
Is Peter the 'rock'?
As you can see, Simon was already known as 'Peter'
BEFORE the following verses came along.....
NIV 1 Corinthians 10:4
and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. NIV Luke 6:48
He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. NIV Romans 9:33
As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." NIV 1 Peter 2:4-8
4. As you come to him, the living Stone--rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him-- 5. you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6. For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 7. Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone, " 8. and, "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message--which is also what they were destined for. But, since there WAS no NT at the time Christ spoke to Peter, just what DID Peter and the rest of the Disciples know about ROCKS??? NIV Genesis 49:24-25 24. But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed limber, because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob, because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel, 25. because of your father's God, who helps you, because of the Almighty, who blesses you with blessings of the heavens above, blessings of the deep that lies below, blessings of the breast and womb. NIV Numbers 20:8
"Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the assembly together. Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink." NIV Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he. NIV Deuteronomy 32:15
Jeshurun grew fat and kicked; filled with food, he became heavy and sleek. He abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Savior. NIV Deuteronomy 32:18
You deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth. NIV Deuteronomy 32:30-31
30. How could one man chase a thousand, or two put ten thousand to flight, unless their Rock had sold them, unless the LORD had given them up? 31. For their rock is not like our Rock, as even our enemies concede. NIV 1 Samuel 2:2
"There is no one holy like the LORD; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God. NIV 2 Samuel 22:2-3
2. He said: "The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; 3. my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation. He is my stronghold, my refuge and my savior-- from violent men you save me. NIV 2 Samuel 22:32
For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? NIV 2 Samuel 22:47
"The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God, the Rock, my Savior! NIV 2 Samuel 23:3-4
3. The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me: `When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God, 4. he is like the light of morning at sunrise on a cloudless morning, like the brightness after rain that brings the grass from the earth.' NIV Psalms 18:2
The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge. He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold. NIV Psalms 18:31
For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? NIV Psalms 18:46
The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God my Savior! NIV Psalms 19:14
May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer. NIV Psalms 28:1
To you I call, O LORD my Rock; do not turn a deaf ear to me. For if you remain silent, I will be like those who have gone down to the pit.
NIV Psalms 31:2-3
2. Turn your ear to me, come quickly to my rescue; be my rock of refuge, a strong fortress to save me. 3. Since you are my rock and my fortress, for the sake of your name lead and guide me. NIV Psalms 42:9
I say to God my Rock, "Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?" NIV Psalms 62:2
He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will never be shaken. NIV Psalms 62:6
He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will not be shaken. NIV Psalms 62:7
My salvation and my honor depend on God ; he is my mighty rock, my refuge. NIV Psalms 71:3
Be my rock of refuge, to which I can always go; give the command to save me, for you are my rock and my fortress. NIV Psalms 78:35
They remembered that God was their Rock, that God Most High was their Redeemer. NIV Psalms 89:26
He will call out to me, `You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.' NIV Psalms 92:14-15
14. They will still bear fruit in old age, they will stay fresh and green, 15. proclaiming, "The LORD is upright; he is my Rock, and there is no wickedness in him." NIV Psalms 95:1
Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation. NIV Psalms 144:1
Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle. NIV Isaiah 17:10
You have forgotten God your Savior; you have not remembered the Rock, your fortress. NIV Isaiah 26:4
Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD, is the Rock eternal. NIV Isaiah 30:29
And you will sing as on the night you celebrate a holy festival; your hearts will rejoice as when people go up with flutes to the mountain of the LORD, to the Rock of Israel. NIV Isaiah 44:8
Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one." NIV Habakkuk 1:12 O LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One, we will not die. O LORD, you have appointed them to execute judgment; O Rock, you have ordained them to punish. |
And now you know the Biblical position!
There's no such thing as bad PR!
;^)
Even the famously anti-Catholic England is acknowledging that their history books were also anti-Catholic propaganda books.
From today’s news:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9350681/The-story-of-the-Reformation-needs-reforming.html
The Garden of Eden. God.
What we know for sure is wrote in the Bible. Corruption started almost immediately after the Disciples died. History gets re-wrote. Rules get changed. Power, greed and corruption is the nature of man. So, what we know for sure is wrote in the Bible. Read the Bible for truth. Read all else for amusement.
History gets re-wrote. Rules get changed. Power, greed and corruption is the nature of man. Go forth. Believe what you wish.
Disagree and the "mob mentality" you use to define others so derisively applies to those on the "opposite side" as well.
Especially those who are cowards and won't ping or name names when talking about those they are maligning or slandering.
Pontificate all you want, but there is certain lack of character, morals and values in those behaviors.
But maybe they didn't teach that in psych 101?
It’s interesting that when presented with information that contradicts the original premise, the poster ignores it and goes on to another topic.
I’m no expert, I don’t pretend to be one in many or all of the facets of religiosity, spirituality or faith.
I do the best I can under the circumstances. If someone is not informed or posting false information, I will do my best to correct those misperceptions. But to assign the title of “mob mentality” to such actions, simply because one is on the opposite side, demonstrates how little regard the poster has for those with opposing views, opinions or facts.
Hmmm, if some see Peter as the Rock--and the Bible says the Rock is God--then not only is Peter the first pope (I see adherents to Rome don't capitalize "pope" so I won't either) but he also must be God.
This is getting stranger and stranger...
If someone is not informed or posting false information, I will do my best to correct those misperceptions. But to assign the title of "mob mentality" to such actions, simply because one is on the opposite side, demonstrates how little regard the poster has for those with opposing views, opinions or facts.Me too.
It's far too typical of those with no viable arguement and who aren't perpared for reasoned discourse to ignore the issue and proclaim an evaluation based on what they percieve to fit their agenda.
Many that do "psych work" (and brag about it lol) tend to use the aforementioned leftist liberal tactic and then go and hide.
netmilsmom is one of those. ( I didn't ping her, she seems to fear my comments)
Speaking of which, she is quite afraid of Romney and has nightmares about Obama.
Check into the differences similarities between pagan Rome and papal Rome.
You read the Bible in the same way Elaina Kagan reads the constitution.
ad hominem and a poor one at that.
Jesus is the Rock that His Church is built upon.
The Biblical perspective has been presented on this thread, it can either be believed or Rome and it’s
“popes’” (not in the Bible) teachings can be believed.
I understand the pressure you must be under.
Love, Elaina
Well, most protestant biblical scholars disagree with you - even if they don’t adopt the Catholic view that prevailed for 1500 years.
http://vws.biblecommenter.com/matthew/16.htm
Vincent’s Word Studies
Thou art Peter
Christ responds to Peter’s emphatic thou with another, equally emphatic. Peter says, “Thou art the Christ.” Christ replies, “Thou art Peter.” Peter is used as a proper name, but without losing its meaning as a common noun. The name was bestowed on Simon at his first interview with Jesus (John 1:42) under the form of its Aramaic equivalent, Cephas. In this passage attention is called, not to the giving of the name, but to its meaning. In classical Greek the word means a piece of rock, as in Homer, of Ajax throwing a stone at Hector (”Iliad,” vii., 270), or of Patroclus grasping and hiding in his hand a jagged stone (”Iliad,” xvi., 784).
On this rock
The word is feminine, and means a rock, as distinguished from a stone or a fragment of rock. Used of a ledge of rocks or a rocky peak. In Homer (”Odyssey,” ix., 243), the rock which Polyphemus places at the door of his cavern, is a mass which two-and-twenty wagons could not remove; and the rock which he hurled at the retreating ships of Ulysses, created by its fall a wave in the sea which drove the ships back toward the land (”Odyssey,” ix., 484). The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter’s confession, but to Peter himself, in a sense defined by his previous confession, and as enlightened by the “Father in Heaven.”
The reference of this rock to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: “On this rock will I build.” Again, Christ is the great foundation, the “chief corner-stone,” but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ’s church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Peter 2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and, in 1 Peter 2:5, addresses the church as living stones. In Revelation 21:14, the names of the twelve apostles appear in the twelve foundation-stones of the heavenly city; and in Ephesians 2:20, it is said, “Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (i.e., laid by the apostles and prophets), Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone.”
Equally untenable is the explanation which refers to Simon’s confession. Both the play upon the words and the natural reading of the passage are against it, and besides, it does not conform to the fact, since the church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men.
“The word rock” says Edersheim, “was used in the same sense in Rabbinic language. According to the Rabbins, when God was about to build his world, he could not rear it on the generation of Enos, nor on that of the flood, who brought destruction upon the world; but when he beheld that Abraham would arise in the future, he said’ ‘Behold, I have found a rock to build on it, and to found the world,’ whence, also, Abraham is called a rock, as it is said’ ‘Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn.’ The parallel between Abraham and Peter might be carried even further. If, from a misunderstanding of the Lord’s promise to Peter, later Christian legend represented the apostle as sitting at the gate of heaven, Jewish legend represents Abraham as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, so as to prevent all who had the seal of circumcision from falling into its abyss” (”Life and Times of Jesus”).
The reference to Simon himself is confirmed by the actual relation of Peter to the early church, to the Jewish portion of which he was a foundation-stone. See Acts, Acts 1:15; Acts 2:14, Acts 2:37; Acts 3:12; Acts 4:8; Acts 5:15, Acts 5:29; Acts 9:34, Acts 9:40; Acts 10:25, Acts 10:26; Galatians 1:15.
I cannot read giant blocks of texts with out spaces, etc.
Nor do I relate to pope/Catholic or "protestant" viewpoints much as relating to a proper Holy Spirit translation of Biblical Scriptures.
It the Christian viewpoint inspired by the aforementioned Holy Spirit that floats my boat.
One of the most fulfilling Biblical readings to take part in are those guided by the Holy Spirit.
Not a man or an institution.
I don't care who agrees with me.
I just like agreeing with God and His Word.
Your mileage may vary.
==================================
http://vws.biblecommenter.com/matthew/16.htm
Vincent's Word Studies
Thou art Peter (οὺ εἶ Πέτρος)
Christ responds to Peter's emphatic thou with another, equally emphatic. Peter says, "Thou art the Christ." Christ replies, "Thou art Peter." Πέτρος (Peter) is used as a proper name, but without losing its meaning as a common noun. The name was bestowed on Simon at his first interview with Jesus (John 1:42) under the form of its Aramaic equivalent, Cephas. In this passage attention is called, not to the giving of the name, but to its meaning. In classical Greek the word means a piece of rock, as in Homer, of Ajax throwing a stone at Hector ("Iliad," vii., 270), or of Patroclus grasping and hiding in his hand a jagged stone ("Iliad," xvi., 784).
On this rock (ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέρᾳ)
The word is feminine, and means a rock, as distinguished from a stone or a fragment of rock (πέτρος, above). Used of a ledge of rocks or a rocky peak. In Homer ("Odyssey," ix., 243), the rock (πέτρην) which Polyphemus places at the door of his cavern, is a mass which two-and-twenty wagons could not remove; and the rock which he hurled at the retreating ships of Ulysses, created by its fall a wave in the sea which drove the ships back toward the land ("Odyssey," ix., 484). The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter's confession, but to Peter himself, in a sense defined by his previous confession, and as enlightened by the "Father in Heaven."
The reference of πέτρα to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: "On this rock will I build." Again, Christ is the great foundation, the "chief corner-stone," but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ's church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Peter 2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and, in 1 Peter 2:5, addresses the church as living stones. In Revelation 21:14, the names of the twelve apostles appear in the twelve foundation-stones of the heavenly city; and in Ephesians 2:20, it is said, "Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (i.e., laid by the apostles and prophets), Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone."
Equally untenable is the explanation which refers πέτρα to Simon's confession. Both the play upon the words and the natural reading of the passage are against it, and besides, it does not conform to the fact, since the church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men.
"The word πέτρα," says Edersheim, "was used in the same sense in Rabbinic language. According to the Rabbins, when God was about to build his world, he could not rear it on the generation of Enos, nor on that of the flood, who brought destruction upon the world; but when he beheld that Abraham would arise in the future, he said' 'Behold, I have found a rock to build on it, and to found the world,' whence, also, Abraham is called a rock, as it is said' 'Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn.' The parallel between Abraham and Peter might be carried even further. If, from a misunderstanding of the Lord's promise to Peter, later Christian legend represented the apostle as sitting at the gate of heaven, Jewish legend represents Abraham as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, so as to prevent all who had the seal of circumcision from falling into its abyss" ("Life and Times of Jesus").
The reference to Simon himself is confirmed by the actual relation of Peter to the early church, to the Jewish portion of which he was a foundation-stone. See Acts, Acts 1:15; Acts 2:14, Acts 2:37; Acts 3:12; Acts 4:8; Acts 5:15, Acts 5:29; Acts 9:34, Acts 9:40; Acts 10:25, Acts 10:26; Galatians 1:15.
Thank you, Ms. Kagan.
Run your fingers over this:
⠠⠏⠑⠞⠑⠗⠀⠊⠎⠀⠠⠛⠕⠙
You debate like Alan Colmes
| Thanks for all of that from the Bible Mr. Elsie... | |
...or is it MRS??? |
You have my permission to post the way YOU read it on FR.
Do you choose to do so?
If the RCC position is SO clear; then we Protestants won't have anything to PROTEST about; will we.
The gates of Hades overcame Peter when he denied his Lord three times. The cornerstone is Jesus. The Rock of Ages is Jesus. The Living Stone is Jesus.
The referent of that last "it" is the church, not the rock.
Ekklesia does not mean assembly, it more closely means convocation; a gathering of people called together for a specific mission or purpose.
The word choice of Ekklesia in New Testament Scripture mirrors that of the Septuagint that also translated Qahal as Ekklesia. This choice superimposes the tradition of the Hebrew Qahal with the traditional governing body of the Greek city states.
It is interesting to note that like the Church, both the Qahal and the Ekklesia were structured, hierarchical governing bodies. However, were the meaning what you assert, the Hebrew word would have been Edah, not Qahal and the Greek word would have been "kuriakos".
Peace be with you
Elsie,
The source is a protestant scripture scholar from 100 years ago.
The prevailing interpretation of this “upon this rock” passage is that it is clearly a reference to Peter - even among those who don’t accept that this supports the doctrine of Peter’s continued office.
If you're keeping count (or just making stuff up as you go along because it coincides with your thinking), you can count me as one who does NOT believe it is referring to Peter.
Also keep in mind that 1 + God is always a majority. It doesn’t matter what the prevailing opinion or majority of scholars thinks, God is the final arbiter of what is or is not TRUTH.
Each word of scripture is as sacred as every crumb of the Eucharist. Let’s first consider the words used to set the scene for the dialog in Matthew 16. Following the feeding of the 5,000 near Capernaum and the dialog in the Synagogue in which Jesus declared His body the Eucharist and real food Jesus took Peter and along with the other Apostles and Disciples up to Caesarea Philippi to reveal his papacy to him. The selection of the location is far from a coincidence. Caesarea Philippi is a 25 mile, two day hike from Capernaum through some pretty rough country.
Caesarea Philippi is located near the Golan Heights. The city, previously known as Panis, was built above a huge rock wall that was known in ancient times as the “Rock of the Gods”. It was a very important location militarily, and had been a place of temples and worship dating back thousands of years before the first century.
Physically, that rock stood between a city of temples and the gates of hell. At the base of the cliff is a massive grotto or flooded cave that at the time was a natural cistern that the Greeks and their predecessors believed was a gate to the underworld. although now collapsed by seismic activity and dry the Romans tried to measure the depth of the cistern and gave up when they passed 800 feet without finding the bottom. It is interesting to note that the ancients used to perform sacrifices in this cave and would see the emergence of blood from the sacrifices in the local springs that form the headwaters of the Jordan River as a sign.
It was before this wall, topped by the temple to Pan, the Greek God of chaos and confusion, that the conversation took place. In the presence of the massive rock that was a foundation to a holy city Jesus told Peter that he was a smaller rock, and that upon it, like the larger rock upon which was built the city before them, He would build His Church and that it would stand forever against the gates of hell. A side note is that all of this arguing about the relevance of Petros versus Petra is foolish in the context of that location. Jesus often used wordplay and humor to convey His message.
Jesus began the dialog by asking His Apostles and Disciples who the people said He was. He was demonstrating His rejection of a democratic, self-interpreting Church. The response to the question was varied. Some said John the Baptist, some said Elijah, some said one of the prophets. All were wrong.
Jesus then asked the Apostles collectively who they thought He was and there was silence and He then rejected an oligarchical or elite governance. Then, without consulting the other Apostles, Peter stepped forward and declared that Jesus was indeed the Son of the Living God, which was the correct answer. Jesus acknowledged this and declared that Peter could only have learned this from God, designating that like the He had throughout the history of His people God had chosen one person to be the spiritual leader to carry on after Jesus. And there, before the rock that stood between the ancient temple city of Caesarea Philippi and the cave grotto that was known to the people on the region as the gates or jaws of hell declared, it was upon Peter that he would found his Church, His Ekklesia, His Qahal.
Peace be with you.
Like.
'Prevail' all you want; but it PLAINLY shows that the REVELATION of JESUS being the Messiah is the ROCK; no matter what your church wants it to be.
OH?
You have not convinced me.
> Perhaps there is another more obvious answer that ...(we) are missing. We need only look at the preceding verses to find it:
15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? 16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:15-18 Douay- Rheims)
When Jesus talks about "this rock" he is not referring to Peter, but instead Peter's confession of faith in the preceding verses. Jesus isn't jumping from one subject (that He is the Christ) to another (primacy of Peter). It is a continuation of the same subject - who do people believe that Christ is. If you look at the following verse 20 you can see that Jesus has not changed subject because he is commanding them not to reveal that He is the Christ.
> Jesus thus does not declare the primacy of Peter, but rather declares that his church will be built upon the foundation of the revelation of and confession of faith of Jesus as the Christ. The "rock" gentlemen is our faith in Christ. (posted at FR by Between the Lines, a sew moons ago) ...
[That was so well stated that I would only add, 'faith' is an action word, as in 'to faithe' in the delivering Power and Grace of God through Jesus Christ in the person of the Holy Spirit indwelling the faither.]
Another thing that the 'church' has messed up.
How does one morph a YEARLY meal of rememberance; PASSOVER; into a ritual that occurs every time you enter the church - filling it with some mystical hocus-pocus.
Wordplay and humor indeed!
Amen. Peter did not die on the cross for anyone, and would be astounded that he should ever be 'worshipped'. He was 'just another lost soul' like all the rest of us....until Christ got a hold of him, he believed and accepted Christ through faith.
That was neither my intention nor expectation. I only speak the truth, what you do with it is between you and God.
Peace be with you.
In fact Peter did die on the cross - upside down by request out of respect for his Savior - sacrificing as a witness to his flock of faith in Christ.
The plain and clear meaning within the context of what I wrote: Peter was not and is not the Savior, Who did die on the cross and Whose death was a requirement for the redemption unto those who believe.
St. Peter died for Christ.
Peace be with you.
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.