Posted on 01/16/2015 3:29:49 PM PST by RnMomof7
Perhaps you should look again at way back to John 1:42:
Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas (which is translated Peter).The name which Jesus used was Cehpas, Aramaic for "rock." "Petros/Peter" is only a translation. The use of "Petros" in distinction to "petra" was necessitated in the translation from the Aramaic into the Greek because of the need for a masculine word for the name rather than the feminine form of "petra." What our Lord actually said in Aramaic is:
You are Cephas (rock) and upon this cephas (rock) I will build my church.There is no distinction the the Aramaic that our Lord spoke.
Because Jesus said so. Have faith in the word of God!
Peter himself told us that the rock, *petra* was Christ.
JESUS is the chief cornerstone.
One slight quibble here.
“Roman Catholics interpret Matt. 16:18 to mean that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built. That interpretation then becomes the basis for the doctrine of papal succession.”
No. It doesn’t work that way. As we see here daily, the Roman denomination decides what the doctrine will be - often at the inclusion of syncretic paganism - then goes to Scripture to find something that sounds like what they claim.
In this instance, the Roman denomination decided all should bow to Rome. They then try to justify it by twisting the passage in Matthew. The Orthodox denominations didn’t agree with the arrogance of Rome. Rightly so.
Context is essential with the Scriptures. This is an excellent example of someone taking a verse out of context and building a whole denomination on it. BTW, where else in the Bible is Peter referred to as the foundation of the church? With Matt 16:18, you have to include verses 13 thru 17 to accurately understand verse 18. Jesus asked his disciples who did men say that he was, and the disciples answered variously Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets. Jesus then asked them who did They say that he was, and Peter piped up with, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God, to which Jesus said, “Blessed are you Simon, son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter (Petros=pebble, chip off of the block), and on this rock (Petra=Block), ie what Peter had answered to His question, the statement that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God. That was the bedrock that the church is built upon. Context, context, context...
It does not confuse the saved.. it only confuses the lost
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
No He didn't. Jesus is the Rock and the ekklesia is built on the belief in that Rock. God Himself said there was no other rock.
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."
LOL! I had to read that twice. :)
That Kingdom Church (Great Assembly) was not a mystery; it was prolific in prophesy.
At the time of Christ's words in Matthew 16, the Body of Christ Church of the current dispensation was a mystery hid in God---unsearchable in Old Testament prophesy.
There is nothing in the context mandating the word "church" refer to anything that can be seen on earth today or until the return of Christ.
Jesus eating blood would have made Him a sinner you know.
Jesus is the rock. No man is that. His church is built on Him and I am not talking about the Catholic one. He knew no man is perfect. Do not let a man take the place of Him. Like I have said on here before, “Jesus is the answer, the only answer.”. He is the only forgiver of sin. Some on here depend on man and a church way too much. I had a very hard day yesterday because it was the 11th anniversary of my daughter’s death. When I turned my pain and sadness over to Him, I felt much better. I know He is the answer.
It’s an old joke.
Goes back years.
And don’t forget the soda pope.
An accurate description. Not the trunk of the tree, the true universal church with Jesus Christ its cornerstone, but a Roman denomination with the Papacy its cornerstone.
Which is why they dreamed up Peter being the “rock”. Otherwise the entire system comes tumbling down.
Those who put man before Jesus are headed towards eternal damnation. God bless those who have come out of the dark and into the light.
Considering the reverence given to Christ’s body and blood in evangelical churches, and the things believed about who Jesus is, what His death meant, and how we have eternal life, as well as other things, such as that Jesus was the new Passover lamb (and the Passover lamb was eaten), I don’t believe evangelicals mean that Communion is just a symbol in the way we think of human symbols, such as the American flag or the World Trade Center. I do understand the point that’s being made, but think evangelicals should really consider anew what they really believe about Communion, for the sake of greater understanding. It seems to me that in some way, a spiritual way, we are partaking of the Lord’s body and blood, but it’s a mystery beyond our understanding. If Jesus literally wanted to give the twelve disciples His actual body and blood, then He could have done so, either at the Last Supper, or after His Resurrection. But very clearly He didn’t, and let’s acknowledge the truth that He did not.
Many a time, too, I’ve heard Catholics say that Jesus said “this is My body,” etc., so that is literal language, but that doesn’t prove their point. Metaphor can take that grammatical form, as elementary English classes teach children over and over again during their time in school. Simile uses “like” or “as” for comparison, and metaphor doesn’t.
Throughout all the Gospels, a major concern is belief and unbelief. And sometimes Jesus judged unbelief, especially as the Jews were a people that God prepared to receive the Messiah. But repeatedly the Gospels talks of the people’s unbelief, and one place that happened was John 6. A group of people were miraculously fed by Jesus, and He tells them a day later that they were desperately seeking Him not because they’d seen the miracles He’d done (which were to show them He was the Messiah, the Bible says) but for the meal. Then they even after that demand a sign from Jesus. At that point, they were so faithless that they couldn’t respond to Jesus, and drove them away out of judgment by offending their sensibilities. And the same with His disciples who didn’t trust Him, unlike the Twelve who as a group (Judas of course wasn’t faithful) seemed not to think of leaving Him as the other did, and confirmed that when Jesus asked them. They had faith that kept them with Jesus even when doubt was thrown their way.
Which Protestants said it was stupid to give Peter the name of *rock*? Can you point to the infallible declaration to that position?
It’s called a “Straw Man” argument. You attribute an opinion or point of view to your opponent and destroy the false argument.
It’s easier than dealing with valid arguments.
I was born in 1970 and came to know Christ outside of the Roman Catholic Church. Since I’m following Him, I would go wherever He would lead me, including the Catholic Church. I even looked into it when I didn’t have much by my simple faith and understanding of the Gospel, and had read the Gospels. I went to masses for awhile, and in my 20’s found some appeal in all the artwork (this was a basilica) and the mysticism that was there in the service, but there was no personal connection there (no one ever spoke to me) and something, looking back, seemed to be missing. I found it to be better than the Lutheran services I grew up in, in which people seemed to see themselves as enduring them, and were only too ecstatic to be released from for another week once they were over. But once I read the whole Bible, and meditated on it over and over, so that my understanding grew, I saw how so much of Roman Catholicism is in clear contradiction to God’s Word and Spirit. And the argument that “it’s the exact same religion” for 2000 years falls flat, too. There might not have been wholesale changes, like Mormonism’s Book of Mormon, but there is over and over again distortion of what was there at the beginning, that result in wholesale changes due to altered meanings of things.
Matthew 16:18 Κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω, ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾍδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.If you or anyone else is interested to some serious scholarship on the matter, I would direct your attention to a book called Peter and the Rock, by Chrys C. Caragounis, which is a very detailed analysis of the linguistic possibilities in Matthew 16:18, including an excellent survey of the multiple Aramaic terms that could have been used behind Petra. It is expensive, but well worth it.
I got the same impression from some masses on tv. The people there seemed bored out of their skulls. They never smiled or changed expressions. On the other hand, I have seen local Black churches on tv which were wonderful. They loved Jesus and were not afraid to show it. And, do not forget those colorful hats. We used to wear hats but I have not seen any in 35-40 years. Even the little girls do not wear them anymore. Belonging to Jesus should be a joyful experience and I do not see that in a catholic service. Could it be that thy do not have anything to have joy about?
Thy should be they. My iPad is still doing its own thing. I misspelled a word recently and the speller made a word I had never heard of and I do not even think it was even a word.
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.