Posted on 06/28/2023 4:27:11 AM PDT by RaceBannon
Each time the word ROCK is used in the Bible in reference to any providing of the people, it is used as God being the one provided. Here is the first verse in the Bible in the KJV showing just that.
(Exo 17:6 KJV) Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.
Who pointed out where the ROCK was? God did. What came out of the ROCK? Water, water to drink. Who is referred to as LIVING WATER, water that must be drunk to live eternally? Jesus.
(John 7:38 KJV) He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. Each time the word ROCK is used, where God provides the ROCK, it is either a literal ROCK, like just above, where WATER came out of, water to allow the Isralites to live, it came from GOD, not a man.
We believers are all living stones.
1 Peter 2:4-5 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— 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.
Peter is just another one with the rest of us.
And you make that assumption based on what?
Don't forget, Peter was the one who decided to go back to fishing after the death of Jesus.
And that's supposed to convince us that he held the group together?
Why are Catholics so big on attributing to men, especially Peter, the work of the Holy Spirit?
God preserved NT Scripture in Greek.
It is totally irrelevant what might or might not have allegedly been written or said in Hebrew and Aramaic and you are basing your position on nothing more than assumption.
There are no facts to support your contention.
Sorry, my misunderstanding. I jumped the gun a bit on that.
It does make sense grammatically if you use the correct antecedent.
*this rock* is Peter’s confession of who Christ is, and Scripture could not be clearer about who our rock is.
To say that after a whole Bible full of God referring to Himself and Jesus as the rock, suddenly, Peter is enough of a rock on which to build the church? And calling Jesus our rock means what?
So it looks like you’re saying your church is NOT built on Jesus after all since your church is built on Peter.
Peter who denied Christ when it was most critical? Simon who got as much if not more, wrong than he did right?
Go ahead and build your church on shifting sands Peter, but that is NOT the church of God which is the body of Christ. It’s just a religious organization which calls itself a church and adds fancy trappings to make itself look good.
It looks like Jesus has just become a window dressing to Catholics.
Jesus, known to be the Rock in Scripture, is supplanted by Peter for Catholics.
Exactly where does Jesus fit in to Catholicism is He is not the foundation on which Roman Catholicism is built?
Why did Jesus tell Peter, “feed my sheep”? Indeed, why did Jesus tell Peter that three times?
Who were the sheep that Peter was supposed to feed? They peasants? The apostles?
Where were the other 10 while Jesus was talking to Peter?
It’s not to detract from the power of the Holy Spirit. It’s merely to accept how the church came about.
Why do Protestants have such a difficult time accepting the fact that Peter was the primary apostle?
Not arguing that point. Christ is the Rock of Salvation.
Peter is merely the rock upon which Christ built his church.
That makes Christ the Cornerstone (which is first laid and must be straight and true) and Peter the foundation.
This is a concept that uneducated people could understand for 1500 years. Nothing has changed except the education of the people who now believe they know better than those who were there.
Have you ever heard of Occam’s razor?
You write an entire dissertation in an attempt to explain what Jesus meant with a simple sentence consisting of 8 small words.
“… on this rock I will build my church ….”
Why would you do that?
Why do you find those simple words to be problematic?
What, that Jesus spoke Aramaic??
You continue to create a strawman. I never said I have a problem with oral tradition as a whole, only that which has no scriptural support or worse at times contradicts scripture.
What justification do you have to hold the position that a doctrinal truth can only exist as uttered from a man who has not been inspired by the Holy Spirit. If you state the church is so inspired how does one test that outside of the scriptures?
Your claim amounts to a special caste of privileged people with a secret knowledge that can only be obtained in the unquestioning acceptance of their presented belief.
To bad for those who accept that premise and run afoul believing an RC priest who has gone rouge, off to hell with you just a bit of bad luck I guess? There is no denying that their has been just such priests in the history of the RC church.
Peter was Satan, according to Jesus’s own words.
I have no problem with that at all.
I suggest you explain why Peter’s faith and grace somehow are conferred to a continual chain of lesser men over the ages unquestionably. Then how does someone account for some of those men having literally lived and preached a message in complete opposition to Christ’s message? (There have been some VERY bad popes)
How does a lowly lamb of Christ navigate within such a power structure where those men tell you sin is not sin and maybe a thousand years later the church corrects what was said. To bad for those living at the time. I will repeat, I guess it is just a bit of bad luck then, off to hell with you, to bad you had to believe what you were told by the masters of the Church but that is how things roll.
Naaah.
I don’t have time cause I’m on deadlines.
But there’s no point in saying “You are Peter (colloquially, ‘Rocky’), and then tying together the sentence with the conjunction ‘and’ followed by ‘*this*’ Rock, if Jesus were talking about Himself.
One of the other posters pointed out that Peter is translated differently in Aramaic and Greek: the association works in Aramaic which Jesus spoke, but gets messed up in the Greek.
“After a whole Bible of God referring to Himself and Jesus as the Rock...”
BZZZT.
Jesus hadn’t been crucified or risen yet; the Ascension hadn’t happened, nor Pentecost. Let alone any writing if the New Testament. The later wrings didn’t exist, so you can’t use them as a retroactive guide to what Jesus said to Peter right in that moment.
As for Jesus being the Chief Cornerstone, that means there is at least one NON-Chief cornerstone...
Not to mention, Protties get too carried away with the aphorism “Scripture Interprets Scripture” until that phrase becomes a mindless chant, and they act like each and every time a word is used in Scripture, it MUST be significant wrt all other uses of the word.
It might be, you know, that one conversation stands independently of another.
Because Protties sin too; sometimes in ways which directly follow from denominational lines, yet you don’t appear to allow even casual association between the two, but insist discrepancies are dispositive when applied to Catholics.
Further, you apparently fail to see that ALL believers, individually and corporately, are under constant diabolical opposition, temptation, and assault: when Jesus said “and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” that means “win in the end” it does not mean “never even get any good punches in during Round Eight “
It is far preferable to shore one another up and pray, than to bicker.
“To bad for those who accept that premise and run afoul believing an RC priest who has gone rouge, off to hell with you just a bit of bad luck I guess?”
You disallow the Mercy of Christ.
He is allowed to forgive whoever He wants for whatever reason He wants.
That includes people who do the wrong thing who mean to do what is right, and who are obeying bad guidance. cf stories of Muslims and others who converted after Jesus appeared to them, or even Cornelius in Acts, who was neither Christian nor Jew.
“Peter, because of his faith in the Rock of His Salvation, was a Pebble built on the Rock”
...or a chip off the old block?
LOL! So he’s both the Catholic church’s “Satan” and “Rock,” indeed.
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.