Posted on 12/28/2005 10:48:42 AM PST by infoguy
Go compare the words of Jesus Christ in that statement starting with the King James and work forward, all available editions, and perceive the subtleties of interpretations.
It is very important not to "interpret" the Word of God to such an extent that it becomes 'easier to read' but loses the essence of what is intended.
Matthew 16:18 New International Version, for starters... THIS IS THE WORD OF THE LORD: 18 "And I tell you that you are Peter, [a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades [b] will not overcome it [c]." a. Peter means rock. b. Or hell c. Or not prove stronger than it
I compared that to other Bible editions and the substance continues to define as that Jesus Christ declares Peter to be his rock and upon that rock (upon Peter, the rock) Jesus Christ will build his church and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. I've never heard ANYone with temperate mind and intellect interpret that any differently. 18 "And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven."
If Christ is not speaking TO AND ABOUT Peter, to whom is He speaking? And about whom or what? He says, "YOU ARE PETER...THE ROCK...AND UPON THE ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH..."
There was also no CHURCH before Christ defined it.
And, we have what Jesus Christ said about that and how. His church was not and could not be "built" until His resurrection and thus, prior to the birth of Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection, thank God, HIS CHURCH BEGAN.
Of course there were no "denominations" prior to the church itself, but the church itself was and is that built upon Saint Peter.
Also, the various "denominations" to which you refer are recent-times spinoffs as to Protestant diversions and rejections of the Catholic Church. Which many regard as heresay, based upon the Word itself.
The Church of England, for instance, later called "The Episcopal Church," was created by King Henry inorder to rule or launch "his own" church, the church of King Henry, so to speak, given that to King Henry, he WAS England, and thus, his church, the Church of England, to remove any involvement by the Catholic Church in the rule of England (and the life of the King, ruler! so he said).
King Henry ALSO later in life rued his decision and begged God to forgive what he'd done. And look at what the Episcopal Church has become today...
There is appeal and seduction in fundamentalism, in renouncing "organized religion," and I understand that, but you should not lose site of your soul's destination.
Man is fallible. Some persons in and among the church become torn by sin and bad choices (leads to sin if not outright sin in most), but it is important not to lose relationship with the church out of determination to do it your way, see things as you 'feel' you 'ought' and 'should' and such. That's often relativism, and more so, often humanism and general spirituality, which leaves one open to all and everything.
You have written a chop-a-block pieced together quilting of points that seem to suit your own interpretations as to why you should reject the Catholic church. Some do as you do and I have heard these very same 'tossed in the air and this is what came down' type rehash before for the very same reasons.
Will pray for you. I am sorry if I have failed to speak to you in a mutual language here about these important things but as to Saint Paul, he is reknowned as an evangelist, while Saint Peter was the disciple of Jesus Christ and all as Christ Himself pronounced him responsible for and to fulfill (Matthew 16:18).
Saint Paul, also, led a seriously, offensive and objectionable life and while he did repent and was eventually forgiven, it is important not to diminish the SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WORDS OF JESUS CHRIST as to SAINT PETER and who and what SAINT PETER is. There is, truly, no comparison there with Saint Paul, blessed and remarkable as he is, but that Saint Peter's responsibility and usefulness and purpose to Jesus Christ was profound and unique. And remains so, based upon the Word of the Lord, Himself.
Again, I believe Christ. Had it been different, He would have told us so.
Then you are not an actual Christian. You are masquerading as one to boost your sense of self-worth.
Umm, no. The church of Jesus Christ was built on the example of faith that Peter showed, not Peter himself. And the gates of hell would not prevail against that sort of faith.
It's not personal interpretation, it is the Helper, the Holy Spirit, that was sent after Christ that shows me the interpretation for my life
Well, that's certainly an interpretive comment.
But based upon your wrongful assumption, I believe, that you perceive the statemetns about Saint Peter and the church to be a church built upon a human being, not upon Jesus Christ.
Wrong. That interpretation denies the holiness and power and presence of Jesus Christ in the person of Saint Peter and in the work that he does, as all believers do in His name (Christ's, not Saint Peter's, nor our own).
Yes, and no. Because, human beings relying on themselves and their "inner voice" and such can be and often are deceived.
Yes, the Holy Spirit as instructor and through which faith exists and is acted upon but there's a point there among your tone and comments as to the suggestion of rejection of the fellowship of the church that concerns me.
You appear to be arguing with the Word of God there.
I don't have such a struggle with the Words of God that are there in Matthew 16 that some here appear to be having. I don't believe that Peter the Apostle is a human being who founded and leads and instructs a human, "Church of Peter" to be base about it.
Nor do I even get a hint of a suggestion from the words of Jesus Christ that He even doubted others' abilities to comprehend what He said and commanded there in that passage.
He says that he determines Peter, the Apostle, to be His, Jesus' "rock" and that upon that rock He would build His church.
Jesus says that Peter is His rock and upon that rock, upon Peter, Christ would build His church.
Jesus has pronounced His intentions and plans for His church and announcecd those intentions/plans to everyone and anyone. And commanded Peter to be of service to have that church "built upon him" so to speak, to go about being the rock and supporting as foundation the church that Jesus would build (and has and is).
I don't see the confusion here nor why people malign the Catholic Church, built by Saint Peter in direct lineage from and in perpetuity by Saint Peter, as being other than it is: the church that was built upon Saint Peter by Jesus Christ.
HIS church. Built upon HIS rock. HIS rock, Saint Peter. Saint Peter acted...in faith...built the church...
There also appears no understanding among some here this morning as to what the term "Catholic" is and when and how it came to exist. Please read the earlier link I provided, this thread, if interested.
"I'm breathlessly awaiting ABC's next passionate reportage: "Was Mohammed A Child Molester?""
Bwahahahha!
Well except the fact that in the Greek the words used for Peter and Rock are not the same. Similar yes, but not the same. Please see commentary from Matthew Henry below.
Peter's testimony that Jesus was the Christ.Peter, for himself and his brethren, said that they were assured of our Lord's being the promised Messiah, the Son of the living God. This showed that they believed Jesus to be more than man. Our Lord declared Peter to be blessed, as the teaching of God made him differ from his unbelieving countrymen. Christ added that he had named him Peter, in allusion to his stability or firmness in professing the truth. The word translated to rock, to is not the same word as Peter, but is of a similar meaning. Nothing can be more wrong than to suppose that Christ meant the person of Peter was the rock. Without doubt Christ himself is the Rock, the tried foundation of the church; and woe to him that attempts to lay any other! Peter's confession is this rock as to doctrine. If Jesus be not the Christ, those that own him are not of the church, but deceivers and deceived.
Our Lord next declared the authority with which Peter would be invested. He spoke in the name of his brethren, and this related to them as well as to him. They had no certain knowledge of the characters of men, and were liable to mistakes and sins in their own conduct; but they were kept from error in stating the way of acceptance and salvation, the rule of obedience, the believer's character and experience, and the final doom of unbelievers and hypocrites
Peter is no more the Rock the church was founded on than I am. Peter is nothing more than a forgiven sinner, the same as anyone else that has the 'rock' of faith in Christ.
LIAR
When I say this is "ugly," I'm referring the propagation of a sordid and false smear against Catholics and the Church.
You've posted a news story, which has nothing to do with any of this.
Please understand the significant role that the myth of Pope Joan has played in anti-Catholicism over the centuries (and has continued today).
Having a church built on a "rock" other than Christ would certainly explain a lot.
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.