Posted on 09/29/2001 7:49:58 PM PDT by malakhi
That was just a dirty trick to get me to read the chapter. Thanks.
When you say,"twisting" do you mean like the way you have to do when you try to tie Peter to the Catholic Church by bridging a 300 year span of time?
He didn't say: You all are believers and on your belief I build my Church.
Nor did he say, you are Peter, the Pope of the Catholic Church, and on this institution I will build my Church.:-)
In differentiation, there are two separate words being used in the verse to punctuate what Jesus is saying. If he had chosen The self same two words and not made a differentiation, you *might* have something. That is the uphill battle you must fight against the scripture, not against other factions, sects or denominations (depending on your choice of words); but against scripture. That the words do not mean the same thing is illustrated in their definitions. Their definitions are different - substantially.
Further, the entire subject being discussed is the importance of Jesus and of the proclamation of faith in him.. not Peter. The congregation was not built on Peter, it was built upon a Confession of faith in Jesus being the son of God. That is the church. Peter was one among many charged with the responsibility of laying that foundation. After that, God built upon it and the congregation grew from house to house, city to city, province, country to the world. Peter is not the foundation of any church - nor was he meant to be.
And it cannot be said that Peter alone was handed the 'keys to the kingdom'. That is your reading of it. Go back and read the whole chapter. Taking a single sentence from George Bush speaking to the nation not too long ago doesn't paint the entire intent and meaning in the speach. One cannot yank a single verse out of the Bible and read it in such a fashion either - though many wish to do so regularly. I think you'll find that the RCC teaches the self same thing. We just don't find it practicing such things when it presents a problem to foundational belief - that all goes straight out the window in favor of philosophical tenets.
When you start changing the focus of individual pieces of scripture, it changes the meaning of everything around it as well - robbing the meaning and diminishing the rest of the work. It reduces knowledge to knowledge of philosophy and ignorance of the word of God. Lack of knowledge of God's word causes people to perish. Thus the ultimate result of playing word games with scripture is condemning people to hell because ultimately they are destroyed for lack of knowledge of God's word. And that is precisely why twisting scripture for personal agendas is so sickening and outlawed expressly in the texts of the Bible. It is why so many warnings are given against false doctrine that even at the time of Peter, Paul and John as creeping - even flooding in. And much of what is described in II Peter about false doctrine sounds an awful lot like what we can still see even today - and not just in the RCC.
I will say this for the third time so try to pay attention. I acknowledge the fact you do not accept any documentation that Catholics offer so I am through discussing this with you. In other words, I agree to disagree. If it makes you feel better you can attack me, my scholarship, my research, my references, or even imply I screwed up. I just doesn't matter. Anyone who has done serious research on this knows Peter was in Rome and was martyred and buried there.
So when your citations are found to be bunk, rather than address it and stay on topic, you resort to attacking Peter's second book - quickly retreating from I Peter 5 argument, to save face maybe? At any rate, another Change of Topic.
I will repeat this for the second time. I am not attacking 2 Peter. Read my post 25 again. I am asking you to back up your statement " And I can debunk them pretty quickly with modern parallels. And with parallels of the day. "
And just in case you missed it, I agree to disagree regarding the Peter in Rome issue. If you keep asking me to stay on Topic I will repeat this again.
No he said, this is the belief and on this belief will I build my church. The confession of faith in Jesus as the son of God is the first key to our walk. It is the foundation upon which God builds. Keep your eye on the word 'key' because it's being used for a reason. Jesus used two different words in relating what he did - for a reason. One form is used to describe small bits of stone up to but not including boulders. The other is meant to convey larger masses, Boulders on up. If the distinction were not necessary, then why is it there? We never get an answer; but, it isn't needed. The verse loses much of it's significance when the difference is removed. It revokes the true foundation of our faith from the verse.
The second 'key' in our walk is obedience to god (including following him). Obedience infers that we listen to him, then do what he says. Salvation without obedience is null. I'll say that again. Salvation without obedience is null. Salvation is required before the promise of eternal life is available to us. The promise of eternal life is dependant upon obedience to God - as are all promises. One can obey the commandments and not be saved - they'll never see heaven. One can be saved and disobedient, they'll never see heaven either. These are the keys to the kingdom of heaven! As such, it is why they were given to all the Apostles. The assigned duty of Apostleship was to give these keys to every living soul on earth. Both keys are required of all men. Without them, no man enters heaven. "No one cometh to the Father but by me". Jesus said it and meant it. You have to of faith first believe in him, then hear and obey him. Absent that, your just whistlin dixie. Rob the verse of it's meaning and you miss all of this.
I hope not, because that would be an oxymoron.
Since there is room for misinterpretation in this particular passage iIt is important to seek "two or three witnesses". Here is what the bible says about the term "rock" since we can agree that Peter nor another interpretation is in fact a rock, then the term is used figuratively.
Deuteronomy 32
3 Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.
4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
15 But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.
18 Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.
1 Samuel
2 There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.
2 Samuel 22
2 And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer;
3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.
Romans 9
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
1 Corinthians 10
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
You are wrong in your attacks. You're approach is wrong. And the diversions aren't working. I am not going to allow this to escalate beyond what it has. So if someone else wants to debate the issues, I'm game. But, I'll not subject myself or the rest of those present to more of this. I played along to give you every chance; but, evidently, you can't see the problem while everyone messaging me privately can. If no one else wants to pick it up, we can pick it back up when you are 'feeling better'. But, again, I'm not letting this escalate further.
Are you seriously calling the Catholic Church an Oxymoron? LOL, just kidding. He didn't establish Peter as a leader, nor did he establish an institution. He presented the founding principles to his Apostles. 'this faith confession is the foundation' basically. I would also point out to the OSAS crowd that a foundation is not the house. If the foundation is not then built upon, laying it is vain. As I stated prior, obedience is then required for God to be able to construct the house of his word and your faith. A house built upon no foundation will fall. A foundation with no house is empty; but the house built upon the proper foundation is meat.
Havoc here's what I'm going to do. I'll agree to disagree. Apparently you don't understand what that means since you seem obsessed with continuing.
But, again, I'm not letting this escalate further.
Darn. I was looking forward to your 2 Peter dialog.
The question remains open then as to what constitutes "the church". Catholics and Protestants of course have diverging beliefs about this. Now, it seems that the Catholic Church understands this two different ways. First, there is the institutional Church, with apostolic succession and an organizational structure. Second, there is the Body of Christ. The second definition is of course more in line with Protestant understanding.
Let me ask about the passage from Lumen Gentium, in which it is stated that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. What exactly does this mean? It seems to me to be saying that the Catholic Church is NOT identically equal to the Body of Christ. How do you understand the relationship between the two?
Take a look at the last paragraph of my reply #7 on this thread; if it fails to clear up your question, let me know.
Do you think Peter knew what tremendous responsibilities Christ had put on him?
As far as that goes, do you think any of the other disciples knew that Christ had given him this great task and position?
I'm surprised that the members of the roman church have not answered from the APOCRYPHA:
from the book: The Wisdom of Solomon 16:1-13
16:1 Therefore by the like were they punished worthily, and by the
multitude of beasts tormented.
16:2 Instead of which punishment, dealing graciously with thine own
people, thou preparedst for them meat of a strange taste, even
quails to stir up their appetite:
16:3 To the end that they, desiring food, might for the ugly sight of the
beasts sent among them lothe even that, which they must needs
desire; but these, suffering penury for a short space, might be
made partakers of a strange taste.
16:4 For it was requisite, that upon them exercising tyranny should
come penury, which they could not avoid: but to these it should
only be shewed how their enemies were tormented.
16:5 For when the horrible fierceness of beasts came upon these, and
they perished with the stings of crooked serpents, thy wrath
endured not for ever:
16:6 But they were troubled for a small season, that they might be
admonished, having a sign of salvation, to put them in
remembrance of the commandment of thy law.
16:7 For he that turned himself toward it was not saved by the thing
that he saw, but by thee, that art the Saviour of all.
16:8 And in this thou madest thine enemies confess, that it is thou
who deliverest from all evil:
16:9 For them the bitings of grasshoppers and flies killed, neither was
there found any remedy for their life: for they were worthy to be
punished by such.
16:10 But thy sons not the very teeth of venomous dragons overcame:
for thy mercy was ever by them, and healed them.
16:11 For they were pricked, that they should remember thy words;
and were quickly saved, that not falling into deep forgetfulness,
they might be continually mindful of thy goodness.
16:12 For it was neither herb, nor mollifying plaister, that restored them
to health: but thy word, O Lord, which healeth all things.
16:13 For thou hast power of life and death: thou leadest to the gates of
hell, and bringest up again.
Tehillim (Psalm) 18:46 The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God my Saviour!
XeniaSt
---
So then would you allow that from that same reason you speak of, He would also allow the authors of the Bible to transcribe erroneously what the Holy Spirit had inspired within them?
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.