Posted on 08/17/2007 11:11:00 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
How could you possible think Jesus is calling Peter a rock???...Peter is a stone...
As I pointed out earler to another poster, in Matt. 16:18, Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble. The translators used 'petros' in the Greek. Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used "Kepha," not "evna." Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.
Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the "small rock," he would have used "lithos" which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church.
***A very influential individual in the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement and helped out significantly in the creation of the CoC was Sidney Rigdon, who became estranged from Campbell fils, and then moved over to the Mormons and, it is suspected, contributed more to the theology of the LDS than did Joseph Smith.****
I’m glad you brought that up. There was a Mormon woman near here who claimed the Campbellites were offshoots of the Mormons.
“King will assign a chief steward to rule over the house while the King is in heaven”.
Would you mind telling me where you find that?
Seems that Peter missed a GOLDEN opportunity to proclaim his chief Shepherdship here in 1 Peter 5:1-5
“The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
Neither as being lords over [God’s] heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.
And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
Peter gae no indication that he was anything other than a fellow elder in the church.
You talking to me or Iscool?
My beauteous bridge has taken our oldest three and is visiting a cousin in Indiana, so I am left with the littlest ones. And very very precious they are.
It’s very very important that Peter be discredited or else the very foundations of the Reformation are revealed as sand. And if the Reformation is revealed as the sham and fraud that it was, then anything done after that, utilizing the same justifications, is also fraud.
I wonder just how many realize that the veneer laid over Luther’s heresies is microscopically thin and thinning.
Peter may or may not have, but Jesus certainly did.
Rock he is, and rock he remains. Keys he has and keys he retains. Feeder and tender of the sheep.
Splitters and quitters don’t get to make the rules.
***Q:My grandson is marrying a lovely young lady of a different faith. She did not want a wedding in her church because instrumental music was not allowed. She also did not want to get married in our church. She wanted a backyard wedding.***
Sounds quite hypocritical to me. A wedding is considered to be a Sacrament. Music not allowed in her church? Fine; we’ll just bypass the church.
I wonder if they’re going to serve alcohol, as well. The CoC folks that my wife was friends with drank like fishes, but in the closet. As the joke goes - what is the only place that a Baptist doesn’t recognize another Baptist? In the liquor store. Same goes with the CoC folks that I am most familiar with.
Bridge = bride.
I trust that nobody will let her know...
So Peter was the rock on which the church was built? That is your position. “Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church.”
So, where is Peter in all of these prophecies or passages?
Isa 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone], a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
Mat 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Mar 12:10 And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:
Luk 20:17 And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?
Act 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];
1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
1Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe [he is] precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
Now you are aware that in Ephesians 2:20 that no distinction was made between Peter and the rest of the Apostles.
Your position places you at odds with nearly a dozen other scriptures which state the Jesus Christ is the Chief COrnerston upon which the Church has been built.
And you position is SOLELY based on the account in Matthew 16:18
Based on the CONTEXT of Matthew 16:18, and the rest of the passages in the New Testament, it is clear the Jesus is not putting Peter as the head of the Church. He is establishing the fact that the Church would be built on “THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.” That is what all of the passagesI listed above say also.
Chuckle.
It’s like the folks that think that the Catholics added to the Bible.
The Mormons were definitely offshoots of the Restoration Movement, which owed tremendously to the Campbells father and son, and Barton Stone. Supporting them was a dozen or so individuals including Rigdon.
Catholics, above all, recognize that Jesus is the head of the Church.
Peter is simply the first vicar. As Scriptures indicate. Sorry to burst the bubble.
I fail to understand the silliness. If these groups differ so significantly that strife is created in the congregation, the best answer is to assemble separately with like-minded believers.
NONE OF THEM will join a city wide ministerial alliance
Scripture does not authorize such alliances of congregations. Each congregation must carry out its responsibilities according to the Scripture. However, individual members may participate in causes in accordance with Scripture and according to their own consciences.
You have quite admirably outlined the doctrinal error of personal interpretation. Thank you.
The Holy Spirit does not create multiple churches that carry out conflicting deeds; nor does it create multiple and conflicting theologies. That is the result of men.
Your individual churches following their own consciences? Individual groups driven by power.
No. That is what Scripture states.
I have provided you with a multitude of scriptural responses to all of your previous questions. Now I would like to pose a question to you. Not only did our Lord leave behind a teaching authority through St. Peter and his successors, He gave His Church 7 Sacraments - Baptism, Reconciliation, Eucharist, Confirmation, Holy Orders, Holy Matrimony and the Sacrament of Healing. Where does your Church stand with regard to our Lord's Sacraments?
I just gave you at least ten passages that say that Jesus Christ was the Chief Cornerstone. Yet you insist that Peter was the Rock on which the church was built.
Peter did NOT understand what the new kingdom was about until Jesus Christ, the Resurrection, REVEALED it to him. And then, he still tried to hold the Old Covenant.
If you can’t accept that the church was built on Jesus Christ then we don’t have any common ground to start.
I read nowhere in the scriptures of “7 Sacraments”.
Jesus Christ is the head.
Peter was the first vicar. Feed / tend / feed my sheep. The keys. Hold / Bind.
You know, all that stuff.
I don’t see anywhere in your services where people’s sins are forgiven by an authorized cleric, as we are instructed to do. I don’t see anywhere in your services where you consume the Body and the Blood of Christ.
Does your particular church baptise with water and the Holy Spirit, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? Do you do it 3 times?
How much praying do you do in your services? How much Scripture do you actually read? The Sacraments are all there in the Bible. Why is it that you cannot pick them out?
The Church is “not of this world”, but spiritual. The sin nature of man works in our flesh, and to that we can attribute our earthly discord (and tendency to divide and denominate). Yet the Church of Christ is established forever. It is one; It is holy; Its membership is known only by God. No earthly organization of men holds authority over, or ownership of It.
“Why is it that you cannot pick them out?”
Because what you are saying isn’t there.
- Peter wasn’t the first Vicar and that is not found in the scriptures.
- Authorized clerics don’t forgive sins, God does through the blood of Christ.
- We don’t consume the body and blood of Christ. We partake of a memorial meal of unleavened bread and grape juice, just as Jesus did with his disciples on the night he was betrayed.
- We baptise IN water, full submersion, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit for teh remission of sins. We only do it once because that is all that is required.
- Prayers every service.
- Just guessing, but much more than you ever have.
Do yourself a favor and quit relyng on what your priests/bishops/monseignors/cardinals/popes tell you is in the scriptures and read them for yourself.
Jesus gave Peter, and the apostles and elders in union with him, the power to bind and loose in heaven what they bound and loosed on earth. (Matt. 16:19; 18:18).
I agree with this part of your statement.
This teaching authority did not die with Peter and the apostles, but was transferred to future bishops through the laying on of hands (e.g., Acts 1:20; 6:6; 13:3; 8:18; 9:17; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6).
The requirement for an apostolic successor in Acts 1 is that he be a fellow traveler during Christ's earthly ministry. No amount of laying on of hands can make somebody present for something that he wasn't there for,
The receiving of the Holy Spirit spoken of in Acts 8 was accomplished through the laying on the apostles' hands.(Acts 8:18) Since there is nobody alive today who traveled with Jesus in Palestine, there is no laying on of the apostles' hands and no dispensing of the 1st Century power of the Holy Spirit.
When James was murdered by Herod, there was no record of a successor appointed.
There was a due time for the establishment of apostles and even Paul became an apostle after the ordinary time for the establishment of apostles. If Paul was past the time of appointing apostles, then it is certainly too late today. (1 Corinthians 15:9-10)
There are miraculous signs and power associated with the office of apostle.(2 Corinthians 12:12) The would be apostle must exhibit the 1st Century signs of apostleship such as the ones we read about in the book of Acts and the last verses of Mark. He must openly heal the sick, raise the dead, be able to drink poison without harm and survive deadly snake bites. One cannot claim the authority of apostleship without being able to demonstrate apostolic power.
The rule of the New Testament is that there's no new revelation and authority for revealing God's will without the miraculous. And the age of uncompleted revelation and the miraculous is over. (1 Corinthians 13:8-10)
Christ, not men, baptizes in the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8)
The baptism of the Holy Spirit took place not many days after Christ's ascension. (Acts 1:5)
"For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence."
Not many days later came the famous day of Pentecost which we read about in Acts 2.
Since it's no longer "not many days hence" from Christ's ascension and we do not see the events of Acts 2 such as a mighty rushing wind and tongues like as fire, then we can know that the baptism with the Holy Spirit does not take place today.
So you do not baptise with water and the Holy Spirit. You do not lay hands on from a bishop to a parishioner. What validates your baptism then?
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.