The fact the the Catholic Church was very anti Semitic in certain era gone by is not a debatable issue. It is absolute history. Therefore, the motives for removing anything Jewish from Our Lord's persona is obvious. I'm sure you have....but maybe some folks have not..... read... John Chrysostom. Tell me that this is not full of hatred and prejudice for the Jews. Tell me that the changing of the Sabbath to Sunday was not for hatred of the Jews. It sure isn't scriptural! Tell me that the abolishing of the Festivals and Holy Days was not inspired by hatred of the Jews. Tell me that the ignoring of God's dietary laws were not anti Semitic in nature. You cannot find any scripture evidence to support your position! These motives were all undertaken out of hatred for anything that smacked of Judaism.
As far as your theology being hopeless....it is! It is not Biblical....it is contradictory to scripture....and is a false system. I've never claimed differently. If it were the true church.....I would join it! But.....so is the theology of your Protestant daughter churches! I don't plan on joining them any day soon....either!
And you folks do dance around this issue about the name of Peter....."Cephas". You continue to ignore the fact that the New Testament is a Greek Translation.....and the word Cephas means "A Stone" (in Greek)! [John 1:42] And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas (4074. Petros (pet'-ros)apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than lithos); as a name, Petrus, an apostle), which is by interpretation, A stone. If the Apostle John wanted Peter to have the persona of a massive rock he would have written "Petra". Instead he wrote "Petros". And....you've got to dance around, claiming that Our Lord spoke Aramaic, to try and make this silly point!
The Greek in [Matthew 16:18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter 4074. Petros (pet'-ros) apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than lithos); as a name, Petrus, an apostle , and upon this rock (4073. petra (pet'-ra)feminine of the same as Petros; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
When Matthew speaks of The Lord being the "Rock"....he says Petra. When John speaks of Peter being the "stone"....he says Petros.....and you folks dance and dance and dance. Matthew even uses both words (Petros & Petra) in his scripture. If you cannot see the obvious difference here you are not being sincere.
I don't think Catholics are devilish at all. I number Catholics in my family and have many Catholic acquaintances whom I believe are good Christian folks. The problem is not them....it is the organization they belong to. The fact that it is not the Church of the New Testament can be proved by the simple fact you have to rely on tradition and the ability to change as you go..... to firm up your case. You cannot stand on existing scripture because your arguments then quickly evaporate.
Whether Peter spoke Hebrew or Aramaic or both, it is inconsequential to the fact that Peter had primacy among the Apostles. We see clues of this throughout the Scriptures - and we note he had the name "Cephas" - ROCK. The whole article above is ridiculous because it cannot recognize that Paul recognizes that Simon is ROCK.
If Peter had any primacy why in the world did he not just stand up here and tell everyone to be still? [Luke 22:24] And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. This is the Passover Preparation before the crucifixion....sometime after the incident in Matthew where you folks insist he receives some type of primacy. I realize you must teach this or your "House of Cards" comes tumbling down. It's still "Balderdash" .... irregardless!
The language issue is your pet peeve that you have not proved - nor have you made any link between it and the importance in this thread. It really says nothing about who is the Rock, which is the topic of this thread. It is beyond argument that Simon was called ROCK. Jesus is not called Cephas. End of story.
This was from the article: Christ spoke Aramaic and that the same word — ke'pha' — would have been spoken by the Lord for both Πέτρος and πέτρᾳ
Yup! He did.....but not around the house.
If you read the Greek {Matthew 16:18] Our Lord is referred to as "Petra". Peter is never called that. He is called "Petros" [John 1:42][I Corinthians 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5;][Galatians 2:9]. Based upon the authority of the original Greek New Testament.....Petros is the name given to Simon Bar Jona.....by the Lord [John 1:42]. The Greek text does not agree that Peter is the Rock.
This is a very "un Diego-like" post, my friend.
This is a very "un Joe like" thing to say.
The same can be said for the Jews in the first century when addressing the early Christians. Did not the first Jews toss anyone out of the synagogue who proclaim Jesus the Messiah? We see this in the NT!
I would be interested to know your take on Sacred Scriptures doing away with the dietary laws and circumcision. Is God anti-semetic as well? Clearly, God Himself tells Peter that there is no more "unclean" animals. Clearly, the Holy Spirit backs up the decision made at Jerusalem in Acts 15 regarding circumsion. Neither of which have warrants in Sacred Scriptures at the time.
The problem, Diego, is that you believe in sola scriptura, which the above two cases prove the Church did NOT believe. Sacred Scriptures TELLS us that that the Church was not "sola scripturist". Thus, your expectations are your own opinions unsupported by what we have.
As far as your theology being hopeless....it is! It is not Biblical....it is contradictory to scripture....and is a false system.
Actually, the above shows your theology is contradictory to Scriptures. I will say no more about this. I have no desire to further point out your hypocrisy.
And you folks do dance around this issue about the name of Peter....."Cephas". You continue to ignore the fact that the New Testament is a Greek Translation.....and the word Cephas means "A Stone" (in Greek)!
Kephas is a Greek transliteration of an Aramaic word, or more accurately, Chaldean. You are again mistaken. You are the one dancing around with your false accusations when anyone can find out that "Cephas" is not Greek for stone. Jesus HIMSELF calls Simon "Cephas" in John 1:42! But you will not have it!
The Gospel of John was written in Greek, and there is no reason why a translator would maintain the "Cephas" while translating every other word from Greek to English, unless there was some special meaning for Cephas - rock.
When Matthew speaks of The Lord being the "Rock"....he says Petra. When John speaks of Peter being the "stone"....he says Petros.....and you folks dance and dance and dance.
You are mistaken. John has Jesus calling Jesus "Cephas", not petros/petras/lithos. You are the one dancing now.
The fact that it is not the Church of the New Testament can be proved by the simple fact you have to rely on tradition and the ability to change as you go..... to firm up your case. You cannot stand on existing scripture because your arguments then quickly evaporate.
History and common sense proves this wrong. Again, you base reality on your own perceptions without taking into account that you are biased towards your point of view. History clearly shows one church coming from the first century that was considered orthodox and had the writings of the Apostles. If we believe that Jesus was God, we also believe that He would keep His promise - to protect His Church from the gates of hell and from false teachings. If you have a problem with that, then apparently you do not believe that Jesus was God, but just a prophet.
I would conclude that you do not understand Catholic teaching, but latch onto a strawman of your pastor's making. Thus, your accustions of 'traditions' falter.
If Peter had any primacy why in the world did he not just stand up here and tell everyone to be still? [Luke 22:24] And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
It wasn't his place to do so yet, being that Matthew 16 was a FUTURE ordinance. Jesus didn't tell Peter to "feed my sheep" until AFTER the resurrection. Jesus didn't tell Peter that his faith would secure the other apostles until AFTERWARDS. Before Jesus Passion, Simon was not the "vicar of Christ", as Christ was still present in the flesh. When the master is present, the head servant does not command.
This is the Passover Preparation before the crucifixion....sometime after the incident in Matthew where you folks insist he receives some type of primacy. I realize you must teach this or your "House of Cards" comes tumbling down. It's still "Balderdash" .... irregardless!
Only someone in denial would advance the idea that Peter had no position of primacy among the other apostles. It is crystal clear in the NT, and the vast majority of Protestants will admit this as well. The "house of cards" that comes crashing down is your inability to support such an idea from Scriptures. Peter is mentioned far more than any other apostle and his name is always listed first in lists. He is given the task to feed Christ's sheep, for steadying their faith, for being the ROCK. Christ built upon rock, and God's graces come to the vicar of Christ for the purpose of continuing to feed Christ's sheep and steadying the faithful.
If you read the Greek {Matthew 16:18] Our Lord is referred to as "Petra". Peter is never called that.
Ridiculous. One of the craziest eigesis I have ever heard. Are you sure you have read Matthew 16:18 without that anti-catholic bias you possess? It seems you are willing to admit anything to "prove" your point, rather than just read the Scriptures. No one could conclude that Jesus was speaking about Himself when He said "and you are rock...". Ridiculous. Peter said to Jesus "you are the Messiah" and Jesus said "you are rock". Get over it and accept what God has done.
Petros is the name given to Simon Bar Jona.....by the Lord [John 1:42]. The Greek text does not agree that Peter is the Rock.
This verse further proves my point. Jesus says YOU WILL BE CALLED CEPHAS. Not "I am Cephas".
This is a very "un Joe like" thing to say.
How so? Your accusations and venom are OK, but when I correct you, I'm at fault? With what you have written so far, I am disappointed. I hadn't thought you were someone who had such a hard time with the obvious sense of Scriptures - that Jesus was calling someone else "ROCK". Not Himself. And PAUL calls Simon "ROCK". Not Jesus! You are in denial, my friend. I will pray for you that God will release you from this hatred you have for His Church.
Regards