Posted on 11/06/2010 3:55:37 PM PDT by Benchim
**What inconsistencies?**
Boy, that answer sure blindsided me. ;)
Let’s take a close look at Matt. 16:18.
The Lord is speaking directly TO Peter throughout the verse, even when he mentions ‘and upon this rock I will build my church’. For the Lord to speak directly to Peter throughout, you have to accept that the he is first addressing him, then addressing his revelation from God: ‘and upon this rock I will build my church.
Of course, that harmonizes nicely with Eph. 2:20 and 1 Peter 2:6 and 7, that clearly declare Jesus Christ as the chief corner stone.
Now, the way you RCs interpret Matt. 16;18, you have the Lord addressing Peter directly, then indirectly, as though he has turned away from Peter, and is saying to others that Peter is the rock on which he will build his church. That is some serious sentence manipulation/mutilation, take your pick.
Here’s another:
Mother of God- unscriptural; why because God the Father wasn’t the ‘father’ of God. The scriptures show that Jesus Christ is never referred to as ‘God the Son’, always the ‘Son of God’. There is a reason for that. God did not ‘father’ more Spirit; he ‘fathered’ a man (with a soul) to dwell in. Jesus Christ himself declared; “the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works”. John 14:10
Time doesn’t permit me to continue tonight, but that’s a start.
**Please list for us “His commands”.**
I already gave you several references from the Lord and his apostles, and you mock.
Let me put it this way: The commands found in Acts 2:28; are they from heaven, or of men? (I learned that style of questioning from the Lord)
With all respect, I believe the extensive dodging of the scriptural commands to be just as much legalism as the adding of unscriptural commands.
Then in Genesis 17 again the ‘promise’ also included Sarai with a Heavenly name change to Sarah. verse 16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of *NATIONS* (that means more than one as it is plural) kings of people shall be of her.”
Isaac was born unto Sarah and married Rebekah, and Rebekah was told in Genesis 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, “Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger,” Esau traded is birthright for a bowl of ‘red’ pottage, and Rebekah saw fit that Jacob received the blessing. Genesis 27
Jacob's name was changed to Israel and he had twelve sons, each are named and even given an inheritance noted Ruben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Gad, Asher, Joseph, Benjamin, Dan, and Naphtali.
NOTE Genesis 49:1 And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, “Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the LAST days.
Each son (tribe) is listed and so Ezra is not the source where one discovers what to look for when tracing the footsteps of the generations of Israel/Jacob.
Now after leaving ‘bondage’ of Pharaoh, the children were brought to the promise land, and God set up His government with judges but the children saw the neighborhood having ‘kings’ and so they demanded themselves a king and so God gave them Saul of Benjamin to rule over them... until David from the tribe of Judah was anointed to take over as king.
Then after David's son Solomon ruled as king over the children of Israel they had a ‘civil war’ and the kingdom was broken in two parts. A northern kingdom called house of Israel and the southern kingdom called house of Judah.
When Ezra came back to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple the house of Israel also sometime referred to as Ephraim has long since been sent into captivity to the Assyrian king, so Ezra was NOT referring to the house of Israel but the children of Israel. It would be expected that any one who read what had been recorded before would know just who it was Ezra was talking about.
Point of this post.... the promise made to Abraham and Sarah still holds and is still being fulfilled even to these days. The punishment to the house of Israel was that they would not know who they were, but the Heavenly Father sure knows as did Christ when His first instructions to His newly elected disciples was to Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and COMMANDED them, saying, “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6 BUT go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Now since Christ where has Christianity been planted nourished and spread?
AND no I am not ignoring the many many gentiles that have accepted Christ and continue to do so. But just as the children of Israel (that means all the 12, as opposed to house of Israel) are described in Jeremiah 4:22 For My people is foolish, they have not known ME; they are sottish (word means stupid) children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.... God still blesses them and protects them because of that promise made to Abraham and it is now in Christ's Holy Name that forgives a multitude of sins.
To earn one’s living from preaching is unBiblical.
It beats needing the money for mall building and real estate procurring.
Oh?
Prove it.
(The Tribe of LEVI might have some tips on how to survive.)
Only God knows how much is enough. All one can do is respond to His Grace and bear fruit accordingly, and approach God as the remorseful tax collector did—not as the Pharisee did.
I’ve seen some people who are convinced that they’re saved, yet cheat people out of money owed and do things that certainly don’t give witness to Christ. My point was that there are examples in the Gospel where Jesus teaches us to act in faith (parable of the Good Samaritan; the rich follower whom Jesus told to sell all of his possessions and give the money to the poor).
Elsie: Oh? Prove it. (The Tribe of LEVI might have some tips on how to survive.)
I'll have to use that old Testament to prove it:
Numbers 35:1-3 (New International Version)
Towns for the Levites
1 On the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho, the LORD said to Moses, 2 “Command the Israelites to give the Levites towns to live in from the inheritance the Israelites will possess. And give them pasturelands around the towns. 3 Then they will have towns to live in and pasturelands for the cattle they own and all their other animals.
God's expectations for the Levites is that they would work for their living, not by preaching His Word, but by other means of earning a living.
Nota Bene: the Levites are God appointed, not self-appointed. That's the OT proof.
We're talking about the Bible, not the Communist Manifesto.
The mind of man still thinks he has TO DO SOMETHING to earn his salvation.
If you could EARN it there would be no need for Christ to have died on cthe Cross.
When the rich man went to CHRIST he asked..”What GOOD THING MUST I DO to inherit eternal life?
Jesus gave him an IMPOSSIBLE LIST of things to do..”Keep the Commandments”.
The rich man says “This I have done, even from my youth”.
(It is impossible to keep the law as you should know)
Jesus then added this..”You lack ONE THING. SELL all you have, give it to the poor, and follow me”.
The rich man balked and went away.
Look around you! Do you still posess lots of money and things?
Those of you who think you can DO SOMETHING to earn your salvation, here are Christ’s words about earning it.
Keep the Law
Sell EVERYTHING YOU HAVE and follow Christ.
Can you do it?
Why did Christ say this? To show that salvation CAN NOT BE EARNED by your own efforts! You will always LACK ONE THING.
Your righteousness is as filthy rags before the Lord.
A few more words of Christ! CAN YOU DO THEM?
Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 23:1 ¶ Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:
Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Thank GOD that the Blood of Christ has clesnsed us and we no longer have to live in fear that we don’t “measure up”.
Note to those who think being a Christian means you can now go and sin-sin-sin!....You had better examine yourselves to see if you be “of the faith”.
This is an easy one. Jesus changed Peter's name from Simon to "Peter" in the Greek and "Cephus" in the original Aramaic. Both these terms "peter" and "cephus" refer to a kind of rock which is known in English as "saltpeter." So "Peter" definitely means "rock" in the literal sense. The only plausible explanation for Jesus' choice of this name is His later use of the term "Rock" to describe Peter's role in the hierarchical structure of His Church.
Mother of God- unscriptural; why because God the Father wasn’t the ‘father’ of God. The scriptures show that Jesus Christ is never referred to as ‘God the Son’, always the ‘Son of God’. There is a reason for that. God did not ‘father’ more Spirit; he ‘fathered’ a man (with a soul) to dwell in. Jesus Christ himself declared; “the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works”. John 14:10
Wow, you do not believe in the Trinity? We are really starting at square one. At the start of John's Gospel, we find that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Several lines later, it says "And the Word was made flesh." Obviously these passages describe Jesus Christ, Second Person of the Trinity, who received a fully human nature alongside His divine nature at the time of His birth to His Mother, the Virgin Mary. Jesus Christ is God and therefore His mother is the Mother of God. If we become adoptive sons of the Father, then we become not only the sons, but the brothers of God. Quite a privilege!
You still aren’t addressing your interpretation. For your concept to make sense, you have the Lord addressing Peter directly, then indirectly in the same sentence, which makes no sense. The Lord is the chief corner stone of the church. Peter is part of the ‘foundation’.
**”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”**
Are you, and your word, are two separate and distinct persons? Paul said that God was manifest IN the flesh. 1Tim. 3:16. And the man (Christ) died. God doesn’t die. God isn’t even a little bit weak. I pointed out how the Christ said that the “Father that dwelleth IN me HE doeth the works”.
Peter understood all this. That’s why he baptized in the name of Jesus; as did Philip the evangelist, Paul, etc.
**Jesus Christ, Second Person of the Trinity, who received a fully human nature alongside His divine nature at the time of His birth to His Mother, the Virgin Mary.**
The Christ received no divine attributes from Mary whatsoever. She didn’t even have a hand in making his soul. She was used to help make the body for the soul, AND the Spirit of God, to dwell in. That’s Bible, man, not carnal man’s reasoning about birth.
The man Christ said, “I can of mine own self do nothing..” John 5:30
The Spirit of God, speaking through the Christ told the scribes, “before Abraham was, I am”. John 8:58
The dual nature is: the Father is Spirit; and the Son is flesh (with a soul).
Sorry; but the RECORD shows that PETER was in use BEFORE the time that Jesus supposedly 'changed' it.
Your fanciful splitting of grammatical hairs does not change the record of history. Peter was treated as the steward of the Church by the Apostles and their successors.
**”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”** Are you, and your word, are two separate and distinct persons?
The passage is not about me. What part of "the Word was God" do you not understand.
It was Jesus who changed Simon's name to Cephus (Peter, Rock) when they met.
I suppose one COULD see it that way; BUT...
"One of the two who heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, "We have found the Messiah," which means Christ. He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas," which means Peter."...it appears to me that Jesus is saying what is GOING to happen in the future.(John 1:40-42 RSV)
HE didn't say, "Let's change your name to Peter."
Let me help you out again, Elsie, but I’ll have to use that old Testament.
See Isaiah 51
Everlasting Salvation for Zion
1 “Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness
and who seek the LORD:
Look to the rock from which you were cut
and to the quarry from which you were hewn;
2 look to Abraham, your father,
and to Sarah, who gave you birth.
When I called him he was only one man,
and I blessed him and made him many.
3 The LORD will surely comfort Zion
and will look with compassion on all her ruins;
he will make her deserts like Eden,
her wastelands like the garden of the LORD.
Joy and gladness will be found in her,
thanksgiving and the sound of singing.
Read the whole thing here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+51&version=NIV
Getting back to the Greek, the two rocks spoken of have on major distinguishing feature and it isn’t size.
The Temple can only be built on “living rock”. Only one use of the word rock refers to “living rock”. Guess which one.
**Your fanciful splitting of grammatical hairs**
Hey, I didn’t write Matt. 16:18. I’m just reading it as it is written, using good old common sense.
**The passage is not about me.**
Wasn’t man made in the image of God? Do you have three heads, coequal in wisdom, and power?
Jeus Christ is not IN the image of God, He “is THE image of the INVISIBLE God, the FIRSTBORN of every creature.” Col. 1:15 FIRSTBORN? hmmm, think about it.
God has no beginning, nor ending. The Christ, who through God’s Word (his righteous plan, which is not a separate and distinct person)) was made flesh, is God, because of the Father dwelling in him.
Your theology has two immortal men, planning on saving fallen mankind, the elder of the two (both eternal, but somehow one is older, and father of the other) tells the younger to go down to earth, live in a mortal body, suffer and die, saying to him, “But don’t worry, I’ll raise you up!” (”..Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father..” Rom. 6:4)
I realize you must defend you position of somehow having Mary create more of God, or your whole house of cards (’the mother of God’) comes tumbling down.
Have a good day. Mine is going to be real busy.
It appears you’ll STILL have to help me: again.
Your argument is an imaginary straw man. Rejection of the Trinity puts oneself outside of Christianity toward the vicinity of Mormonism or Jehovah Witness.
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.