http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/50-new-testament-proofs-for-petrine.html
Posted on 03/05/2012 7:52:29 PM PST by Salvation
Haven’t heard the argument in #20 before. Very compelling and insightful. Thank you!
Its from the Archbishop Fulton Sheen Catechism.
Hold on tight, it’s gonna be a bumpy thread!
“Vlad, you are correct, but remember, with protestants, things have to be twisted and distorted from the clear meaning, in this example......the obvious meaning of ‘rock’ is Peter...historically, it has been Peter, but that has to be done away by any and all means.....itz a shame.”
No such doctrine exists in the Bible, and Peter himself in Acts as well as in 2 Peter calls Christ the cornerstone, and themselves and all believers as “lively stones.” It was a “illustrated lesson,” using Peter’s name, which means a “rock,” and directed him to the rock of the Church, which is Christ, the foundation of the church. Peter was never exalted over the other Apostles, nor did he ever exalt himself over them. All performed the same functions. There is, similarly, no indication that the Apostles as an office would ever pass into the future. There were not 12 rival popes... their task was handed off to the rest of us collectively, to preach the Gospel against the enemy of this world, picking up where the Apostles left off.
The Primacy of Rome was a later invention.
Please read post #20 in this thread.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/50-new-testament-proofs-for-petrine.html
I am too busy at the moment to demolish you guys in this thread. Please have patience for my answer for later. I started a new job, and I’ve been getting up at 6am in the morning everyday, and I also still have many other duties to attend to.
It sucks not being unemployed anymore. LOL
Your evaluation of that scripture seems legitimate until a deeper examination of the words Christ used shows otherwise. Lets look at what He said.
Matt 16:18
You are “Petros” (a stone or a rock) and upon this “Petra” (a rock, cliff or ledge - a projecting rock, crag or rocky ground) I will build my church.
There is a difference in the Greek words used, their usage and meaning of the word translated “rock” as can be seen by the following:
Please compare to Isaiah 44:8
Is there a God beside me? yea, no “tsuwr”; I know not any.
TSUWR: rock, cliff. rocky wall, cliff.
PETRA: rock, cliff or ledge.
PETROS: a stone or a rock.
Note also the usage of the word TSUWR in Isaiah 8:14
And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock (TSUWR) of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
This passage is repeated in the NT: Romans 9:33 and 1 Peter 2:8. In both cases the Greek word used is Petra in place of the Hebrew Tsuwr. The same Petra (the “rock, cliff or ledge”) upon which Christ told Peter He would build His church. We can then determine that the rock in Isaiah and the rock in 1 Peter and the rock upon which Christ would build His church are one and the same. This agrees with God's assessment that there is no other rock (TSUWR in Hebrew or PETRA in Greek) beside Him.
Petra is also used to illustrate hearing and doing the words of Christ to the man who built his house on the Petra. Tsuwr is used often in the OT to refer to God as a rock of salvation. All implications of a very large stone capable of being built upon.
Examining the other side of the word for rock, we find that Petros is used exclusively as a name for Peter save for only one time that it is translated “rock” in John 1:42 when Jesus called Peter to be his disciple.
That is the context and content regarding the Petra upon which Christ would build His Church.
It is clear to these protestant eyes that Jesus was by no means calling Peter (Petros) the rock upon which the church was to be built but was actually referring to Himself (Petra). He would otherwise contradict Isaiah 44:8 which states there is no other Rock besides God (translated Petra in Greek). This is echoed by Peter himself when he declared that Petra is the rock that causes men to stumble.
In conclusion:
Petra = Jesus Himself, upon which the church is built. No other God besides Petra according to Peter when he quoted Isaiah 44:8.
Petros = Peter, sometimes translated rock according to John.
"demolish' LOL!!!
WE believe in Bible only? But go to outside sources to Prove its not only by going to other people books or sources to declare the farce of Bible Only.
Our actions dictate "invention of primacy" from outside sources of bible. Real history shows otherwise not revised history. Also how would you know its outside the bible when how dare you go outside for so called authority sources. When "the Bible is the only authority" . Hello?
When people declare that The Catholic Church has no right but then go to an outside authority to declare not same for Catholic Church.
Like what about Christ put the Holy Spirit in the Day of Pentecost then the Apostles laid hands on believers.
Acts 6
The Choosing of the Seven
1 In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenistic Jews[a] among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2 So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3 Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”
5 This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6 They presented these men to the apostles, Who Prayed and Laid their hands on them.
7 So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of PRIESTS became obedient to the faith.
YOU EVER GO TO AN ORDINATION OF A PRIEST.
All the priests put hands on each other and back from bishops to priests. This has been going on for two thousand years since the days of ACTS 6. THE Bishop explains this at every ordination. HMMMM
Luke writes these because it is stupid I guess by the Holy Spirit about a church lasting any length told by a Jewish leader. The Church for Two Thousand Years.
ACTS 5:
34 But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in honor by all the people, stood up and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while.
35 And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men. 36 For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing.
37 After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too Perished, and all who followed him were Scattered.
38 So in the present case I tell you, Keep Away from these men and let them alone, for IF this Plan or this undertaking is of Man, IT will Fail; 39 but if it is of God, you Will Not be Able to Overthrow them. You might even be found Opposing God!” So they took his advice, 40 and when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.
41 Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name. 42 And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
38 "So in the present case I tell you, Keep Away from these men and let them alone, for IF this Plan or this undertaking is of Man, IT will Fail; 39 but if it is of God, you Will Not be Able to Overthrow them. You might even be found Opposing God!”
GEE ALL THROUGH OUT HISTORY.
I just Believe it all comes from an existing visible Church first for two thousand years.
I apologize, in post #30 Peter did not quote Isaiah 44:8 but rather Isaiah 8:14 which is translated Petra in the Greek in 1 Peter 2:8, thus equating Petra (Greek) and Tsuwr (Hebrew).
I understand this objection, but there are many layers within the dialog of Jesus. Before we consider syntax we must consider context. Jesus and the Apostles had the conversation in Matthew 16 in Caesarea Philippi. Located near the Golan Heights the city, previously known as Panis, was built above a huge rock wall also known as the rock of the Gods. At the base of this wall was a flooded cave that local superstitions believed was a passage to the under world. It was before this wall, with the temple to Pan (the Greek God of chaos and confusion, that the conversation took place. When you factor in the possible play on words the syntax is not so clear.
Now, were this the only passage in the Gospels that addressed the primacy of Peter there might be some room for disagreement, but there are about 50 verses that establish it. Peter, like Abram (Abraham) Jacob (Israel) and Sara (Sarah) was given a new name by God upon the bestowing of their holy office. Collectively these leave no doubt.
From http://reformation500.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/historical-literature-on-the-earliest-papacy/:
Keep in mind, too, that there was not any such thing as a “monarchical episcopacy” for maybe the first hundred years or more of the church. It evolved over time; many have traced this evolution. It is not in question except by individuals such as these Roman apologists who want to maintain the fantasies of some kind of unbroken succession.
Interestingly, regarding Peter and succession, the Catholic writer Raymond Brown says, “The claims of various sees to descend from particular members of the Twelve are highly dubious. It is interesting that the most serious of these is the claim of the bishops of Rome to descend from Peter, the one member of the Twelve who was almost a missionary apostle in the Pauline sense – a confirmation of our contention that whatever succession there was from apostleship to episcopate, it was primarily in reference to the Pauline type of apostleship, not that of the Twelve.” (“Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections,” Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, 1970, pg 72.)
The Catholic historian Paul Johnson goes a bit further than Brown, in his 1976 work “History of Christianity”:
Eusebius presents the lists as evidence that orthodoxy had a continuous tradition from the earliest times in all the great Episcopal sees and that all the heretical movements were subsequent aberrations from the mainline of Christianity.
Looking behind the lists, however, a different picture emerges. In Edessa, on the edge of the Syrian desert, the proofs of the early establishment of Christianity were forgeries, almost certainly manufactured under Bishop Kune, the first orthodox Bishop.
In Egypt, Orthodoxy was not established until the time of Bishop Demetrius, 189-231, who set up a number of other sees and manufactured a genealogical tree for his own bishopric of Alexandria, which traces the foundation through ten mythical predecessors back to Mark, and so to Peter and Jesus.
Even in Antioch, where both Peter and Paul had been active, there seems to have been confusion until the end of the second century. Antioch completely lost their list; “When Eusebius’s chief source for his Episcopal lists, Julius Africanus, tried to compile one for Antioch, he found only six names to cover the same period of time as twelve in Rome and ten in Alexandria.
Going back again in time, it is interesting to note the development of certain “enhancements” to the stories of succession. Of course Irenaeus passes along the whopper suggesting that Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome. He says, “Since it would be too long, in a work like this, to list the successions in all the churches (helpfully provided above by Johnson), we shall take only one of them, the church that is greatest, most ancient, and known to all, founded and set up by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul at Rome …” (Against Heresies, 3.3.2).
Peter and Paul neither “founded” nor “set up” the church at Rome. Paul of course wrote to the Romans in 56 or 58 ad that he had never been there, although the church was existing, thriving, and was attested as early as the Edict of Claudius as early as 49 ad (see Acts 18:2-3), having traveled there from Jerusalem, maybe as early as Acts 2, via the Puteoli-Rome trade routes.
Peter is said to have died in 64 ad, under Nero. There were many legends that Peter arrived at Rome during the reign of Claudius (41-54), and was “bishop” of Rome for 25 years. But Acts 15 places him in Jerusalem and Paul’s letters place him in Corinth and Galatia (not as a leader, but as a missionary) well into the 50’s, long after the church had been “founded” in Rome. Cullman, after a thorough investigation of the historical sources, says that he “became the leader of the Jewish Christian mission; that in this capacity, at a time which cannot be more closely determined but probably occurred at the end of his life, he came to Rome and there, after a very short work, died as a martyr under Nero.” (Cullman, “Peter,” pg. 152) Cullman refuses to discuss the notion that Peter lived in Rome for 25 years, noting that it is so obviously fictitious that it did not merit any serious discussion.
It sure would be nice if y'all could understand the actual definition of sola Scriptura and REMEMBER it. The term means:
The Scriptures alone are our final and only infallible source from God for the doctrines of the Christian faith.
It can't get much plainer than that and it stands in direct contradiction to the Roman Catholic doctrine that "Tradition" and the "Magesterium/Pope" are equally authoritative and infallible. The truth is that ONLY the divinely inspired Holy Scriptures are infallible - something EVEN the Catholic Church teaches - and this means simply that only doctrines that can be backed up by Scripture are binding upon a Christian. It doesn't mean that other people: church "fathers", theologians, pastors, teachers, etc. cannot be studied or referenced, only that whatever they say MUST be proven by Holy Scripture. It is the guidebook for our faith.
So, stop already with the "Bible ONLY" strawman. If y'all didn't get it before, hopefully you won't continue to make the same mistake.
You wrote:
“The CCC must have gotten it wrong, then. You might want to inform the Vatican of their error:”
Nope. Nothing in the CCC contradicts what I said. That there are two interlocked meanings to the passage
has never been denied by the Church. Nor is it denied by me. The simple fact is Peter is the Rock, and he stood out as such by his confession of faith. Also - and perhaps you’re simply ill-informed rather than dishonest - but you might want to look at CCC 552. It’s always amusing when anti-Catholics attack the Church using the Catechism because it always ends up showing how little they know about the Catechism or the Church.
I am glad you are solid in your convictions brother, as am I.
If we want to believe non history made up we can. Just sheer after the fact from many centuries later. First started in the 1500 hundreds from the spirit that brought us a man who took books out of the bible.
Boatbums you are a fairly decent person from your writings. I remember years ago you were not so hung ho on this then we read more of this "trash" . We have to check out original sources like the early church father. I do not see how we can not see that these sites are taking them out of context. All the early church fathers were priests and Bishops as Catholic who believed in the real presence, and the apostolic succession. Just read it for your self.
We have people who tried to put that they did not believe in the real presence on these threads. Like one person had some writing from one of these sources. I go to the original I read it is showing the real presence by the consecration at the end. Consecration is a catholic term for the pray for the bread to be prayed over for the Real Presence. Then I read that the word " figure " is real explaining how the bread and wine become the body and blood but looks the same as bread. Which means the same explanation today in the Catholic Church.
Then the word "figured " is being used from someone who is trying to prove the commmunion is a symbol. Just plain idiocy from these sites.
Just read it for your self. You are well intended but wow. We can not change history.
"And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, PERCEIVED THE GRACE THAT WAS GIVEN UNTO ME, (Paul), they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that WE should go unto the HEATHEN, and THEY unto the CIRCUMCISION."Gal. 2:9.
"Howbeit FOR THIS CAUSE I (Paul) obtained mercy, for THAT IN ME FIRST Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, FOR A PATTERN to them which should HEREAFTER BELIEVE ON HIM to life everlasting." 1 Tim. 1:16.
There is a wealth of information to show who was doing what and why in those Scriptures. And how the Book of Acts transitions.
Every group with some difference of opinion. We can all read the bible but what is the true meaning. So we go to a person or body outside of scripture. But who is the right one.
True history shows otherwise. Christ left people in charge not a book. Because of his great beautiful Divine Mercy we can find Christ and The Holy Spirit in the bible. But first came a Church then the bible with the same church.
"It doesn't mean that other people: church "fathers", theologians, pastors, teachers, etc. cannot be studied or referenced, only that whatever they say MUST be proven by Holy Scripture. It is the guidebook for our faith"
Yes but who ultimately declares what the meaning in a verse really means? We can pick and choose. Then disagree with someone with same philosophy that they are wrong too. Just not what our Lord intended. I beg to differ.
I have read some weird assumptions from some of these threads. They did not get it from the bible only. They had to read from outside then incorporate it into the meaning of the verse. Like Paul started first church and there are strange sequences after the book of acts going to book of revelation. We do not have to confess our sins. Hello!
1John:
8 " If we claim to be without sin, we DECEIVE ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us."
Decieve
Notice everything in that scripture. Just plain dangerous. We have to point out the most dangerous and harmful.
We all have to confess. I never met a Protestant Or Indy church person in my life who who no matter how a confession is made that did not believe in it until these threads. Just astonishing. And I left the Catholic Church then came back. Never. Dangerous to even assume.
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.