Posted on 04/14/2014 2:29:05 PM PDT by NYer
How many millions will burn in hell due to RCC misinterpretations of the word?
Or is it billions?
.
Yeshua, the only rock of the scriptures, built his assembly on himself.
That is the scripture’s point of view.
I just repeated it.
I know.
let's see now, the Catholic Church has had it wrong for over 2,000 years, but you are here to set them straight.........O.K. I guess .
When Christ named Peter(the Rock)from Simon. He is addressing someone outside of himself because Christ is the builder.
Matthew 18 And I tell you, you are Peter(The Rock),[d] and on this rock[e] I will BUILD MY church, and the powers of death[f] shall not prevail against it.[g] 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,[h] and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
“And I Tell YOU, YOU ARE PETER” He changed the name Simon to PETER. Which means ROCK.
When God Changes names something is happening here. Peter is the Rock. He is addressing PETER without a doubt.
When I say in a conversation “ And I TELL YOU” I am pointing out to you . He is obviously addressing To the one he is talking at in the conversation.
Then if I would put “YOU ARE PETER” I am emphazing you are the ROCK also to the next words- “ and on this ROCK I will BUILD MY church, and the powers of death[f] shall not prevail against it.[g]
19 I will give YOU the KEYS of the kingdom of heaven,[h] and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
He is addressing “The Rock”that was named by him. PETER.
Also when you give Keys those Keys are to be passed on to someone responsible as a leader. I have a house with keys. I only pass them on to who is to be trusted.
Peace in Christ to You.
Seriously, every place in the scriptures that the rock is mentioned, it is Yeshua, without exception.
Simon Ben Yonah had been called the hard pebble all of his life, but that didn’t make him the rock. Yeshua was making a Hebrew pun between the rock and the pebble.
1,600 years.
It was founded in the mid 4th century, and has been a stumbling block to the gospel of Yeshua ever since.
There in Matthew 18 the quotation or verse (verse 18) which you bring was not addressed to Peter specifically or alone, for Christ is seen there to be speaking to them all directly, corporately together, all of them at once, having rather also disestablished at that point (prior to verse 19, also!) that "the church" be Peter alone despite what can be said as to his "rocky-ness" even if WE here in discussion be limiting that (alone) consideration to discussion of authority flowing from or through Peter (alone) to each of the rest of the assembled disciples.
This was much more the original and earliest sense of the church -- as to how the binding and loosening spoken of would function.
Claims to there having been established a singular papacy, one over all the rest --- did not arise until centuries later, taking many more centuries to more fully develop (in the minds of some, with it developing in the minds of those of Rome -- but not much elsewhere).
Effort to make excuse for having done so (not that either of you which I address this reply here on this thread have done so) by pointing towards what conciliatory elements there can be found within papal system, still ignores such as verses 16 & 17 in that same chapter, and very much verse 19, for by the sense which can be gathered from the chapter more widely --- Rome alone (successors there) was never in earliest times "the church" alone (or the singular "rock" alone) or considered having the one bishopric to which all others must unilaterally yield, or else chapter 18 of the Gospel of Matthew becomes distorted if not undone.
Can you see it? It can be found (in addition to elsewhere in scripture) in the earliest writings of church note-worthies (Early Church Fathers, as Schaff and others referred to those) -- with many times in those places when Peter alone is being spoken of, it not be in additional context of Peter alone having been authorized with the same binding and loosening, as is found in the very chapter which you have pointed towards. Yet rather; when those ECF's wrote of Peter, it was as his being or serving as example of what the church universally held, with this again -- not contemplated that those powers of true spiritual authority to then being funneled singularly through successor's of one "church office" of bishopric, more than or ABOVE all others.
Yeah, right....the apostles were 400 years old....amazing!!
Christ is talking to Peter directly without a doubt in my faith. I really believe I am reading these passages in the Holy Spirit.
Peace in Christ.
Study your Greek.
Well like Luke the author of Acts for some strange Holy Spirit moment in scripture just has to write down the verses on if its of God it will not be stopped as prophecies by the Famous Rabbi in acts. The Catholic church is going for Two thousand years. Peace in Christ.
No scripture was ever given in Greek.
Greek translations must wrestle with the translator’s lack of understanding of Hebrew language and traditions that cannot be adequately translated, even by a Hebrew scribe fluent in Greek. The LXX shows this principle quite well.
God’s word is understood best in God’s language.
LOL! It’s in Greek in the Latin Rite.
Ever hear of Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison, Kyrie Eleison?
Ever hear of Agnus Dei (Lamb of God) said three times right before Communion.
You may believe Peter was as you put it "a bishop above other bishops thus the title supreme bishop" but that does not make it so -- does not make it true.
The evidence of history and the scriptures both point towards some other way authority was considered -- not only among the original disciples, but for many generations after.
Even then--simply for being named or achieving rank of regard in the eyes of others -- does not equate with having authority from God -- for that type of authority is gained through other means, following not succession to office of bishop, but following the paths (walking with Christ -- having God reveal who He is to oneself) that Peter and the disciples followed -- with Peter more as lead example than lead authority singularly over all.
Realization of the truth as to what I am saying may be painful -- for it would require contemplation that one cannot not only not automatically and fully trust those in "position of authority" from outside the Latin church, but not necessarily those on the inside either -- particularly when they speak of themselves. The misrepresentation has been going on for more than a thousand years by now. That's how hard-core STUCK the error has become calcified, having affected & altered even theology, and at times, the Gospel itself. Or else I would not care -- and would not continue to write.
The problem is not that no authority can be found there -- but to how much, how far -- and the exclusivity of those claims to authority.
For just as is confirmed within [Roman] Catholic theology, the lord will seek to use those in positions looked to by men as holding ecclesiastical 'authority' regardless of the occupant or how fit that occupant is. A priest can be a scallywag -- but that does not stop God from using him, even for the good of the more truthfully faithful.
Well, guess what? It's a lot like that elsewhere too. And everywhere --- true spiritual authority is limited --among men, anyway. It only goes so far and no further, without trespassing directly upon the Lord's own authority.
Pastoral and teaching authority can only go so far before the pastors become not sheep themselves -- but something else.
I see this far from the narrow confines of Rome and so have perspective you and others may not know much of.
But for you -- you are one who speaks of and gives testimony of his personal experience with the Lord through the Spirit, which makes it that you and I share in that a great deal, further than we perhaps are presently aware of, though He can show us further when or if we need to know.
Greek and Latin are incapable of presenting anything of Yeshua.
so what language would you use?
That requires diligent search, because the churchians do all they can to supress it.
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.