Replies

"The RCC is still morphing today, and will continue to do so because it has no fixed standard by which to judge itself. So doctrines like Mary's ascent into heaven, and her sinlessness, taught nowhere in Scripture, will continue to become dogmas of the RCC."

I take it then that you are a fundamentalist, a new-age form of "Christianity" that was born in the 20th century. But I remind you that for 1,500 years before the Protestant revolt Christianity had as it human head the Bishop of Rome. God would not ascend into Heaven and leave His world-wide Church without structure, government, and leadership. As Heaven itself is a monarchy, (the "Kingdom", as Christ called it), with an heirarchical structure as we see with the "elders in Heaven", (Revelation), and the ascending powers of the various groupings of angels, (Seraphim, Cherubim, Dominations, Virtures, Arch Angels, etc). Jesus also tells us there will be some greater than others in Heaven, (He told the Apostles that those who serve others are greater in the Kingdom of heaven, etc. Christ designed all things to be ordered, including His Church, which needs a visible human head and an heirarchical government.

You cannot get around this fact when you read the Book of Acts and see a Council in Jerusalem, you read about Bishops, presbyters, meaning priest). We also read about Deacons, Church elders. We see Paul traveling hundreds of miles to attend the coucil in Jerusalem. We see debate over doctrine, and we see Peter "speaking and silencing the whole crowd". And we see the people bringing all their belongings to the Church leadership for general disbursal in Acts. Peter was the first to confess that Jesus was the Son of God, and Jesus told him he was inspired by God, (Mathew 16:). Again and again we see Peter being given the leadership, as with the Keys to the Kingdom, (Mathew 16), Peter alone being given the vision that all men are saved, (Acts 10:34), Peter being allowed by Jesus to walk on water, Peter being instructed by Jesus, "Feed my lambs, feed my flock", the Apostles being referred to as "Peter and the eleven", Peter being allowed by the swifter John to enter the empty Tomb first, always it was Peter.

Clement, (mentioned by Paul in Scripture), was the fourth Bishop of Rome. His own epistles, still extant, reveal that he give pastoral advice and leadership to the various Churches in the First Century who were falling away from traditional doctrine, and who had their own Bishops. Only a "bishop of bishops" could have sent such correctional letters to provinces that already had their own bishops. This is precisely why it is a deadly error to be a "bible only" Christian. The Bible is truly inspired by God, but it by no means contains the whole of Christianity. The Bible itself tells us that, (John 20:30 and John 21:25).

"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

As for your continual attacks against "Mary, the mother of Jesus", it might just be advisable to stop attacking her purity. She was, after all, the human arc of our Saviour. Do you really believe it pleases Jesus in any way when His own mother is spoken of as a sinner? Do you imagine Him smiling when you say such things? Mary was not the only woman born without sin in the Bible. Eve was the first to have this distinction. And as Eve said "yes" to Satan and brought sin into the world, Mary said "yes" to the angel and brought Salvation into the world. The Bible that you profess to know and love says that "all generations shall call me, (Mary), blessed", (Luke 1:48). I call her blessed, you call her a sinner. Elizabeth exclaimed whe she saw Mary: "BLESSED are you among women,-Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me"? (Luke 1:42-3).

And let's not forget that Mary was indeed sinless. For the Son of God could not be born of anything impure. Mary was the only person in the Scripture, (that you profess to know and trust), who declared that she was saved before Jesus the Saviour was even born. My spirit rejoices in God my savior" <(Luke 1:47). Mary was already saved by God before the Saviour was born, died and was resurrected. That is, before Redemption, Mary was saved. This is because Mary was born without that stain of sin, and remained pure.

Christ designed all things to be ordered, including His Church, which needs a visible human head and an heirarchical government.

Christ did design all things to be ordered and need a head. The Word of God leaves us with no doubt as to who this head is:

Col.1:18 And He [CHRIST] is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

Eph.5:23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also CHRIST is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.

Nowhere is Peter or any other person other than Christ called the head of the church in Scripture. Peter himself called Christ the rock on which the church was founded, not himself:

1 Peter 2:6 "Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, "Behold, I lay in Zion A chief cornerstone, elect, precious, And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame." 7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, "The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone," 8 and "A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense." They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed."

In the Gospel of Matthew we read:

"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it." —Matthew 16:13-18

The Roman Catholic Church interprets Jesus here to say, "You are Peter, and upon you, Peter, I will build My church." Peter would be the rock upon which the Church would be built [552, 586, 881]. He would be the "prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church."

There are several problems with this interpretation. The first is that someone reading Matthew’s Gospel in Greek, the original language of the New Testament, would not have immediately concluded that Peter was the rock. In the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus said to Simon, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church" (Matthew 16:18), His choice of words was significant. Though Peter’s name means rock (petros), Jesus did not say, "You are Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (petros) I will build my church." What He said was, "You are Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church."

The word Jesus chose to use for rock, petra, is a feminine noun that refers to a mass of rock. The New Testament uses this word in Matthew 7:24,25 to refer to the bedrock upon which a wise man built his house. Petra is also found later in Matthew’s Gospel with reference to Jesus’ tomb, which workers had carved out of solid rock (Matthew 27:60).

Peter’s name, Petros, on the other hand, is masculine in gender and refers to a boulder or a detached stone. Greek literature also uses it of a small stone that might be picked up and thrown.

What Jesus said to Peter could be translated, "You are Stone, and upon this bedrock I will build My church." His choice of words would indicate that the rock on which the church would be built was something other than Peter.

Anyone reading the Gospel of Matthew in the original Greek language would have noticed the difference. The reader would have had to pause and decide what was meant by "upon this rock" (Matthew 16:18). The reader would not immediately have equated the rock (petra) with Peter (Petros), because the words are different.

To determine the best interpretation, the reader would have had to look more closely at the context. This is the second and greatest weakness with the Roman Catholic interpretation: It fails to give proper emphasis to the context.

The context of Matthew 16:13-20 is not about Peter; it is about Jesus. It starts with a question that Jesus raises about His identity: "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" (Matthew 16:13). It reaches a climax with Peter’s declaration: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). It concludes with the Lord warning His disciples "that they should tell no one that He was the Christ" (Matthew 16:20).

When Peter correctly answered Jesus’ question as to His identity, the Lord remarked, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 16:17). Peter’s insight into Jesus’ true identity was a revelation from God. In this context, Jesus, making a play on words, says, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church" (Matthew 16:18).

The context argues for interpreting "this rock" as referring back to the revelation and its content. In other words, the Lord Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16) would be the solid rock upon which the Christian faith would rest. Every doctrine and practice would be founded upon Him. Every true believer would hold to a common conviction: Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16).

The cultural context of the passage also supports interpreting "this rock" as referring to Jesus in His identity as the Son of God. Matthew wrote his Gospel for a Jewish audience. He expected his readers to be familiar with Old Testament imagery.

How would a Jewish reader interpret "upon this rock"? G. Campbell Morgan answers, "If we trace the figurative use of the word rock through Hebrew Scriptures, we find that it is never used symbolically of man, but always of God." For example:

There is no one holy like the Lord; Indeed, there is no one besides Thee, Nor is there any rock like our God. —1 Samuel 2:2

For who is God, but the Lord? And who is a rock, except our God? —Psalm 18:31

Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none. —Isaiah 44:8

The wider context of the New Testament also confirms that Jesus, not Peter, is the rock. For example, Peter himself wrote of Christ as a rock (petra):

For this is contained in Scripture: "Behold I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious corner stone, and he who believes in Him shall not be disappointed." This precious value, then, is for you who believe. But for those who disbelieve, "The stone which the builders rejected, this became the very corner stone," and, "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense." —1 Peter 2:6-8

Paul also refers to Christ by the Greek word petra. In Romans he wrote of Christ as "a rock (petra) of offense" (Romans 9:33) over which the Jews had stumbled. In First Corinthians he wrote of a spiritual rock encountered by Israel in the wilderness. He identified that rock, saying, "...and the rock (petra) was Christ" (1 Corinthians 10:4).

Interpreting Christ as the rock upon which the church would be built also harmonizes well with other statements in Scripture. Paul warned, "No man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:11). Here he emphasizes that Christ is the foundation upon which the church is built. In Ephesians, Paul speaks of the church as "having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone" (Ephesians 2:20). Here Paul pictures Christ as the principal stone and the apostles and prophets as secondary stones.

Roman Catholic proponents, aware that Matthew’s use of the word petra in the phrase "upon this rock" does not help their cause, counter by arguing that Jesus taught in Aramaic, not Greek. They claim that when Jesus spoke the words recorded in Matthew 16:18, He did not change His words but repeated Peter’s Aramaic name Kepha. What Christ said, they claim, was: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church." And so, they say, it is clear that Peter was to be the foundation upon which the Church would be built.

What is clear is that Rome’s interpretation of Matthew 16:18 cannot bear the scrutiny of close examination. Consequently, Roman Catholic defenders must move the discussion off the inspired page and onto the field of speculation.

The inspired New Testament Scriptures were written in Greek, not Aramaic. What Jesus might have said in Aramaic is conjecture. Furthermore, if, as some contend, the Aramaic is clear but the Greek inadequate or confusing, why did not the Holy Spirit simply import the Aramaic words? There are many such examples in the New Testament. There are even nine places where the Scriptures refer to Peter as Cephas, the Aramaic form of his name. Or why did not the Holy Spirit just repeat the word petros, as Catholic defenders speculate He did in the Aramaic? Then Matthew 16:18 would read, "You are Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (petros) I will build My church."

But rather than speculate, why not let the passage speak for itself? When the Holy Spirit inspired the Greek text of the New Testament, He made a distinction between Peter (Petros) and the rock (petra). The reason for the difference is clear from the context.

As to the longevity of the Roman Catholic church, Judaism has been around much longer. Longevity does not equal legitimacy. The autocratic Roman Catholic church with the pretender in Rome lording it over the other churches developed slowly over a period of hundreds of years, aided by forged documents, the Isidorian Decretals and the Donation of Constantine.

To support authoritarian claims, the popes tried to build a documentary tradition for their position. The popes produced a series of documents, now known as the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, to keep Carolingian nobles at arm's length. These documents first appeared between 833 and 857. A few actually recorded the works of early Roman bishops. Other documents contained a core of truth but included spurious additions. Still other documents were outright forgeries. The name came from a Spanish bishop, Isidore of Seville. The popes used these documents for one purpose: to prove the antiquity of their authority.

Pope Nicholas I (858-867) used the Decretals first when John, the Archbishop of Ravenna and a personal friend of Emperor Louis II, stood accused of graft, theft and inefficiency. Nicholas summoned him to Rome but John refused to come. Nicholas then deposed him. Rebellious clergymen chose to challenge Nicholas's action. In 864 Nicholas crossed paths with Hincmar of Rheims, a strong European cleric. Hincmar had excommunicated a bishop in his area. The disgruntled bishop appealed to Nicholas for support. Drawing on the Isidorian Decretals for his authority, Nicholas successfully reversed Hincmar's decision. In time Nicholas became the ninth century's strongest pope.

The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals gave bishops the right to appeal directly to Rome. This allowed bishops to bypass their Archbishops. The Roman bishop now controlled all other church leaders.

In 756 A.D. the Italian Papal States (much of the city of Rome and major areas in western Italy) were officially acquired by the Catholic Church. This land transfer was legitimated on the basis of a document supposedly written by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in 337 A.D. which granted all of these regions to Pope Sylvester I (Pope from 315-335 A.D.) and his successors.

For many centuries the authenticity of the Donation of Constantine was not questioned. However, in 1440 Lorenzo Valla published his Declamitio de falso credita et ementia donatione Constantini (Discourse on the Forgery of the Alleged Donation of Constantine). In this declamation, Valla argued that the donation was a fraud. He noted that not only was there no record indicating that Pope Sylvester I had been aware of such a gift, but also that the text of the Donation contained a number of historical anachronisms. For instance, it referred to Byzantia as a province when in the fourth century it was only a city. It referred to temples in Rome that did not yet exist; and finally, it referred to 'Judea' which also did not yet exist. Also, The Donation of Constantine quoted from St. Jerome's Latin translation of the Bible. St. Jerome wasn't born until 26 years after the Donation of Constantine was supposed to have been written.

As usual, the Catholic church only stopped the pretense when their deception was exposed for all the world to see.

You cannot get around this fact when you read the Book of Acts and see a Council in Jerusalem, you read about Bishops, presbyters, meaning priest). We also read about Deacons, Church elders. We see Paul traveling hundreds of miles to attend the coucil in Jerusalem. We see debate over doctrine, and we see Peter "speaking and silencing the whole crowd".

Gal.2:11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?

The Greek word for bishop, episkopos, is not the same Greek word that is translated priest, unless you are reading from a mis-translation. If bishop does mean "priest" then the Roman Catholic church is violating Scripture with its celibacy rule, because the Apostle Paul says in 1 Timothy 3 that bishops must be the :

"husband of one wife"

As for your continual attacks against "Mary, the mother of Jesus", it might just be advisable to stop attacking her purity. She was, after all, the human arc of our Saviour. Do you really believe it pleases Jesus in any way when His own mother is spoken of as a sinner? Do you imagine Him smiling when you say such things? Mary was not the only woman born without sin in the Bible. Eve was the first to have this distinction...The Bible that you profess to know and love says that "all generations shall call me, (Mary), blessed", (Luke 1:48). I call her blessed, you call her a sinner. Elizabeth exclaimed whe she saw Mary: "BLESSED are you among women,...

I never "attacked" Mary. Eve was born without sin because the Fall of mankind into sin had not yet occurred. Since then, Romans 5 says that death has passed upon all mankind. To call any descendant of Adam a sinner is not to "attack" them but to agree with what the Bible says:

The Bible, not me, says that Mary was blessed, and a sinner.

Rom.3:23 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

The message to all of mankind is this:

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

Mary called God HER SAVIOR. All mankind, like Mary, needs a Savior. Mary is in heaven, not because of her righteousness, but because Christ died for her sins, like he died for mine.

Jesus Christ was the one who was sinless, and the only one. He is the one we should exalt, and pray through, not Mary. The New Testament is devoid of any mention of a believer praying to Mary or claiming she was sinless or that she ascended into heaven. When others tried to exalt Mary, Jesus countered their error:

Luke 8:19 Then His mother and brothers came to Him, and could not approach Him because of the crowd. 20 And it was told Him by some, who said, "Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You." 21 But He answered and said to them, "My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it."