Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
You can't believe the scriptures and believe that...I have yet to see a Catholic who doesn't change the wording of the scriptures to try to twist it into something it doesn't say...You guys either add to it, take away from it, or claim it doesn't say what it says...
Jesus never called Peter the rock...Jesus said, 'upon this rock'...
And any one can see that if the rock was anyone other than Jesus, it would have been the Apostle Paul...Paul was the one commissioned to build the church...Peter was wrong on doctrine and faded into obscurity as the church was being built, on Jesus Christ...
The Apostle John outlasted them all and was still revealing God's word long after Peter was gone...Perhaps it was John who was the rock...
One thing is for certain; that when one reads and believes the scripture, it clear that Peter was NOT the rock of the church...
You think we have a “false religion” and we think you have a “false religion”.
So what? Are you rying to tell us we must leave the forum but you get to stay?
Who made you the arbiter of the debate?
Let’s stick to the issues being discussed. You’re welcome to attempt to refute the points that Catholics defend, and we’re entitled to respond with CATHOLIC answers to your objections. If you don’t accept them, well, that’s your prerogative. You’re free to do that. It’s an open forum here. But we’re not keeping our religion “in our own yard”, just like you don’t seem willing to keep your Catholic bashing “in your own yard”.
Did I tell you to keep your religion in your own yard??? Nope...So why are making things up???
“Jesus never called Peter the rock...Jesus said, ‘upon this rock’...”
___________________________________________________________________________
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/rock.htm
Objection 2:
“Jesus used a personal pronoun addressing Petros (i.e., “YOU are Peter”) but regarding the petra, Jesus used demonstrative pronoun (i.e., “UPON this rock”), in third person.”
Answer:
So what? How does that disprove the Catholic claim? Christ was addressing Simon directly, so He said, “You are [from now on] Peter.” He then used the demonstrative pronoun “this” to emphasize that He was building the Church on this very rock that is Peter, not on any of the other disciples (cf. St. Matthew 16:13). In other words, He said, “You are Peter, and upon this rock that you are, I will build my Church.” This becomes even clearer if we use “rock” instead of “Peter”: “You are the rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” What’s so strange about that? Christ used the demonstrative pronoun “this” because he was using a metphor (”rock”) that applies to Peter. Look, Christ did not merely give Simon a new name, he also made clear at the same time why Simon was receiving that new name, Petros. And the reason is that Simon is now “this rock [upon which] I will build my Church”!
Objection 3:
“If Jesus meant Petros to be the petra, there is no reason why he shouldn’t have said, “UPON YOU I will build my Church,” but he didn’t.”
Answer:
He could have, but the effect would not have been the same. Hello! The whole point was to change Simon’s name into Peter, and by saying “upon this rock” (as opposed to “upon you”) Christ made clear why the name was being changed: because Peter was now “this rock” upon which the Church would be built! The very fact that Christ said “upon this rock” and not “upon you” actually lends further credibility to the Catholic assertion! Interestingly enough, the Protestant author here has just refuted his own “Objection 5” (see below), in which he says: “It is actually more plausible, based on the context, that when Jesus said, ‘Upon this rock,’ he was pointing to himself.” No, not according to the author’s own logic. If Jesus were referring to Himself as the rock, He “should have” used a personal pronoun, and He “should have” said, “upon ME.” Should He not?
If the Catholic church is going to try to make claims about being the one and only true church, be the only accurate interpreter of Scripture, and claim spiritual authority over every church in the world, people are going to fight back.
That’s their opinion and if someone wants to agree with it and put themselves under the RCC authority, then fine, that’s their prerogative.
But telling everyone else in the world that they have to submit to Rome of burn for eternity?
No. That’s not true and we will not let that claim go uncontested.
It’s faith in Christ alone which saves, not joining a particular religious organization, no matter how old it claims to be or how much authority it claims to have based on it’s own tradition.
Matthew 16:17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
You know what else makes no sense. Jesus is talking to Peter and uses the personal pronoun of *you* in telling him he is *Peter* and then finishes off the sentence talking to Peter with saying *upon THIS rock*. If He had meant that Peter was the rock, He should have said *upon YOU I will build my church*.
He did not. Jesus never said “Upon YOU will I build my church”. Quite an oversight, I should say if that’s what He really meant.
Calling a person a *this* is a mighty strange way of addressing someone. The only way that sentence makes any sense grammatically is that *this* refers to something besides Peter.
This line of reasoning would be more persuasive had these titles et al and practices been part of the Church in Acts. Surely something of this import would not have taken 1800 odd years to promulgate as a doctrine. Also due to the immensity of the honors, one would think there would have been at least a mention of it within the Scriptures.
May I assume you are of Gentile background? If I may, then I have to ask if you think it's okay for Gentile Christians to neglect the dietary restrictions imposed by the Council of Jerusalem?
I am, and there are plenty of NT references to the import of dietary and other such rules. If they aren't stumbling blocks to others, then the neglect or exercise thereof become a matter of Christian liberty. Surely you don't equate the two nor I'm sure that these two subjects are held on anywhere near the same level by you.
By the way, the official teaching of the Church is NOT that non-Catholics necessarily are lost. You should do a little research, you might be surprised at what you'll find.
Thank you.
Rave on, if it makes you feel better or appeals to your vanity. There is not a more transparent and documented religious institution in history and none of your anonymous internet postings has the slightest effect in moving a single Catholic a single nanometer away from the Church or yourself and your hallelujah posse a nanometer closer to God...LOL.
Those that accept this are called Catholics, those that don't call themselves something else and spend too much time whining and hand wringing about something that they admit isn't any of their business.
Really? Then what does this mean?
"..the Church, a pilgrim now on earth,is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism, and therby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or remain in it." - The Second Vatican Council.
ph
It means that you cannot choose to remain in the darkness once you know of the light.
“You are Rock (Peter), and upon this rock I will build my Church”, makes perfect grammatical sense. It's the only way the sentence makes sense. Jesus is telling “the Rock” that the Church will be built upon him. Why would he change Peter's name to Rock and then in the next breath tell him that He's building the Church on Himself as Rock? He would have said, “upon ME I will build my Church”, if that were the case. Why give Simon a dramatic new name, “Rock”, and then change the subject by calling Himself “Rock”? Why rename Simon at all? Why then does Jesus confer the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven on Peter and give him the power of binding and loosing, which is universal jurisdiction over the Church. Awesome power and authority, wouldn't you agree? If Jesus is building the Church on Himself as Rock, why would he rename Peter "Rock", immediately change the subject, then turn back to Peter and give him the primary authority to govern the universal Church on Earth? The whole passage is about Peter and the primacy. There's no other rational explanation.
Read the post again carefully. He called him a “this” because He had just named him a “this”, the Rock.
On a related note, since the Holy Spirit was promised to the Apostles as a sure Guide who would lead them into “ALL TRUTH”, why would God allow the entire Church for 1500 years to be confounded into believing that Peter was the Rock and had the primacy? That goes against the reliability and truthfulness of God's promises. That's utterly impossible.
"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all...But this man, after he had offered ONE sacrifice for sins FOREVER, sat down on the right hand of God..for by ONE offering he hath perfected FOREVER them that are sanctified." (Hebrews 10:10,12,14).
There is no official magisterium commentary on the entire bible in 2000 years ..If the church is the only one that can interpret scripture then the church should have an infallible commentary of the entire scriptures .
What you have is bits and pieces done by various authors all giving their OPIS
There is no comprehensive commentary tying together ALL of the OT with the entire NT ...so Catholics have a puzzle missing many parts..
What is more "strange" is that a few minutes later Christ called Peter satan ..so which is is Rock or Satan?
The Church saves infallible pronouncements for those times when an explicit definition of a doctrine of the Faith needs to be expressed.
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.