Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
I agree, and the Holy contains the Gospels of Saints Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
I’m not surprised Roman Catholic apologists don’t recognize that fact since they seldom hear the word of God in their temples.
Does the church you attend have a reading from one of the four Gospels EACH WEEK? YES OR NO? (And to be clear, a reading from one of Saint Paul's epistles has NEVER been considered a Gospel in ANY CHRISTIAN CHURCH.)
BTW - you really need to pull your head out of those anti-Ctholic websites and read some actual books on the people you cite. It will keep your arguments from appearing so buffoonish.
Your too kind. You didnt call me anti-catholic yet. You must have forgot.
The heart of the Christian worship is the Body and Blood of Christ. The heart of the Christian ministry are the Beatitudes. Your sermons are not worship at all, but merely appeals to human vanities.
the Holy contains = the Holy Bible contains
” Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and all apostles preached of spiritual things, not carnal.”
____________________________________________________________________________
And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at table, a woman came with an alabaster flask of ointment of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the flask and poured it over his head.
But there were some who said to themselves indignantly, “Why was the ointment thus wasted?
For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and given to the poor.” And they reproached her.
But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me.
For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you will, you can do good to them; but you will not always have me.
She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burying.
And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.”
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mark&c=14&t=RSV
Sure I have. Every one.
Let me repeat that more clearly for you.
Gee, thanks.
1. Jesus spoke Aramaic
No, it is assumed that Jesus spoke Aramaic. I don't hold that assumption to be true.
2. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’
Only if one assumes that Jesus spoke Aramaic. To impose Greek or Aramaic assumptions upon a man who was quintessentially Hebrew, not only in language (as I assume), but in manner of thought, is just a ludicrous position to take.
It is far more likely that Jesus spoke Hebrew... And that Matthew (while no longer extant) was written originally in Hebrew, as was the book of Hebrews (this is more important than you know).
But that is not real important to the translation of this single verse. It does not stand alone. To understand what it means, one needs only to compare it to concepts throughout the Bible. Then any ambiguity just simply falls away.
To presume some dynasty founded upon this single verse, one would have to willfully ignore the purpose for which Christ came, as stated overwhelmingly. He came to institute a *direct* method of accessing the Father. For what possible reason would that entail yet another succession, and yet another hierarchy, not to mention yet another imposing priesthood?
It simply doesn't make any sense at all.
I guessed you missed the woman who was healed by merely touching the cloak Jesus wore.
Or in Acts 19 where it says that objects that had touched Paul’s skin were brought to the sick and they were healed.
Relics are as old as the faith.
Great post.
On what do you base the idea that Jesus (and the 12?) spoke Hebrew?
We used to razz the NT prof at seminary that Hebrew was the language spoken in heaven (because Paul said he heard a voice speaking the the Hebrew dialect) and he insisted (but did not explain) that it was Aramaic.
My Brown,Driver,Briggs Hebrew lexicon says that KePh (= rock) is unattested in the OT and is only found in the plural in two places Jeremiah 4:29 and Job 30:4. The little entry speculates that it is a loan word from Aramaic.
As I say, FWIW.
Save your breath. It’s rope-a-dope. When they don’t have anything real to say they just repeat the same old slurs and slanders. I’m guessing the hope is that we will tire ourselves out fighting their shadows and falsehoods.
One thing that I would suppose to be fairly important to observe is that both Jesus and Paul were very much ALIVE at the time.
Relics are as old as the faith.
And tourist traps are far older than that.
They repeat the same things because they seldom, if ever, are exposed to the actual Gospel.
Saint Paul NEVER wrote a Gospel and he NEVER claimed that he did. In his epistles he talked about a Gospel that he PREACHED, but if he wrote it down it has been lost.
So, is eternal life just another euphemism?
No, it is assumed that Jesus spoke Aramaic. I don't hold that assumption to be true.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sorry, but most scholars believe that Jesus and His apostles spoke Aramaic.
Your opinion is in the distinct minority. Where is the evidence that this was the case? Also, it's not an “assumption” that Jesus spoke Aramaic. It's a conclusion drawn from the evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_of_Jesus
Why Romanists would think that freedom-loving Protestants would be impressed with a machiavellian hearted Jesuit is beyond me.
INDEED.
INDEED.
RC allergic responses to THE TRUTH can sure produce some convoluted piles of junk.
Near as I can figure the only reason it’s so important to Catholics that Peter be the rock on which the church was built is to justify the papacy and the church’s existence.
There’s no other valid reason in the world to argue against Christ being the rock on which Jesus was going to build His church when Peter himself said the very thing.
If Catholics can’t find a verse to justify the papacy, their whole structure comes crumbling down around them. There is no authority. There is no infallibility of the church. It’s the only thing that gives teeth to the concept that tradition is on equal footing with Scripture. There is no Catholic church.
The Catholic church is all built around the office of the pope and they have to justify it some how. This is the best they have.
John 1:42 and Matthew 27:46 should pretty much clear it up.
-------------------------------
.
Well, I certainly understand why you want this to be true and for arguments sake, lets say that it is.
How is it that in the first 600 years of the early church, only a small minority see Peter as the rock, and no one in this small minority sees it in terms of the modern papal sense?
Maybe you could explain how the entire charter and headship of the Roman church can be based on one disputed verse (matt 16:18) and why the parrallel verses in Mark and Luke do not think it important enough to include this information?
How could it possibly be that in the entire corpus of the New Testament, there is not one other mention of Peter being the rock, when there are multiple citations of Jesus being the Rock even from Peter's own writtern words?
-------------------
I think it was the only verse in the Bible that even in their rubbery 'Bible' it was the only one that the power-mongering magicsterical elite politicos could make stretch far enough to justify such a galactic sized farce.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
Obsessions with rituals, objects, etc. were to be
FORESAKEN.
AND STILL ARE TO BE FORESAKEN.
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.