Posted on 09/27/2014 11:05:41 AM PDT by Gamecock
Read the verses provided.
Paul tells us clearly and plainly that the *petra* is Christ.
Mary is not a path to Jesus. Jesus said “come unto me”. Mariology is built on fiction not the word of God.
Actually, yes. The *God can do anything* is a false premise.
But that's not the point. Arguments built on *God can do anything, therefore (fill in the blank) happened*, are doomed. It is not a solid basis on which to build an argument.
On the contrary, it demonstrates a total lack of any other supporting evidence to resort to that kind of reasoning.
Was Jesus born with the stain of sin?
Of course not and do you know why? The answer is in Scripture.
Luke 11:27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. 28 But he replied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it!"
Indeed it is, and thus this is ultimately the recourse of RCs when attempts to establish defend doctrines upon Scripture, and arguments from silence, which really are based upon tradition, fail.
Sometimes at the outset the "Catholic church gave you the Bible, it has the authority to say what it means" polemical assertion is used.
And which premise is also basically defended upon the presuppositions that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) .
And to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16, etc.)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.
What here can a RC disagree with?
To Catholics the OT Deuterocanon is Scripture. To us, Martin Luther was the person who got people to stop regarding them as Scripture. I do know that he did not throw them in the garbage.
Actually, Luther did not have an infallible indisputable canon to dispute from, nor was he alone in doing so, but doubt and disagreement continued down thru the centuries about books and right into Trent. See here .
Something that other Catholics have done on this thread is whine about how they are treated. I do not believe Jesus died on the Cross so people in the 21st century could whine and run to mommy about how they are treated on the internet.
Well, that makes you an exception, but RCs not only post the most about their church here by far, but they can go so far as saying that there is not and never has been a bit of anti-Protestant bigotry on FR, or that they never see threads of Catholics starting an argument with protestants on FR. Even though they do so!
But with over 800 posts in two day then this one certainly has seen the most responses due to RCs trying to defend a tradition of men which has a special psychological content. I dare say a post attacking the deity of Christ or the whole Trinity would see half the responses by RCs.
Well I guess I won't be calling you 'brother' any time in the near future...
4. Scripture says Douay-Rheims Bible Jn. 21:25 “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.”
5. Thus the early Church fathers used the sacred rituals and oral traditions of what Christ said but was not written out to sort out what books to ignore; what to discard; and what to include.
You could probably make big money selling used cars...
People have been trying for Centuries to get someone from your religion to provide even the slightest bit of a smidgeon of evidence that this could be true...Doesn't happen, does it...Just another false claim...
Yet as the same site provides, the authority of the Decretum Gelasianum, is disputed (among RC’s themselves), based upon evidence that it was pseudepigraphical, being a sixth century compilation put together in northern Italy or southern France at the beginning of the 6th cent. http://www.tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm
Don't try to read God's mind. It will only end badly for you.
At least they limit themselves to God's words...That puts the worst of them ahead of anything Catholic...
No it didn't.
"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."
Isaiah 8:20
Cordially,
There's no truth to that statement...
Joh 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen
Seems all Catholics add 'said' in the verse which doesn't exist to apparently justify their false claim that Jesus told the Catholic religion something that he told no one else...
One word for that is deception...
I believe that has happened to many of us...And after it's over, all you (I) can say is, WOW!!!
Hmmm, where have we seen that tactic used?
“And how did this change from the church that (supposedly) has not changed since its inception”
I thought an expert on all things Catholicism could tell us.
Take it away.
The linguistical debate has gone on without end (see below for more) but interpretation must be done in the light of the whole of Scripture.
The verse at issue, v.18, cannot be divorced from that which preceded it, in which the identity of Jesus Christ is the main subject. In the next verse (17) that is what Jesus refers to in telling blessed Peter that “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,” and in v. 18 that truth is what the “this rock” refers to, as the CCC allows, “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (CCC 424) which understanding has strong support even from so-called church fathers. .
This is the only interpretation that is confirmed, as it must be, in the rest of the New Testament. Nowhere does in the rest of the NT is Peter called the rock upon which the church is built, but in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible
For that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)
Moreover, the idea of a church looking to Peter as the first of a line of assuredly infallible popes reigning over them as as their supreme exalted head is invisible in Scripture .
As is the premise that an assuredly infallible of doctrine is essential for determination and assurance of Truth, and thus the assured veracity of Rome is the basis for assurance of Truth.
And thus as Keating asserts,
The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true. ” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.[http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption]
As concerns the Aramiac vs Greek debate, i will just add to it by providing this:
an Aramaic word-play -- I should say, a possible Aramaic word-play, that nobody really understands -- is foundational to Roman and papal authority.
Both David Garland (“Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel”, New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1995) and Everett Ferguson (“The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today”, Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1996) point to the 1990 study by C.C. Caragounis, “Peter and the Rock” (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter)
Here’s Garland’s account:
C.C. Caragounis’s study of this passage carefully argues, however, that the rock refers to something other than Peter. The demonstrative pronoun “this” [in the phrase “on this rock”] logically should refer to something other than the speaker or the one spoken to and would be appropriate only if Jesus were speaking about Peter in the third person and not speaking to him. If Jesus were referring to Peter, it would have been clearer to have, “You are Rock, and upon you I will build my church” (Caragounis 89). Petros usually meant a free-standing “stone” that could be picked up; and petrausually was used to mean “rock,” “cliff,” or “bedrock.” But the two terms could reverse their meaning and no clear-cut distinction can be made between the two (Caragounis, 12, 15). If the two words were intended to refer to the same thing, petros could have been used in both places since it could be used to mean both stone and rock. The use of two different terms in the saying, petros and petra, implies that the two were to be distinguished from each other. More
Rather, Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible - including "Petrine authority) - as well as all else she accordingly declares.
Mormons, Muslins, Grahams, Sharptons are like Muslim imams, and Hindu shamans, basically semi-literate street preachers giving sacred scripture-written and the oral tradition- their “own” interpretations even though this flies in the face not only of preeminent Catholic theologians after whom major universities have been named...So stay with the “indwelling of the Holy Spirit” while at the same time denying the work of the Holy Spirit that guided the early Church Fathers who put together and interpreted the Bible
You attempted polemic versus Scriptural warrant is nothing more than the appeal to authority by scholarly credentials and historical descent, yet Catholics of scholarly credentials also provide evidence contrary to the propaganda of Rome regarding Peter.
Meanwhile, the church began with the common people following itinerant and mostly unlettered preachers who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and who reproved by Scripture the historical magisterium which rejected them. .
And it was by God often raising up men from without the magisterium to reprove those who sat in power that faith was preserved among a relative remnant (as usual), and thus the church began contrary to Rome, establishing their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation, and not on the basis of perpetual assured veracity of office.
The Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the New Testament in Greek not Aramaic. The words used in Matthew 16:18 are NOT Kepha and kepha. The words used in the only manuscripts available are Petros and petra. Each has a distinctly different meaning.
From Stong's:
4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway.
4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – "a mass of connected rock," which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is "a detached stone or boulder" (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a "solid or native rock, rising up through the earth" (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.
>>What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.<<
Not according to what the Holy Spirit had written.
What metmom posted was correct. Until you can prove that the Holy Spirit originally had Mathew written in Aramaic your claim is totally in error.
See post 837
Now that right there is funny. Pathetic. But funny.
And the Catholic Church has used that rather successfully.
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.