Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by ealgeone
The reason for this article is to determine if the worship/veneration given to Mary by the catholic church is justified from a Biblical perspective. This will be evaluated using the Biblical standard and not man’s standard.
Right here in the epistle HE wrote, inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Your argument is with HIM, telling the Holy Spirit He was wrong about who *petra* is. Peter – rock
Matthew 16:18 - http://bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm
Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.
Greek: 4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros (”small stone”) then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra (”cliff, boulder,” Abbott-Smith).
“4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff” (TDNT, 3, 100). “4074 (Pétros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (pétra), a projecting rock, cliff” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
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.
4073 (petra) is “a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
It’s also a strange way to word the sentence that He would call Peter a rock and say that on this I will build my church instead of *on you* as would be grammatically correct in talking to a person.
There is no support from the original Greek that Peter was to be the rock on which Jesus said he would build His church. The nouns are not the same, one being masculine and the other being feminine. They denote different objects.
Also, here, Paul identifies who petra is, and that is Christ. This link takes you to the Greek.
http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/10-4.htm
1 Corinthians 10:1-4 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock (petra) that followed them, and the Rock (petra) was Christ.
http://biblehub.com/text/romans/9-33.htm
Romans 9:30-33 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written,“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
http://biblehub.com/text/1_peter/2-8.htm
1 Peter 2:1-8 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.
As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,”
and
“A stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense.”
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
All occurrences of *petra* in the Greek.
True.
The catholic attempt at trying to justify this is so predictable.
Careful though....any disagreement with catholicism may be "hate" as labeled by some.
My copy said that the master of the feasttastedthewater which had been turned into WINE. He then called to the bridegroom and said it is ever the good wine that men set out first and worse kind only when all have drunk deep and you have kept the good wine until now...
They didn't serve grape juice at a wedding feast.....grape juice does not store very well but fermented wine stores virtually indefinately. The master of the feast would nothave made such a comparison between good grape juice and lesser grape juice.
not at all...he is the Pope and as suce the head of the Catholic church. He is a leader, a guide, a representative of Christ on Earth and we owe him respect. However, only when he speaks ex-cathedra are we required to accept his statements as absolute.,P. He is entitled to human opinions and I'm not necessarily in agreement with a few that I have heard.
You, on the other hand seem to be acting as your own Pope....don't need any of that Catholic stuff...I'll make up my owwn mind (rthe Holy Spirit agrees with me)and skip all that scriptural and tradition stuff
we are the only oness who have the actual Eucharist as Christ instituted it.
I can assure you that if the spirit you listen to agrees with you 100% of the time it most definitely is NOT the Holy Spirit.
_____________________________________________________
sure it is
I actually included you personally in the plural form of the word while referring to protestants as a whole. After giving that further thought, I'd include you as an individual also after seeing many of the posts from you on this thread....what a vivid imagination you have!
TC wrote: not at all...he is the Pope and as suce the head of the Catholic church. He is a leader, a guide, a representative of Christ on Earth and we owe him respect. However, only when he speaks ex-cathedra are we required to accept his statements as absolute.,P. He is entitled to human opinions and I'm not necessarily in agreement with a few that I have heard.
Terycarl wrote in post 4842: Catholics are not required to agree with every move he makes nor every opinion that he utters. He might lean toward the democrats and I wouldn't like it at all..He is a human being just like the rest of us and only under VERY specific circumstances am I required to adhere to his proclamations...otherwise....whatever!
If you've been baptized into the RCC then you have to be subject to the pope. It's not your choice.
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
http://www.onetruecatholicfaith.com/Roman-Catholic-Articles.php?id=602&title=7.+Subjection+to+the+Church%2FRoman+Pontiff&category=Outside+the+Catholic+Church+there+is+no+Salvation&page=1
The pope has spoken ex cathedra on this one. It is dogma. It is as "official" as you can get for Catholicism. So what the pope says goes. Or are catholics disputing this?
A catholic has to believe this. No choice as we've been told by many on this board.
Sounds like some are making their own personal interpretation of catholicism!
yes
I don't run anywhere and I have nothing, at the moment, to confess.
I am, as a Catholic, certainly subject to the Pope, but I might not share his favorite song, color, place on Earth, political views, opinion on a certain person, action...whatever. He is the titular head of an organization of which I am a proud member and only his directives concerning the church bind me to anything. He might say that he loves the president of Venezuela....I think that man is a tryant and should be done away with. I, nor any other Catholic is forced to believe or agree with every statement that he makes.
“entirely subject to the Roman pontiff” does not allow for the exceptions you are allowing for your self.
We as individuals can be wrong of course...the Catholic church cannot.
If a non-Catholic make a statement concerning church teachings, scripture, traditions etc. which is in opposition to Catholic teaching...that person is wrong.
To: boatbumsThank you boatbums for using the Holy Spirit to interpret the proper meanings of scripture.All that Roman Catholicism teaches today about Apostolic Succession is something they invented and developed over time. They didn't get it from Christ, they didn't get it from Peter.sure they did. .
The bolded area of text is quite true, thank you for posting that.
If you read he b[sic]ible and interpret it PROPERLY it is very easy to see
There is the problem. It seems you wish us to interperet the Bible the Bible with our own wisdom, so asking any Christian to interpret the Bible will get an No thanks terycarl, only the Holy Spirit can do that.
You go ahead and continue do it the way you describe if you wish.
But the interpretations will continue to be wrong about anything you apply your method to.
That Jesus built His "church" on a man, when in fact it was built upon the revelation that that man, Peter, had.
Jesus is the Rock on which is built his group of born again followers.
And apparently you have leaned "upon your own understanding" also with regards to other matters.
terycarl:
my only overseer is the Holy Spirit and He agrees with me 100% He agrees with me 100%Syncro:
Amazing that there is ONE person in the world that the Holy Spirit agrees with 100% and it is terycarl?
numerous people on this thread have said that they don't need the Catholic church because they get their guidance directly from the Holy Spirit.
Yes, and that is very true. Christians that wish to understand the Bible and who follow Jesus closely will ALWAYS go to the Holy Spirit for Truth.
Exactly how God set it up to work.
And therefore, you are correct, their is no need to go to the Catholic church for any help.
But you also said "Well, I don't think that I am the only one" and "He must agree with them too."
Very clever, cunning and deceptive.
YOU are the ONLY one that says that the Holy Spirit agrees with YOU...you personally...100% of the time.
No Christian would be so arrogant and foolish to say anything like that.
So there is no "He must agree with them too" as your claim is false.
He does agree with their teachings because He (the Holy Spirit) has showed them the truth so they can pass it on. To you in many cases.
Again, it seems clear you are listening to the wrong "spirit" or probably "spirits" and the evil ones seem to gang up on those that rely on them for deception.
God brings down the proud--Job 22:29
Your list of Popes...10 out of 266....they were sinners like all men.
Priests who molest children are very bad people, just like the MUCH larger number of Protestant clergy, teachers, scout leaders, parents, uncles, aunts..etc etc....all very evil people.
I agree with you on the political trash who purport to represent themselves as Catholic, but all I can do is vote against them and issue my opinions by corresponding with my local diocese....which I do.
dissidents and non believers have been saying that for 2,015 years and 3 days...lots of luck.
Matt. 26-29.
26 And they were eating, Jesus took the bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 and he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
Could the 29th verse be read in a way that Jesus, Himself, affirmed that what he was drinking was 'fruit of the vine', and he will drink 'the fruit of the vine' AGAIN. Thus affirming that what he drank was not blood, but, "FRUIT OF THE VINE".
Where am I going wrong? I do not see where the Romist can come to any other conclusion.
You are calling for the assassination of the President of Country in South America?
Wow, does your strange "spirit" agree with you 100%?
You looking for the government to come to your door? Do you want Free Republic shut down? Posting something as subversive as that is very dangerous.
We as individuals can be wrong of course.
Well that pretty much proves that it isn't the Holy Spirit that "agrees with you 100%." If you can be wrong. He NEVER agrees with wrongness.
unless they were eating the bread and drinking the wine that He had transubstantiated into His Body and Blood...very neat and just as real...Attend a Mass someday and witness it for yourself!
it's never too late to leave catholicism for the Truth however.
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.