Posted on 02/12/2015 2:17:57 PM PST by NYer
Dear friend, we've had this discussion several times, yet you continue to ignore facts. When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.
Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of "small stone" and "large rock" in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).
Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church."
If I want to read fiction I’ll go for something more enjoyable than false teachings.
Fine. Prove it.
Provide the Aramaic manuscripts.....
Prove it. No one to date has been able to. That includes those who keep promoting that lie.
“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” 1Tim 3:15
CynicalBear wrote in post #135,
1 Corinthians 3:11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.
But Ephesians 2:20 mentions "the foundation of the apostles and prophets." Which one of these three verses is right?
OK, I don't actually view these verses as contradictory. Consider what the "foundation" in 1 Corinthians 3:11 underlies:
[9] For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
[10] According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
[11] For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Here's more of the context of what I quoted from Ephesians 2:
[19] Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
[20] And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
[21] In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
[22] In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
I just made a realization: I was familiar with all three "foundation" verses but had never looked at them together. So if the "church of the living God," this "house of God," is "the foundation of the truth," and we can also speak of the "foundation of the apostles and prophets," is this the case because the church is "the body of Christ"?
[Colossians 1:18a] And he is the head of the body, the church.
[1 Corinthians 12:27] Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
[28] And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
(I am not here promoting any particular interpretation of what "the church" may be in terms of visible entities on earth.)
That is not what it means.. but then Rome lives on lies
Lies and obfuscation. Me, I'm laughing hard at Father Longnecker, for his believing that there are only three Solas.
Apparently the oldest grouping identifies three ("fide," "gratia," "scriptura") with Luther. I've seen sources mentioning the other two of the now-common five (if not more, depending on the source) as later additions to The List of "Solas." Their being additions does not mean that the subjects weren't discussed in Reformation Times but that The List has slowly grown longer.
(I didn't grow up learning about church history in a very systematic way--and I'm not saying that my background necessarily reflects the history of the "sola" list. But I vaguely remember learning about these "three solas," probably from a glancing lesson on the Reformation, years before I encountered what's now the most usual list of "five solas," probably in a theology book.)
I don't know if this word choice is significant in this respect, but I did notice that Fr. Longenecker used "was" instead of "is."
You are changing the subject. Where is sola scriptura is the Bible?
************************************************************
I did not change the subject. The question really didn’t merit a response it was so absurd. Sola scriptura is a theme throughout the new testament. You are correct, the words “scripture only” do not appear in the scripture. The words “scripture plus” don’t either so what the hell is your point?
Granted there was oral teaching, but Paul warned us to judge all oral teaching against scripture as the Bereans did. He never told us to seek out the hierarchy of the church for clarification but instead search the scriptures.
Where in 2Tim 3:16 does it state the training must be done by those deemed more qualified?
I’m sorry the sarcasm of my post was lost on you. Catholics love to point out that the words “scripture alone” don’t specifically appear, but ignore the fact that most of their rituals also fail to appear in print. The majesterium has to tweaked them a bit to get them to work
Jesus accomplished what he came to do. His sacrifice was complete and final. To believe something must be added implies the cross wasn’t enough. One would have to be willfully ignorant or shockingly stupid to believe salvation is a team event based on rituals for self cleansing to get over the finish line
They didn't establish your Church...The scriptures are anti Catholic Church as has been pointed out countless time from the scriptures themselves...
Next question: Are you old enough to vote???
Peter the Apostle never set foot in Rome...It is Simon Magus who was buried there...You guys worship the wrong Simon Peter...
That is a whole lot more likely then that the apostle Peter is buried there. The 1953 find where they believe they found the apostle Peters tomb in Jerusalem is more likely. The Catholic Church has already lied about how much time Peter spent in Rome and when. Scripture proves them wrong on that.
This article:
-Written for those who believe lock, stock and barrel in the Catholic Church.
- So many straw men. As is ordinary with such Catholic articles, they seem deliberately obtuse, and this is also. It seems to intentionally misunderstand and mis-take Protestant beliefs in order to steer clear of what those beliefs actually are.
Sola scriptura in action. The Catholic Church says this about Allah:
” 841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”
Despite what Catholic teaching (tradition) says here, Allah is an idol, and that can be abundantly proven in all sorts of ways from Scripture. So, where a teaching of men contradicts Scripture, Scripture is the ultimate authority, the final word. YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a tri-partite being, and not Allah, who has a drastically different character from the true God. Catholic teaching, contradicting the Bible: in error.
2 Corinthians 10:3,4 "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)"
2 Timothy 2 "Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ."
1 Timothy 6:12 "Fight the good fight of faith"
2 Timothy 4:7 "I have fought a good fight"
However,when it comes to our weaponry there's all sorts of bickering and arguing over the only offensive weapon we've been given.When looked at in the context of war the arguments sound irrational...'well folks centuries ago couldn't properly wield one...' 'Most folks didn't have one,they were too expensive'...'by what authority do you wield that sword?'...and so on.The enemy of our souls and his cohorts must sit atop the gates of hell busting a gut laughing at all those soldiers that either have no sword or are holding it by the wrong end whilst trying to headbutt the door down without a helmet on.(because that helmet is a 'sin of presumtion')
Ephesians 6:11-13 "Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand"
Ephesians 6:17 "And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God"
1 Corinthians 9:26 "...so fight I, not as one that beateth the air"
So not only do these arguments tend towards dissarming believers they also leave us in our "troubled and concerned about many things" state because they try to blunt that "two edged sword" which is a "discerner of the thoughts and intents of our heart".That same heart that is "desperately wicked and deceitful above all things".
In the end,the gates of hell will sit there and stare at you unless you take up that sword and they may well squash you flat when they do fall for good.
You are wrong. Simon Magus is the person that simony is named after. I don’t think he would be buried in a Catholic Church anywhere.
I recently posted an article, encouraging all Christians to come to the forum, bring a friend, see what were agree on, and thank, praise, speak of love to God. Few managed to see the point.
Whatever the future brings, it is my guess that the enemies of the Judeo-Christian tradition upon which this great nation was based will do their level best to try to destroy us all. How important will our differences be then? Or will we unite in one cry to God, begging for His Mercy?
May God bless us all and give us each the grace to fulfill our destinies; face our enemies with courage and forgiveness AS DID JESUS HIMSELF, and countless others after Him- and perseverence to the end!
What makes you say that these posts on FR are fiction?
Peter was not beheaded, he was crucified upside down. Bible reader?
The ironic thing is, they try to buttress their claim that Peter was in Rome by claiming he used “Babylon” as a code word for Rome. Which, of course, buttresses the interpretation of some that the “Babylon the Great” of Revelation is also Rome, which isn’t exactly a favorable interpretation for Catholics.
Refresh my memory. Which verse in the Bible says that?
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.