Posted on 06/18/2017 2:09:43 PM PDT by narses
Did you get that? Paul was WRITING this letter - you know, the SCRIPTURE book of I Timothy - so that Timothy and those he taught would know how they were to act or behave in an assembly of believers (ekklesia). The "church" is supposed to hold up and support the truth as it was taught to them by Jesus and the Apostles. This truth which was written down and preserved up to even today. It didn't change. Christians STILL believe that Jesus appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was proclaimed among the nations, was believed in throughout the world, was taken up in glory.
The bible (the book that Rome assembled from various sources long ago) ITSELF makes that claim.
Actually; it is Rome's claimed First Pope that made the claim:
2 Peter 1:3
His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.
Has. Not 'going to' or 'more traditions will follow' or '...given us ALMOST...'.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?search=hold+fast+tradition&version=NABRE&searchtype=all
The Catholics are good at omitting Timothy 2:25
For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, Some how they have added a few mediators
Do you know English? How to diagram a sentence? The CHURCH is described by Paul as the Pillar and Foundation of TRUTH. The CHURCH. Paul never describes Scripture as the foundation of TRUTH. That is the relevant part of my argument, which you continue to ignore.
I'll repeat - What does Scripture say is the pillar and Foundation of Truth? (Hint- it is the Church Christ established.) And show your answer using Scripture.
If Augustine explained it to you, would you reconsider your error?
The Rock represents a few things in Scripture.
What language did Christ speak to the Apostles? Peter was called Rock by Christ. Calling Peter Rock showed the importance of Peter in starting and building his Church.
Read the plain words of Scripture to find the real meaning.
Try reading the 'plain words of scripture' in the Greek. You might avoid a few of these simple errors.
To Peter, Jesus gave the task of opening The Grace of God in Christ for the Jews First, then the Gentiles. But the Primacy of Peter was not even evidenced at the first great council of the Ekklesia, as shown to us in Acts, where the admonition against blood was repeated. Sad that the Catholic religion has ignored that from the First great declaration from the Ekklesia Council.
Yeah, I DID read the plain words of Scripture.
The word used to name Peter in the verse referred to is DIFFERENT in the original Greek.
Therefore, Peter was NOT the rock; he was simply a pebble and the rock was the confession of Jesus as the Christ.
Plain words of Scripture, in the original language no less.
That and, even if I were to accept that argument at face value, my point last night still stands; Roman Catholicism has abandoned the truth and no longer has a lampstand. They are no longer a church of Christ.
But the Primacy of Peter was not even evidenced at the first great council of the Ekklesia, as shown to us in Acts, where the admonition against blood was repeated.
***
Now, to be fair, the Lord is known to give commands and then specify exceptions to those commands. The most obvious being “Thou shall not kill” and then exceptions for self-defense (Luke 22) and of course the whole removing the Cannanites from the Promised Land.
So I think that a case could be made against consuming blood with the specific exception of the blood of Christ, because Jesus commanded to take and drink it.
(Certainly doesn’t change the fact that the RCC is in blatant and irreconcilable contradiction to huge swaths of Scripture, but I think in this case it’s not quite the same thing.)
No, JESUS said to drink the fruit of the vine as remembrance of HIS blood about to be poured out for us and our Salvation. HE even reiterated that by saying HE would not drink that fruit of the vine again until in The Kingdom. And the word in the Ten Commandments is ‘murder’ not kill.
1: No, it’s ‘kill’ in Hebrew. I know enough Hebrew; I had it pounded hard enough into my head, let me tell you. The sense may be murder because of the exceptions, but the word itself is ‘kill.’ Specifically, killing another human. There are cases where the word is used that does not contain the connotation of murder. (Numbers 35: 27, where the word is used as the avenger of blood kills the target outside of a sanctuary city, and the avenger of blood is not guilty, even though the same word as in the Commandment is used.)
2: Also, from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians: “In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.”
Of course, Catholics believe differently, but we Lutherans believe that verse in question means that Communion is, yes, the real Body and Blood of Christ. And also bread and wine because that’s ALSO what Jesus says they are. How? No idea, but Scripture is our source of truth, and that’s what it says.
Now, you can argue differently if you like, but I simply wanted to point out that you CAN make an argument solely from Scripture about the whole Communion thing.
Even if I’ve never seen a Catholic on this board use that argument before, to be honest. But then again, I’m just a neophyte on FR religion.
The body and spirit are not in the same spacetime coordinate system. As JESUS told Nic (John 3) what is born of flesh is flesh, what is born of Spirit is spirit. Feeding that which has been born again is done with the showbread of The Word of God, not via the alimentary tract.
Meant to ping you, also.
You take it spiritually.
I take it literally.
I suppose we’ll eventually find out who’s right and then laugh about it together in eternity.
Thou art the Lord,
And all Thy beings are Thy servants, Thy domain;
And through those who serve idols vain,
Thine honor is not detracted from,
For they all aim to Thee to come. --Solomon ibn Gabirol, Middle Ages philosopher and synagogue hymn writer
against claims of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants...
Fundamentalists say...
What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately,..
So we have yet another provocative attack on evangelical faith and propagandist promotion of Catholicism. Are you going to whine to the mods when its specious use of strawmen and errors are exposed (stay tuned)? Should Catholics have a special status?
In reality, an even playing field, under the judicious oversight of the overall superior RF mods and rules, results in more participants.
See you in the clouds!
Let me educate you.
Christ and the apostles did not speak Greek. They spoke Aramaic.
We all know the verse - "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church." Christ changed Simon’s name to Peter, and built his Church on Peter. But there is more to the story when we look beyond the English we find in the Bible. Many of our Protestant brothers say Peter is not the Rock, and they point to the Greek. In Greek, the verse would be "You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my Church." In Greek, the word for rock is petra, which means a large, massive stone. The word used for Simon’s new name is different; it’s Petros, which means a little stone, a pebble. They will say that Jesus was the Rock, and the Greek shows the Church was not built on Peter.
But Christ did not speak Greek. He spoke Aramaic. Once we get behind the Greek, we see the real meaning. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’ Kepha means rock in Aramaic. What’s more in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha rendered as Kephas in its Greek form.
So if kepha (Rock in Aramaic) means the same as petra Rock in Greek, why doesn’t Matthew say ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’, Instead of Petros, which means something quite different from petra? Because he had no choice. In Greek, you have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. So we know Peter is the Rock. And that’s the rest of the story.
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.