Posted on 01/08/2024 1:18:20 PM PST by OneVike
Until now I have not shared my opinion of what I think of the many inherent ways the Catholic Church has misinterpreted Scripture throughout the years. I can no longer be silent on the subject, because it is one that the Catholic Church has used to teach heresy.
To begin with, the Catholic Church has been making a mockery of Scripture for many years. There are many beliefs the Catholic Church holds that I have problems with, but for now I will explain why they are wrong in their interpretation that Peter is the rock upon which Christ has built His church.
Jesus is the ONLY foundation which His church can and is built upon. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and we need to keep our eyes on him, not some man chosen by flawed men. We need not pay attention to what color of smoke is billowing from a building built by flawed men to learn who the voice of God will be, because we already know. We are to look to no one else as the foundation or the hope on which the church is built, but Jesus, The Son of God.
“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,”
(1 Corinthians 3:11)
When Peter answered Jesus by stating,
“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,”
(Matthew 16:16)
Jesus answered and said to him,
“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
(Matthew 16:17-18)
To begin with, when you look at the original wording of Matthew, it was written in Koinonia Greek, which was the language of the common man in the day of Christ. Koinonia Greek was what today’s modern American English is to everyone from America to Korea, the universal language spoken around the world. So when you look at the original language Matthew was written in you will see something that is not readily apparent. When Jesus said,
“…you are Peter [(πΠέτρος) (petros)] and upon this
Rock [(πέτρᾳ) (petra)] I will build My church…”
(Matthew 18a)
Greek nouns have genders, which is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word, “petros”, is masculine; “petra” is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as, “Petros.” But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine, “petros”, rather the feminine, “petra.”
A good example of this would be Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, where he refers to Jesus as the rock that followed the Israelites through the desert;
“and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were
drinking from a spiritual rock [(πέτρᾳ) (petras)] which
followed them; and the Rock [(πέτρᾳ) (petra)] was Christ.”
(1Corinthians 10:4)
It must be pointed out that in Peter’s 1st letter, he refers to Jesus as the “Rock”,
Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,
“Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will
by no means be put to shame.” (Isaiah 28:16)
Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,
“The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,” (Psalms 118:22)
“A stone of stumbling”
And
“a Rock of offense.” (Isaiah 8:14)
(1Peter 2:7-8)
So the word translated in this passage is not the same word as Peter, and nothing can be more wrong than to suppose Jesus meant Peter the person. It’s ludicrous to claim that Jesus would build HIS church upon a sinful flawed individual. HE emphatically stated HE would build it upon the “truth” of which Peter recognized. That truth being, “Jesus is The Christ, The Son of The Living God!” Something we know Peter himself understood by reading his first epistle, as I pointed out above.
Thus if Peter himself used the word, “petra” to refer to Jesus, then shouldn’t we? We can also see where Paul referred to Jesus as the rock, “petra”.
“Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a Rock of offense,
and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”
(Romans 9:33)
We also see the word, "Rock," used throughout the Old Testament to refer to GOD.
“The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just;
a God of faithfulness and without injustice.”
(Deuteronomy 32:4)
“The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer;
My God, my Rock, in whom I take refuge.”
(2 Samuel 22:2-3)
“And who is a Rock, except our God.”
(Psalms 18:31)
“Is there any God besides Me, or
is there any other Rock? I know of none.”
(Isaiah 44:8)
Finally, I challenge anyone to prove to me that, at any time in the Scriptures, GOD ever referred to any man as a rock. However, throughout Scriptures we are told about the perfection of the Rock which is Christ, not a sinful man named Peter. So why would Jesus build His church upon an unstable human who needs to be saved? He wouldn't, and He didn't. It should be obvious from the Word of God that the Rock Jesus was referring to was not Peter, but himself.
“For no man can lay a foundation other than the
one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,”
(1 Corinthians 3:11)
Dear ebbtide,
Under what circumstances, if any, would you agree (or conclude) that Jesus did not found His Church on the Apostle Peter?
If you can’t be persuaded, just be honest with us and admit it.
Likewise, I have not yet seen or thought of anything that would convince me that Jesus abdicated his role as the “chief cornerstone”. There is just too much Scripture that points to Jesus. Scripture does not contradict Scripture. So Jesus is the One Foundation.
I meant to say preposition, not pronoun. ἐπί is a preposition, not a pronoun.
No, because when you post your pope bashing threads, they pile on and bash him, too.
By accusing you of pope bashing when they themselves are clearly doing the very same thing, they would ben by default be admitted pope bashers themselves.
So, no I would not expect other Catholics to accuse you of pope bashing.
Nope.
Jesus never said *you* or *he*.
That, too.
Jesus may have been referring to Peters faith as a rock and the work of the Holy Spirit. Because Peter had rightly identified Jesus as the Messiah Son of God.
The church was built thru faith and power of the Holy Spirit.
Who’s more anti-Catholic?
Protestants of Catholics who reject their established church authority and bash the pope ever chance they get?
Maybe that’s because Bergoglio is a protestant.
Has that ever crossed your mind?
Ah, the old *Rules for thee but not for me.
Must be nice to exempt yourself from the condemnation you heap on others.
Another question.....
Do you accept Vatican 2 as legitimate?
Thx vy much. Vy helpful. On my Kindle at moment. More tomorrow.
That's an easy one:
Jorge Bergoglio, S.J.
Read what Paul wrote in Galatians ch 1.
11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin.
12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.
14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased
16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.
17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.
18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days.
19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.
GOD in Christ dwelling with man as human form Jesus before His death and resurrection then at The Pentecost where all full of knowledge and were given what to say by The Holy Spirit just as Peter was given his answer when Jesus asked "but who do you say I am".
The new Temple is established with Christ living within us and not in a building. Many churches have made rules for salvation so strict it approaches those added to the laws of the day by the Scribes and Pharisees back in the day.
Ah, the old *Rules for thee but not for me.
Must be nice to exempt yourself from the condemnation you heap on others.
Another question.....
Do you accept Vatican 2 as legitimate?
That’s also an easy one. Yes, or no.
Hey ebb tide,
That is one of the most giggle-inducing things I have read in this thread. Do you REALLY take yourself that seriously?
Well, I don’t know about that “evidence”.
Maybe you are thinking of Paul.
I stopped going to confession a long time ago. Figured I didn’t need an intermediary between me and God when I confessed my sins. Say ten Hail Mary’s and five Our Father’s. I can and do that on my own. My Dad, before he died, called me “a non-practicing Catholic”. Maybe Dad was right, I don’t know.
And whose official decision is that?
Did the College of Cardinals decide that?
Did they err in choosing Francis as pope?
Were they guided by the Holy Spirit in electing him?
By what authority to you feel you have the right to make that determination?
See post #84.
It reveals a lot of chutzpah, doesn’t it?
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.