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)
The Roman Catholic Church officially added the Apocrypha to their Bible at the Council of Trent in the mid 1500’s A.D., primarily in response to the Protestant Reformation. Part of the reason for this is that the Apocrypha supports some of the traditions the Roman Catholic Church practices that are not taught in the Bible. For example, the Roman Catholic practices of praying for the dead, petitioning “saints” in heaven with their prayers, and “alms giving” to atone for sins (paying indulgences) all find their support in the Apocrypha, not the Bible.
Jesus walking on water? Yes. Raising people from the dead? Yes. Raising from the dead Himself? Yes.
Peter being the Bishop of Rome after he was martyred, had NOTHING to do with Jesus. Peter was dead by the time the Bishop of Rome was determined.
Check your mail for an education.
Bergolio is a devil sanction heathen.
In 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442.
Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther. (Catholic.com)
God wasn't in the habit of changing people's names based solely on their personality, but rather because of a distinct change in their relationship with Him, or in God's plan of salvation.
Abram (meaning "exalted father"), upon establishing the covenant of circumcision with God in Genesis 17, had his name changed to Abraham ("father of the multitude"), signifying God's will that from Abraham would descend many nations (both Jew and Gentile, through the Christian faith).
Likewise, Jacob (meaning "supplanter"), after wrestling with an angel in Genesis 32, was given the name of Israel (meaning "God preserves", or "one who prevails with God", or "one who struggles with God"), signifying the future relationship that God would have with the descendants of Jacob; for as God Himself said, "if thou hast been strong against God, how much more shalt thou prevail against men?"
Given that Jesus is likewise God, does it make sense that He would give Simon the name "Peter" solely because of his personality? Or was it meant to signify a change in Simon's role in the salvific plan of God?
If the siblings of Jesus were not the Virgin Mary's children then it is entirely possible. I don't have the knowledge to know and I don't expect to have a revelation about it anytime soon.
Only God forgives sins. The only Mediator is Jesus Christ. We confess our sins to the Father.
We do not need to tell our sins to one human go-between who does NOT have the right or ability to forgive sins.
That's not what God said in John 20:23.
Do you not believe your Bible?
Then why did you refer to her as the "Virgin Mary" in your post #166 where you got confused about the Immaculate Conception, also?
Yes; and Jesus had no siblings, for your information.
Do YOU not believe your Bible?
One of the the first verses I memorized as a kid: “If we confess our sins He is faithful as just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” First John 1:9
John was NOT talking about a priest or Pope.
Still waiting for you to list the post #.
Devil got your tongue, metmom?
No, He had four brothers and unnumbered sisters.
James, Joseph, Simon and Jude were the brothers.
I would suggest that you read ACTS more closely and critically.
You don’t know that.
And how do explain away John 20:23?
Mark chapter 3 show three changed names of the 12.
16 These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter),
17 James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means “sons of thunder”),
18 Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot
19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
Day care?
Jesus was 12 years old at that time.
Boanerges is a collective nickname; James and John never actually receive a different given name by which they are known henceforth (as in the case of Abraham, Israel, and Peter).
Now wait a minute, you stated
"The Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Mary, who was born without Original Sin."You didn't claim the Virgin Mary was herself born of a virgin but that she was born of an Immaculate Conception.
My reply was that if a woman back then had a child without intercourse with a man, heads would turn and a wife could get stoned.
On the other hand if Joachim and Anne had had regular intercourse ongoing, how did Pope Pius IX in 1854 come up with the idea that suddenly after almost 1900 years of innocuous parental obscurity get the notion that The Virgin Mary was not the only one with a conception by God from The Holy Spirit, giving the Virgin Mary a divine birth.
How is that not blasphemy, diminishing the Holy Trinity? That's really messed up. That is almost as freaky weird as the Alter Boy shaking a bell in The Mass at just the right time to draw attention to the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ to give parishioners a shiver up their spine.
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.