 |
He called him a stone. Niot a foundation stone (scripture says that is Jesus).Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
No they don't. First, note that even in your definition (for which you give no source or credit) there is a differentiation given in size, and in the Greek, the word by which Jesus calls Peter can be either a "stone" or a "piece of a rock" (which is one definition in English for a stone). A piece of a rock cannot be the rock.Quote:
Rock and stone mean the same thing.
Yep a stone is lesser than a rock by definition.
And when you get Prudential insurance you have A PIECE of the ROCK You don't have the whole company
Not sure anyone will read this but I will start with replying to post#8
Jesus replied or told those that were present that Our Father in Heaven reveals the Truth of what Simon spoke. Jesus has placed "all honor" to His Father in Heaven for what Simon spoke. As it should be!Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Jesus then told Peter and those present what the (rock) (note the lower case r) from the True Rock, would be in building Christ' church. Christ said," I will build upon this rock" Honor and credit remains in the hands of Christ. As it should be!Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Tj did indeed give all honor and credit to Christ.. A true child of God will do this. God has revealed this Truth to Tj.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
The disciples were ministers of Truth revealed by God unto a (rock) that would declare "Christ the Rock," the foundation of what Christ' church is established. Today Christ is the promise land of eternity.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
Moses was a different time frame, that was before Christ. And Moses followed the law of the Old covenant. He lead Israel out, as God commanded, from under Pharao. God has all honor and credit for what Moses did! God parted the sea... God put into the mind of Pharao that Moses was a god.
Exodux 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. KJV
Let's take Aaron path Moses' brother, who as a Levite priest put in charge of the Lord's house ( 1 Chronicles 23:32) 1 Chronicles 24 listed the sons of Aaron. 24:2 tells us Aaron's sons Eleazar and Ithamar executed the priest's office. 24:4 chief men are these sons, and their sons. There was 24 in total number, priesthood sons divided into the sanctuary. They are listed as according to services for the house of the Lord 1 Chronicles 24:7-19. Levite priests under the rule King of Israel, David.
Easy to follow details in the Word of God so that we indeed are foretold all things concerning the ministering of the Lord's House.
As you get to know these facts of the priesthood also note other family members like the daughters of Aaron : Christ will come through Aaron's heritage priesthood of Levites to claim His throne. Christ is the Key of David, the Root of David that prevailed. This is all detailed in scripture, so there is no question forever means forever. Christ does not hand Himself off,his kingdom there shall be no end. Christ does tell the disciples the ministering they will do, by proclaiming His Truth as said in John 1:17. Christ has always shown honor unto His Father, the Lord God that gave Him the throne of his father David.
Note: Priesthood of Aaron and His daughters
Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife [was] of the daughters of Aaron, and her name [was] Elisabeth.
Luke 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
Luke 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli, (continued heritage 24-26-27-28-29-30-31-32-33-34-35-36-37 Luke 3:38 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.
Isaish 22:15-25 Described as: Israel Judgement and Mercy & Verse 20-24 EliakimQuote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Isaish 22:20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:
Neh 11:11 Seraiah the son of Hilkiah, the son of Meshullam, the son of Zadok, the son of Meraioth, the son of Ahitub, [was] the ruler of the house of God.
Neh 12:7 Sallu, Amok, Hilkiah, Jedaiah. These [were] the chief of the priests and of their brethren in the days of Jeshua.
Isaish 22:22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open
Verse 22:22 which shows the fulfillment culminates in Messiah, the same that Rev 3:7 has declared to the church of Philadelphia
Isaish 22:24-25 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, the offspring and the issue, all vessels of small quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the vessels of flagons. In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that [was] upon it shall be cut off: for the LORD hath spoken [it].
.Verse 22:24 is the direct and collateral issue and embraces his offspring, his entire kindred of offspring.
Big Problem: Are you implying that somehow the catholic church could be this church? The last I knew catholic priests did not marry, so catholic priests have no sons or seeds of offspring?
No I disagree totally.. And I have shown scripture and the exact detail that God has put forth to bring Christ to us. And I will offer another detail that examples' Peter as a mortal person with little faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Matthew 14:26-27 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear. But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
Matthew 14:28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.
Matthew 14:29 And Jesus said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
Matthew 14:30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to [B]sink[/B], he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
Matthew 14:31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth [his] hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?
~The Rock Walks on Water
Jesus is telling the disciples that He will build the church on the great confession of faith that Peter had just made; namely, "You are the Christ. The Son of the Living God". Who ever believes this with their heart and life is a part of His church.
Then Jesus gives to the church the authority to forgive sins ( or bind the sins of the impenetent) of those who are the church. This authority did not belong to men, whether one man or hundreds of them. It belong to the one church over which Christ alone rules.
There is a difference in the words in the Bible about who or what is being built. The Greek word used for "Peter" is "petros" - the masculine gender for "rock". After calling Peter this, Jesus says He(Jesus) will build His church on the "petra" - the feminine form of that word.
A few moments after this Peter makes a very negative confession of his faith by telling Jesus that He CAN'T go to Jerusalem to be killed(and fulfill His purpose for coming into the world). Then Jesus has a word not given to anyone who is to be the future builder of His church: "Get behind me satan".
Sndbay:
How is it that "grace and truth" become the promise land of eternity? How were the disciple ministers of Truth? No, I think the big problem is the lack of discipline in interpretation of the Scriptures such as that found within the Catholic Church. (You know, once a Protestant once complained that I didn’t capitalize the P in Protestant that it was a mark of disrespect both for him and for his faith. He went a step further, he said that it was a mark of a man’s ignorance and immaturity. With shame, I could only agree. )Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
[De Maria - You might want to read this and perhaps help me flush out all the various scriptural metaphors, Christ the fulfillment of the Mosaic Covenant. Maybe you know of this, but I was amazed. I started following up a lead our Parish Priest gave us in Mass. This is a good example of how Catholic discipline in scriptural reading brings about a fullness of faith.]
No the 12 were not ministers of truth. They were much much more! Not simply representatives of the 12 tribes. Bigger than that! The Apostles were the “loaves of proposition” Unlike the Leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, these twelve were the only loaves that the Son of David, The Messiah, found within his temple. (Cf. 1 Sam 21:6). As you remember David went to the high priest Achimelech for bread. The only bread was the “proposition loaves.” These loves were unleavened, uncommon bread; the holy bread to be consumed (metaphoric vision of the real presence in the Eucharist - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist )
"Bread of the faces", i.e. "bread of the presence (of Yahweh)" (Exodus 35:13; 39:35, etc.), also called "holy bread" (1 Samuel 21:6), "bread of piles" (1 Chronicles 9:32; 23:29), "continual bread" (Numbers 4:7), or simply "bread" (Hebrew Version, Exodus 11:23). ’ártoi tês prothéseos, "loaves of the setting forth" (Exodus 35:13; 39:35, etc.) which the Latin Vulgate also adopts in its uniform translation panes propositionis, whence the English expression "loaves of proposition", as found in the Douay and Reims versions (Exodus 35:13, etc.; Matthew 12:4; Mark 2:26; Luke 6:4). The Protestant versions have "shewbread" The loaves of bread spoken of here formed the most important sacrificial offering prescribed by the Mosaic Law. (New Advent) CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Loaves of Proposition
In Exodus 40 we see the tabernacle (the residence of God) has been set up. A veil or curtain separates the ark from the priests. Loaves of bread were stacked in front of the curtain in two stakes of 6 (12 loaves) in the presence of God. The loaves were in the presence of God, hence the name presence-bread.
“And Moses did all that the Lord had commanded …And he set the table in the tabernacle of the testimony, at the north side, without the veil, 21 Setting there in order the loaves of proposition, as the Lord had commanded Moses”
If we hold that Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Testament then each and everything he did should be related to the temple. So, we see the 12 Apostles “in the presence of God;” the holiest of sacrifices in the temple; bread made of wheat sieved multiple times, i.e. separation of wheat and tars. I’m sure you can find other metaphoric comparisons to the Mosaic Law. It seems to me that one most important is that the first time the tabernacle the 12 loaves were in the presence of God, and when He held the bread Christ said at the last supper “this is my body,” the twelve holy loves were present – facing God, “face bread”. The loaves were to be consumed by the people every time they preached; they nourish the masses with the body and blood of Christ. Still further, at the end of their time, new freshly baked loaves were replaced, with new “.
In conclusion, for me, this adds a new dimension to standing before the tabernacle at church. When we partake of the “real presence” we are participating in the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Christ is truly present in any sense you want to consider; being sacrifice of both the Old Testament and the New. What is happening in Matthew 16 is THE MOST important sacrificial exposure of the bread (Apostles) to the Face of God. Only after Peter confessed was he open to the presence of God; who was Most Holy Sacrificial Lamb. Thus when Christ says, “That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The intent is crystal clear to 12 Jewish Apostles. Christ was God, Peter was to be the head of the Church – that same church called by the world the, “Roman Catholic Church,” but whose proper name is the Church of Jesus Christ.
JoeT
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
If trivial punctuation is of great importance and respect for you head of shame, then I suggest you go back and capitalize bread, for you insist it is the real presence of Christ. I am not impressed with your attempt to discredit me or judge my integrity. Your grasp for power and authoriy is NOT the issue in this discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
The holy chamber at that moment was open to everyone permanently, the veil was opened throught Christ !
Luke 23:45 And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.
Hebrews 7:14-16 For [it is] evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
Hebrews 7:17 For he testifieth, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Hebrews 7:19-22 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope [did]; by the which we draw nigh unto God. And inasmuch as not without an oath [he was made priest]: (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:) By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
Hebrews 7:28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, [maketh] the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.
Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
John 21:16 JESUS saith to him again the second time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. JESUS saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
This BREAD is the Word, the Truth, the Grace of God
John 17:21 JESUS saith unto him the third time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. JESUS saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
Proclaim the Truth "CHRIST the SAVIOUR"
~child of GOD
Jesus is the Rock.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, His work is perfect;For all His ways are justice, A God of truth and without injustice; Righteous and upright is He.
Deuteronomy 32:18
Of the Rock who begot you, you are unmindful,And have forgotten the God who fathered you.
1 Samuel 2:2
“No one is holy like the LORD,For there is none besides You, Nor is there any rock like our God.
2 Samuel 22:47
“The LORD lives!Blessed be my Rock! Let God be exalted, The Rock of my salvation!
Psalm 18:31
For who is God, except the LORD?And who is a rock, except our God?
Isaiah 8:14
He will be as a sanctuary, But a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense To both the houses of Israel, As a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
There are many verses which speak of the Rock Who is Jesus. I suggest you do a word study.
How is this the same “ROCK” discussed In Matt 16.Quote:
Originally Posted by savedsinner7
These are differences translation between King James Version and the Douay-Rheims. What's being expressed here isn't that Christ is the “Rock” in Matt 16. However, Christ was strong like a rock from which the water pours forth like the rock of Horeb (Exodus 17:5-7; Numbers 20:10-11; Psalm 104:41) And would this water be related to baptism?
These are also translated quite differently. They hold no bearing on the Rock being discussed in Matt 16Quote:
Originally Posted by savedsinner7
Once again, not the Rock on which the Church is built.Quote:
Originally Posted by savedsinner7
This is a prophecy of Christ that will be sanctification for venial sins and mortal sins. It's funny that Isaiah should talk of small sins and large sins? Isn't it your view that sin – any sin, any kind, any fault – is death of the soul? But why do we have a discussion of such things a hundreds of years before the Catholic Church?Quote:
Originally Posted by savedsinner7
But, I don't know of any other verse where Christ gives one of his disciples another name. Do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by savedsinner7
There are a few verses that talk of Christ as a Rock, but only in the sense of strength. But for a moment lets say Jesus is the Rock referred to in Matt 16:18
The verse as written; Matt 16:18 And I say to thee [Simon]: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
In the plain language of today, the simple meaning of the verse 18 becomes: because this was revealed to you by God, I will call you Peter (which means rock) and on this Rock of faith I will build my church; hell won't prevail against it. And because my identity as the Messiah was revealed to you by God I'll give you the key to heaven.
Now we'll redo in plain language of today with Christ as a Rock: because this was revealed to you by God, I will call you Peter (which means rock) and on ME (or on My Faith) I will build my church; hell won't prevail against it. And because my identity as the Messiah was revealed to you by God I'll give you the key to heaven.
The second rendition just doesn't make plain sense, its contorted. Why would Christ build a Church on Himself because Peter had a revelation from God as to Christ's identity? Secondly, again in the second version, why would Christ build a Church on Himself and give Peter the Keys? Thirdly, if the intent was for Christ to build a Church, why not say, I'm the Messiah as it was revealed to you Simon, therefore I'm building a Church - why even mention turning Simon into a Rock?
JoeT
Note
In response to objections from others
(Those following this post)
[ Insofar as I'm able to discern, based on the knowledge of those fluent in Greek and Latin, the differences between the KJV and the Douay-Rheims are not major. Only a few verses in the KJV give a different understanding. That's why I feel free to use a KJV to get a more rounded sense of a verse. My reason for mentioning the Scriptural differences was to point out differences here, as elsewhere in my response, of cases referring to Christ as a Rock is related to his strength. Furthermore, when compared with a Rock it referrers to Christ's founding of doctrinal precepts; as it where knowledge pouring forth baptismal waters from Christ's strength refreshing the people of Israel, e.g., Exodus 17:5 And the Lord said to Moses: Go before the people, and take with thee of the ancients of Israel: and take in thy hand the rod wherewith thou didst strike the river, and go. 6 Behold I will stand there before thee, upon the rock Horeb, and thou shalt strike the rock, and water shall come out of it that the people may drink. This doctrinal foundation is shown in 1 Cor 3:11-12 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. NKJV
An often missed significance in Matthew 16 is Christ's declaration, Matt 16:17 “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona:” We only see such blessings conveyed in one other location, but not by Christ, rather by an angel: “blessed art thou among women.” This blessing went to Mary, the Mother of God. Are we to assume that Peter didn't know of this? Are we to assume that this blessing made to Mary, the “handmaid” of God, would not in the same sense make Peter, the primary servant of Christ? And what significance are we to make of this blessing that came out of Christ's own mouth? That this was just some utterance, a use of metaphors, a courteous remark? Would it not be safe to assume that what Christ blesses stays blessed? How does our eye pass so freely across the words “blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona” without stopping to wonder at the significance that's found nowhere else in the New Testament? Aren't you envious, aren't you just a bit envious? Peter is the only one in history blessed by Christ himself? But, such envy can only be appeased when you come to the understanding that in the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, you share that blessing. By making ourselves “servants” of the Church, we in turn make ourselves, subjects of the Church whose head is the vicar (earthly representative) of Christ; and as such sharing in that one and only blessing uttered by Christ. You might not be awed, others who write in this thread might not be awed, but for me and mine, I want a piece of that blessing uttered by Christ. Therefore, to ease everyone's mind about me leaving the Church of Jesus Christ; don't worry, God willing, I will continue living as a Roman Catholic!]
JoeT
It is not that simple for you, though I agree that there are serious translation issues with the Douay-Rheims. The original Greek words disagree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
No. If you want to understand baptism, you need to study the mikveh. But that is a different topic for a different thread.Quote:
However, Christ was strong like a rock from which the water pours forth like the rock of Horeb (Exodus 17:5-7; Numbers 20:10-11; Psalm 104:41) And would this water be related to baptism?
They bear a great deal of bearing on the topic since the NT tells us that it is one and the same Rock.Quote:
These are also translated quite differently. They hold no bearing on the Rock being discussed in Matt 16
If your church is not built on a foundation of Christ, then you should leave it.Quote:
Once again, not the Rock on which the Church is built.
1 Cor 3:11-12
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
NKJV
See the added note on my previous post
But Joe, you keep claiming that Peter means Rock, and it doesn't. If you base a doctrine on a false belief so basic as that, then your whole doctrine and beliefs about what your denomination is falls apart.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
YEP I DO believe that we HAVE established that Jesus is the rock and Peter was a piece of the rock. I know my mom & dad were not THE Prudential company when they 'owned a piece of the rock'
Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Too true, too true. That's why I'm Catholic. I'm graced with a piece of the Rock. Who needs Prudential!
JoeT
I have assurance of salvation through the grace of the one and only ROCK. Not just a piece of the rock, but the ROCK Himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
I AGREE... Tj3 is proclaiming Christ.. The Rock.. Forever and Ever.. AmenQuote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Scripture tells us many times that Christ is the Rock.
How do you ignore that fact?
And if you are not ignoring it, how do you explain not believing it?
Secondly Christ is not handing over His throne, power, and authority. Scripture tells us, Christ Jesus' forever.. King of Kings, Lord of Lords.
Details of this is written again and again in scripture. Scripture is intended as The Truth, proclaiming Jesus, NOT Peter.
How do you ignore what is written as an example of Peter?
It is Jesus who is saying, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?
Do you question or ignore what Christ says?
It is written His sheep hear His voice and follow!.. Who do we follow? Christ!
Jesus is trying to tell us not to doubt the Truth.
Matthew 14:26-27 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear. But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
Matthew 14:28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. Matthew 14:29 And Jesus said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
Matthew 14:30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
Matthew 14:31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth [his] hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?
Who reached out? Jesus
Who saved Peter? Jesus
Who had little faith? Peter
~The Rock Walks on Water
I believe that the Catholic Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate.
The trouble with the Latin Vulgate, is that the Latin does not have a very good range of words to translate Greek into Latin, and the same problem from Latin to English.
The best translations are directly from the original languages.
William Tyndale translated a version of the Bible that was a direct translation of the Hebrew and Greek.
Tyndale could read and write in a number of languages.
He, being a student of Greek and Hebrew, also wrote in the manner of the culture of the time of Jesus and Old Testament times.
He was the first person to write an English New Testament.
It really is a good version to read, but a bit hard to find.
He was strangled and burnt in 1535.
Cheers :)
Peter,Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Wilson
If you are referring to the Douay-Rheims, I think that you are right. We have seen a number of quotes from the DR translation on here which have been in error, and as you suggested, each time you translate, additional inaccuracies arise, which may be worse depending upon what languages you are translating between.
One very prominent error in the DR translation is the first prophecy of the coming of Christ in Genesis 3:15:
Gen 3:15
15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
DR
Here is how it reads in NKJV
Gen 3:15
15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel."
NKJV
A small change in words, but it takes the prophecy from saying that Jesus is the one to defeat Satan, and effectively makes it Mary.
Cogs,
I checked Greek translation. Jesus called Peter as Petros which means a piece of rock while Jesus told him He's going to build His church in Petra which means a mass of rock. Petra does not obviously mean Peter.
Also, Matthew 7:25, shows what type of rock should a "house" be built. The word used is Petra.
In I Timothy 3:15, the church is called the house of God.
Therefore, the church should be built upon a Petra and not Petros.
Parallelism:
If you could also notice what Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 "upon THIS rock". I believe this is parallel with John 2:19-21.
John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy THIS temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
John 2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
John 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
Attacks on others demonation faith ( and most wrong)
Thread closed
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:32 PM. |