[JoeT777]

Just because I’m a cradle Catholic doesn’t mean I was raised in a barn painted with “See Rock City” on the roof! Arcura wants information and rick want good clean debate, so lets see what happens with this. I've posted this onece before. The primacy of Peter is clear in scripture, more so in Matthew than anywhere else; a clear appointment to Peter bestowed on him by Christ

Matt 16: 13-20 The Primacy of Peter (The first, Simon who is called Peter Matt 10:2)

V 18. Et ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram ædificabo Ecclesiam meam, et portæ inferi non prævalebunt adversus eam. (That thou art Peter)

The Catholic Church has always understood the Scripture to give Primacy to Peter. This was illustrated in a letter written by Pope Clement I (third in succession to Peter and had personally known Peter) to the Corinthians (circa) 95 AD claiming authority over Corinth. St. Irenaeus tells the second hand account from St. Polycarp where John was heard to say “the faithful wo are everywhere must agree with this Church (Rome) because of its more important principality.” During the Councils and Synods surrounding the early heresies the Popes decision settled the matter. This is illustrated in 431 AD. Where the Bishops responded to Pope Celestine’s decision, “He [Peter] lives even to this time, and always in his successor’s gives judgment.”

Only after 1520 some have asked why this reference is only found in one Gospel and not the others, Warren Carroll suggest the rather simple answer: “Why are Christ’s words to Peter found only in Matthew, and not in the other gospels? Because Mathew was there, with Peter and the Twelve, on the road to Caesarea Philippi in the summer of 29 A.D.: he heard the dialogue himself, in his own Aramaic language. Mark the Evangelist was not there; his information came from Peter, and we have very early testimony that out of humility Peter did not include Christ’s praise of him in his catechesis. John had the other gospels before him as he wrote, and rarely repeated what they had already reported.. . “ That the words don’t appear in Mark’s Gospel was influenced by Peter’s humility. It would be easy to suggest this as speculation however Victor of Antioch, the first commentator of Mark, mentions it as does Eusebius of Caesarea. Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom Vol 1, 1985, pg 338. (see also footnote 139)

In the Douay Rheims the verse reads as follows:

V 13 And Jesus came into the quarters of Cæsarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? 14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? 16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

In the way of setting the scene; Caesarea Phillippi is in the valley of Lebanon below Mount Hermon as mentioned in Josh 11:17 or Baal Hemon as mentioned in Judg 3:3. Of particular interest is a land feature of a massive rock face. One of the tributaries for the Jordan River flows through the area. The area was liberated by the Maccabean revolt in 167 B.C. In 4 B.C. one of Herod the Great s three sons, Philip, built the Roman Grecian of Caesarea Philippi to honor the Roman emperor.

You can imagine Jesus with this huge rock wall as a backdrop, asking twice (not once but twice), “Whom to they say that I am?” No other disciples could give the answer but Simon. Simon confessed Jesus as being both the Messiah and the “Son of the Living God.” God had revealed to Simon what no other man on earth knew; Christ was the Second Person of the One Devine God.

V 17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I can’t claim any significance to the number of times “blessed art thou” is used in the New Testament. However, it is used only three times, twice in Luke 1: 42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed art thou among women... 45 And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be; and once in Matthew 16:17. It’s only used once by Jesus. (this holds true in the NKJV also) In my estimation, like Mary, God seats Peter in a special Chair for our salvation; the first of 266 whose “successor’s gives judgment,” St. Peter, St. Linus, St. Anacletus, St. Clement I, St. Alexander I, St. Sixtus I, St. Telesphorus, St. Hyginus… Benedict XVI

Verse 18 becomes: because this was revealed to you by God, I will call you Rock and on this Rock I will build my church; hell won’t prevail against it.

V 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

The “keys” are the keys to the kingdom of heaven, similar to the “keys” mentioned in Isaiah 22. With the transfer of the keys, one to another, power and authority is also transferred; Christ gives Peter the supreme authority over the Church and to bind and loose, both in heaven and on earth.

“In regard to the Petros Kepha argument made by some, “the play of words involved in naming Simon “Rock” is as clear in Aramaic as in English, if we use the literal translation “Rock” for the Aramaic Kepha rather than “Peter” which is derived from the Greek Petros. In Greek the noun for rock is feminine. Therefore it is unsuitable for a man’s name, and Peter is named Petros while the precise word for rock is petra, making the meaning a little less clear. But Christ’s words to Peter were spoken in Aramaic and first recorded in Armaic in Matthew’s Gospel; furthermore, we know that Peter was later often called Kepha or Cephas as well as Petros.” “Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom Vol 1, 1985, pg 349 footnote 135.


JoeT

[RickJ]

Good points, Joe.

Look at the Aramaic


Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while "rock" is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn't his name Petra?

Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, "You will be called Cephas"). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church."

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."

Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, "and the Rock was Christ" though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from "Rock . . . rock."

If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn't he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew's Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.

The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy.

The above is pasted from here: Peter and the Papacy

[De Maria]

If that were the case here, then Paul would be the most obvious leader, but when read in context, that argument makes no sense. Let's look at this numbers game that is so often used.

Peter’s name is not always given precedence. Peter’s name is mentioned 158 times, Paul’s name 156 times. If we add the name Saul (Paul’s original name, we get Paul mentioned an additional 26 times for a total of 182, compared to Peter’s total of 179 (if we include Simon), making Paul the most prominent from a numerical perspective. In the book of Acts, Peter’s name is mentioned 57 times, while Paul’s is mentioned 127 times. Using this type of argument, the name of Israel is mentioned 2567 times throughout the Bible, whereas Jesus is only mentioned 980 times. Does that mean that Israel is more important than Jesus because Israel is given more prominence than Jesus?

But which Apostle is listed first most often? Which Apostle is singled out, even by Jesus Christ?

Peter.

These type of arguments prove nothing.

But they add to the evidence in favor or against an argument.

That is what Paul did, and James made the decision. Leaders make decisions. Peter was just one of the speakers at the meeting.

No. Read it again. It is Peter who made the decision. A decision which was ratified by the group and by James whose diocese they were in.

He did not lie to peter. Nowhere prior to this are we told when Ananias made the commitment, and then Peter says that they lied to the Holy Spirit. So why do you assume that they lied to Peter?

He did not lie with his words. He was supposed to bring the entire amount but hid part for himself. Then, being in front of Peter, he did not repent of his sin, but kept his silence. That is when Peter said, "you have not lied to men, but to God."

Yes it is, but it is not found in scripture. So you stick with Catholic teaching on this point, and I'll stick with scripture.

It is in both. I quoted the Scripture. Here's another:

John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Right, so why would you turn around and deny that the Rock is Christ by saying...
Quote:
And the Rock turned to Simon and said, "YOU ARE ROCK and on this Rock I will build my Church"

Where's the denial? I'm simply affirming what Jesus said.

When the context says nothing of the sort and the word in Greek means stone, not rock.

Stone is rock.
Definitions of stone on the Web:

* rock: a lump or mass of hard consolidated mineral matter; "he threw a rock at me"
* building material consisting of a piece of rock hewn in a definite shape for a special purpose; "he wanted a special stone to mark the site"
* rock: material consisting of the aggregate of minerals like those making up the Earth's crust; "that mountain is solid rock"; "stone is abundant in New England and there are many quarries"...
Wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Where? None of the references given say that.

They illustrate it.

So what? Paul wrote the largest part of the NT and Peter wrote only a small piece. Paul therefore set the direction for Christian teachings more than Peter. That would be a stronger argument for a leader,

The Gospel of Mark is the disciple Mark's summary of St. Peter's teachings.

if in fact there even was a lewader other than Jesus (something that you have so far not even tried to show).

I have shown that Jesus appointed Peter as the leader.

Many words were spoken to many people that were not spoken to others - so what?

But these words conveyed authority. And they were spoken by Jesus.

The context of this is that Peter declared that he would never deny Christ and then proceeded to become the apostle who is most noted for his denial, 3 times of Christ, which is recorded immediately following this prayer. This would not be the “rock” upon which the church could be built because clearly Peter was not infallible.

Have you not heard that God uses the weakest instruments so that His glory will show forth all the more?

This was not unique to peter. Evidence that this was also for other church leaders is
Found here:

1 Pet:5:1 The elders among you I exhort, who am a fellow-elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, who am also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2 Tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not of constraint, but willingly, according to the will of God; nor yet for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
3 neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you, but making yourselves
Ensamples to the flock.
4 And when the chief Shepherd shall be manifested, ye shall receive the crown of glory that fadeth not away.

Neither was this authority given to Peter alone to dispense. Here are the words of Paul:

Acts 20:25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I went about
Preaching the kingdom, shall see my face no more. 26 Wherefore I testify unto you this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. 27 For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God. 28 Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.

Again, those words were directed by Jesus Christ directly to Peter:

Luke 22:31
And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

John 21:17
He 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.

If Jesus is the one who counts, why are you trying to make Peter the leader?

Jesus made Peter the leader. I simply believe and obey Jesus.

So what? Paul is singled out in many places also, for example:

- Paul is the only apostle who is called God's chosen vessel who will bear His name before Jews and Gentiles (Acts 9:15).

Acts 15:7
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

- The resurrected Christ appears to Paul in a different way than He appeared to the other apostles (Acts 9:3-6).

1 Corinthians 15:5
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

- Paul is the only apostle to indicate that he has authority in all the churches (1 Cor 7:17)

Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

- Paul is mentioned more in the New Testament than any other apostle, more than Peter.

Peter is listed first amongst all the Apostles. And Paul visits Peter when he is confused about hisministry:

- Paul was the first apostle to write a book of scripture.

1 Corinthians 15:9
For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

- Paul is the first apostle to be taken to Heaven to receive a revelation (2 Cor 12:1-4)

Matthew 17:1
And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, 2And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. 3And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

- Paul is the only apostle Satan was concerned about enough to give him a thorn in the flesh. (2 Cor 12:7)

That can be taken two ways. As St. Paul said:

1 Corinthians 15:9
For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Since none of the other Apostles persecuted the body of Christ, it may be for that reason that St. Paul had to expiate his sin. And God permitted a demon to punish him.

2 Cor 12
7And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. 8For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. 9And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

And Paul is the Apostle who rebuked Peter when he erred.

As I said, this also showed that St. Paul was not yet perfected. Since he also acted hypocritically before the Jewish Christians, circumcising Timothy:
Acts 16:3
Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

Therefore, it is the humble man, Peter, who is exalted in that verse.

I could go on and on. Your arguments are not unique to Peter and hold no water.

Keep going. I'll just keep debunking your statements.

I see that you are confused. Perhaps if you go back and read what I said, you may be less confused. I did not say that was a small thing.

You characterized it as:

just one items

I assume you intended to say, "just one of the items". And that sounds to me as though you are belittling the issue.

And you don't think that doctrine has bearing on behaviour? Interesting.

Remind me again. Where is the doctrine that says one MUST eat with the Gentiles?

Only your denomination claims that a man can be infallible.

Apparently only the Catholic Church believes Christ's promises in that regard.

But whether this indicates hypocrisy is very questionable. Many people are circumsized for many reasons. There is nothing wrong with circumcision. What is wrong is saying that is is mandatory, just as some today insist that outward rituals like baptism are mandatory. It may have been that his witness would be better accepted amongst the Jews if they knew that he was a circumsized Jew.

There is a Jewish evangelist who would not hesitate to eat pork, unless he knows that he will be seen doing so by unsaved Jews, because he knows that his witness to them will be weakened. It is not that he does not have the liberty to do so, but for the sake of his witness, he voluntarily avoids such things when it may be an offense to unsaved Jews.

It is hypocrisy because he did it feeling the pressure of the Jewish Christians. Whereas he in turn rebukes St. Peter for similarly feeling the pressure.

Leave your misrepresentations out of this. You know that I am not a protestant.

I know that you are.

There was no ratification. If you actually read Acts 15, you will see that we are specifically told that James decided. Here is James own statement:

Acts 15:19-21
19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."
NKJV

Let's see what St. Peter said prior to that:
7And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Inspired by the Holy Spirit, he says that the Gentiles are his responsibility.

8And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

9And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

10Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

And he says that we should not trouble the Gentiles who are turning to God. Sounds very much like what James repeats later.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[galveston]

I contend that this verse is allegorical or hyperbole. We better hope that it is. If not you and I have a real problem. The first of these problems is that it would render meaningless the term God being a Divine Father. But beyond that there is another problem. If we take this literally, then we should take Christ’s words in Matt 5:29-30 literal also. To be honest, I’m not so concerned here for you, as I am for myself; following Matt 5:29-30 literally would leave me with very few body parts. Come to think of it, about the only thing I’d be left with would be the hair on top of my head; both of them. Consequently, it’s more than reasonable to think that Christ wasn’t speaking literally.


I contend, and I assume many Catholic believe, that ‘Father’ in this verse was intended to mean spiritual leader; founder of the faith followed. Just like many engineers call Euclid the father of geometry. Why? Well, just look out your window. Everything in the built environment owes it geometric founding to Euclid. Hence we call Euclid the father of geometry. I can see why certain Protestant Churches would object to this sense of the verse; it would put such Churches such as the Lutheran’s in conflict with Scripture. Taken in this sense, Lutherans would be in direct conflict with the meaning of Scripture, wouldn’t it? Not that I’d know, but don’t they call Luther the father of their faith? Didn’t they named their Church after him? So, do we take this verse literal or as hyperbole?


Looking for examples in the Scriptures we find that Joseph is called father to Pharaoh (Cf. Gen 45:8). Why? Because he was the spiritual father for the Pharaoh. And, what of Isaiah 22:21 where Eliakim is a father to Jerusalem. You can find some 4 to 6 equivalent references in the Old Testament. Accordingly, we can take Christ’s words as allegorical in reference to this verse. So, in this same sense, I see it as a comforting thought that my day to day spiritual well being is being overseen by His Holiness the Pope; the Holy Father the “Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful.” LUMEN GENTIUM, 23


The remaining parts of your argument are meaningless and meant to be scurrilous; and as such it’s not relevant. But, we can go into them, in as much detail as you wish.


JoeT

Of course. If it disagrees with dogma, it is hyperbole. You do not use that standard in reference to the Eucharest do you?
And no, the last parts were not intended to be abusive, just a comparison that should be considered for a fair discussion.

[JoeT777]

Of course. If it disagrees with dogma, it is hyperbole. You do not use that standard in reference to the Eucharest do you?
And no, the last parts were not intended to be abusive, just a comparison that should be considered for a fair discussion.

Well Ok, how then are we to understand the term Divine Father? Do we call our own fathers 'dad' instead. But, wouldn't that just be another word for 'father' so that the transgression is being made? Seriously, you can't take this as an objection to one being Catholic?

father = bad thing
Divine Father = divien bad thing (surly not!)


JoeT

[galveston]

Well Ok, how then are we understand the the term Divine Father? Do we call our own fathers 'dad' instead. But, wouldn't that just be another word for 'father' so that the transgression is being made? Seriously, you can’t take this as an objection to one being Catholic?

JoeT

The context that Jesus used was completely different that that of a biological father/son relationship. Jesus also said they should not be called "rabbi" thus telling them that they needed no title greater than that of messenger.

I do indeed object to any human claiming the title of "holy father". You may use it, of course, that is your prerogative, but I do not see even Jesus claiming that title for Himself. He used "son of man" and always kept the distinction clear betweem Himself and The Father.

But that is another discussion, of course.

[JoeT777]

The context that Jesus used was completely different that that of a biological father/son relationship. Jesus also said they should not be called "rabbi" thus telling them that they needed no title greater than that of messenger.

I do indeed object to any human claiming the title of "holy father". You may use it, of course, that is your prerogative, but I do not see even Jesus claiming that title for Himself. He used "son of man" and always kept the distinction clear betweem Himself and The Father.

But that is another discussion, of course.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...es-324729.html, so join the discussion.

Then too, what about taking the saying 'cut off your hand' if it makes you sin. Was this also literal? How then do we account for 2,000 years of Catholic History with each generation of Popes being referred to as Holy Father? Wouldn’t it be more honest to say that it’s the Catholic Church you object to, not ‘Holy father’?

JoeT

[Tj3]

But which Apostle is listed first most often?

It makes no difference. You seem to think this important, but it is irrelevant. If being listed first is more important, then Jesus is less important than Israel.

If you notice me ignoring many of your comments, it is because they were already addressed previously. Simply repeating the same old same old does not make it a stronger argument than it was.

But they add to the evidence in favor or against an argument.

Using the same approach, the arguments are stronger for Paul. Why do you ignore that?

No. Read it again. It is Peter who made the decision. A decision which was ratified by the group and by James whose diocese they were in.

Your Bible has clearly been modified if it reads that way. I notice that you also claim that your Bible reads differently that the rest regarding Ananias.

It is in both. I quoted the Scripture. Here's another:

John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Did you notice that it says a STONE, not a ROCK?

Stone is rock.

Throughout scripture, men are referred to as stones (piece of a rock) whereas Jesus is referred to as the Rock.

I have shown that Jesus appointed Peter as the leader.

That is your claim contrary to scripture.

But these words conveyed authority. And they were spoken by Jesus.

You deny 2 Tim 3:16?

You quotes in response to Paul qualifications only further endorses the fact that no one man was made leader. Jesus remained leader.

I assume you intended to say, "just one of the items". And that sounds to me as though you are belittling the issue.

If that is your opinion of what scriptural says factually.

Remind me again. Where is the doctrine that says one MUST eat with the Gentiles?

Twisting words again? Show me where I said that one must.

Apparently only the Catholic Church believes Christ's promises in that regard.

Really? Show me where scripture says that ANY man is infallible, other than Jesus.

It is hypocrisy because he did it feeling the pressure of the Jewish Christians. Whereas he in turn rebukes St. Peter for similarly feeling the pressure.

You are calling it hypocrisy because you are making assumptions.

Some folk seem to think that piling it on think is a good substitute for a factual response. I am not one of those. When you have something of substance, please feel free to provide it.

[sndbay]

I believe we are told to build our house upon "The Rock" Christ Jesus


Matthew 7:22-23 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works?And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Matthew 7:24-25 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

Matthew 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as "one" having authority, and not as the scribes.


"The Rock" of our salvation (Psalms 31:2 Psalms 62:2 Psalm 62:6 Psalms 62:7 )

1 Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

[arcura]

Tj3,
I see that once again you have CLAIMED to not be a protestant, this time to De Maria who responded. "I know that you are".
I have also told you that to make that claim is false for you are a protestant.
The evidence of your attacking and protesting the Catholic Church and her teaching is overwhelming on this and several other boards.
If you do not want to be a protestant there is a remedy for that.
Repent and quite protesting and attacking the Catholic Church and her teachings.
Until you do that you will always be KNOWN as a protestant.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Tj3]

Tj3,
I see that once again you have CLAIMED to not be a protestant, this time to De Maria who responded. "I know that you are".

The fact that some folk continue misrepresent who and what I am despite having been repeatly informed otherwise says more about their integrity than about me.

[De Maria]

It makes no difference. You seem to think this important, but it is irrelevant. If being listed first is more important, then Jesus is less important than Israel.

That doesn't make sense. Jesus and Israel aren't listed together. They are presented in chronological order.

The Apostles are not listed in Chronological order. If they were, John would be listed first.

If you notice me ignoring many of your comments, it is because they were already addressed previously. Simply repeating the same old same old does not make it a stronger argument than it was.

I wish you would take your own advice.

Using the same approach, the arguments are stronger for Paul. Why do you ignore that?

If that were true, I'm sure you have presented those arguments. I'm not ignoring them, they don't exist.

Your Bible has clearly been modified if it reads that way. I notice that you also claim that your Bible reads differently that the rest regarding Ananias.

Another say so argument without any foundation.

Did you notice that it says a STONE, not a ROCK?

As stone is a rock.

Throughout scripture, men are referred to as stones (piece of a rock) whereas Jesus is referred to as the Rock.

Where do you get that from? Abraham is here regarded as a Rock:

Isaiah 51:1
Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. 2Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.

That is your claim contrary to scripture.

I've proven it by Scripture.

You deny 2 Tim 3:16?

You'll have to explain how 2 Tim 3:16 has anything to do with what we are talking about.

You quotes in response to Paul qualifications only further endorses the fact that no one man was made leader. Jesus remained leader.

Nope. Jesus appointed Simon the leader. That's why He renamed him, Cephas, Rock, to show that Simon now represented Jesus.

If that is your opinion of what scriptural says factually.

My opinion is that the Peter gathered everyone to make one decision. Not many as you insinuate:

15And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

16Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

17For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

18Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

19And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

21Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

23And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

26And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Twisting words again? Show me where I said that one must.

Good, then you admit that it isn't a matter of doctrine. Because doctrine says what one must do.

Really? Show me where scripture says that ANY man is infallible, other than Jesus.

Matthew 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

You are calling it hypocrisy because you are making assumptions.

Assumptions based on Scripture.

Some folk seem to think that piling it on think is a good substitute for a factual response. I am not one of those. When you have something of substance, please feel free to provide it.

That's what people say when they've been rebunked.

[arcura]

sndbay,
Jesus built HIS Church on a rock called Peter and the gates of heal have not prevailed against it for 2000 years as Jesus promised.
I do believe what Jesus said and did.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Tj3]

sndbay,
Jesus built HIS Church on a rock called Peter and the gates of heal have not prevailed against it for 2000 years as Jesus promised.

Jesus is the foundation of the church that I am a member of, and it has lasted for 3 centuries more than your denomination.

[Akoue]

Jesus is the foundation of the church that I am a member of, and it has lasted for 3 centuries more than your denomination.

And here it is again. Kindly justify your assertion that the Catholic Church originated not in the first century but in the fourth. What event or events of the fourth century lead you to suppose that it was then that the Catholic Church was founded?

[Tj3]

That doesn't make sense. Jesus and Israel aren't listed together. They are presented in chronological order.

You cannot play it both ways. Either number of references matter or they don't.

If that were true, I'm sure you have presented those arguments. I'm not ignoring them, they don't exist.

I presented many of them and there are many more. However, the ones that I presented I did not to make the claim that Paul took over Jesus role as head of the church, but to point out that your claimed arguments for Peter having done so are not unique.

Another say so argument without any foundation.

You told me that you Bible said something that I do find in any other version of the Bible. If I take you at your word as an honest person, I must assume that your Bible actually reads differently.

As stone is a rock.

Deny what the English dictionaries and Greek lexicons say if you wish.

Where do you get that from? Abraham is here regarded as a Rock:

I see people take references which can be interpreted more than one way and try to interpret everything else around their interpretation of that one verse. But the proper way to understandscripture is to look at the passages which are clear and read those which are less clear in that light:

Deut 32:4
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.
NKJV

Deut 32:15
Then he forsook God who made him,
And scornfully esteemed the Rock of his salvation.
NKJV

Deut 32:18
18 Of the Rock who begot you, you are unmindful,
And have forgotten the God who fathered you.
NKJV

Deut 32:30-31
30 How could one chase a thousand,
And two put ten thousand to flight,
Unless their Rock had sold them,
And the LORD had surrendered them?
31 For their rock is not like our Rock,
NKJV

2 Sam 22:47
47 "The LORD lives!
Blessed be my Rock!
Let God be exalted,
The Rock of my salvation!

NKJV
2 Sam 23:3
3 The God of Israel said,
The Rock of Israel spoke to me:
NKJV

Ps 18:46
46 The LORD lives!
Blessed be my Rock!
Let the God of my salvation be exalted.
NKJV

Ps 28:1
To You I will cry, O LORD my Rock:
NKJV

Ps 42:9
9 I will say to God my Rock,
"Why have You forgotten me?
NKJV

Ps 95:1
Let us shout joyfully to the Rock of our salvation.
NKJV

Ps 144:1
Blessed be the LORD my Rock,
NKJV

Isa 17:10
10 Because you have forgotten the God of your salvation,
And have not been mindful of the Rock of your stronghold,
NKJV

Isa 44:8
Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other Rock;
NKJV

Hab 1:12
O LORD, You have appointed them for judgment;
O Rock, You have marked them for correction.
NKJV

1 Cor 10:4-5
For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.
NKJV

That is where I get it from. The word of God. That is the Rock that I stand on - not a fallible man.

I've proven it by Scripture.

I've seen no such proof. Just your claim.

You'll have to explain how 2 Tim 3:16 has anything to do with what we are talking about.

You seem to think that some parts of scripture are more authoritative than others, thus suggesting that not all are inspired by God.

My opinion is that the Peter gathered everyone to make one decision.

I am glad that you concede that it is your opinion. I prefer to accept what God's word says, but you are welcome to your opinion.

Good, then you admit that it isn't a matter of doctrine. Because doctrine says what one must do.

You are twisting my words. I never said what you claimed. It was a doctrinal matter.
Honesty in our discussions is important.

Matthew 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

This says nothing about infallibility.

Assumptions based on Scripture.

That means that they are simply assumptions based upon yopur interpretation of scripture. I prefer to accept God's word as face value.

[De Maria]

You cannot play it both ways. Either number of references matter or they don't.

St. Peter is listed first amongst the Apostles in all but one of the lists. Jesus and Israel are never listed together.

I presented many of them and there are many more. However, the ones that I presented I did not to make the claim that Paul took over Jesus role as head of the church, but to point out that your claimed arguments for Peter having done so are not unique.

Because you couldn't . Jesus didn't rename Saul, Cephas, the Rock. He gave His name to Simon.

You told me that you Bible said something that I do find in any other version of the Bible. If I take you at your word as an honest person, I must assume that your Bible actually reads differently.

You are not only twisting Scripture but my words as well.

Deny what the English dictionaries and Greek lexicons say if you wish.

I only deny what you say.

I see people take references which can be interpreted more than one way and try to interpret everything else around their interpretation of that one verse. But the proper way to understandscripture is to look at the passages which are clear and read those which are less clear in that light:

Deut 32:4
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.
NKJV

Deut 32:15
Then he forsook God who made him,
And scornfully esteemed the Rock of his salvation.
NKJV

Deut 32:18
18 Of the Rock who begot you, you are unmindful,
And have forgotten the God who fathered you.
NKJV

Deut 32:30-31
30 How could one chase a thousand,
And two put ten thousand to flight,
Unless their Rock had sold them,
And the LORD had surrendered them?
31 For their rock is not like our Rock,
NKJV

2 Sam 22:47
47 "The LORD lives!
Blessed be my Rock!
Let God be exalted,
The Rock of my salvation!

NKJV
2 Sam 23:3
3 The God of Israel said,
The Rock of Israel spoke to me:
NKJV

Ps 18:46
46 The LORD lives!
Blessed be my Rock!
Let the God of my salvation be exalted.
NKJV

Ps 28:1
To You I will cry, O LORD my Rock:
NKJV

Ps 42:9
9 I will say to God my Rock,
"Why have You forgotten me?
NKJV

Ps 95:1
Let us shout joyfully to the Rock of our salvation.
NKJV

Ps 144:1
Blessed be the LORD my Rock,
NKJV

Isa 17:10
10 Because you have forgotten the God of your salvation,
And have not been mindful of the Rock of your stronghold,
NKJV

Isa 44:8
Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other Rock;
NKJV

Hab 1:12
O LORD, You have appointed them for judgment;
O Rock, You have marked them for correction.
NKJV

1 Cor 10:4-5
For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.
NKJV

That is where I get it from. The word of God. That is the Rock that I stand on - not a fallible man.

No one denies that God is the Rock nor that Jesus is the Rock. You however deny that God called Abraham the Rock and the Jesus renamed Simon the Rock. Therefore you deny Scripture.

I've seen no such proof. Just your claim.

Riiiight.

You seem to think that some parts of scripture are more authoritative than others, thus suggesting that not all are inspired by God.

On the contrary, it is you who deny that Jesus gave Simon His name. It is you who deny that the Church is the Pillar of Truth. It is you who deny that we are to keep Scripture and Tradition. So it is you who deny Scripture.

I am glad that you concede that it is your opinion. I prefer to accept what God's word says, but you are welcome to your opinion.

I notice that you ignore the Scripture in so saying.

You are twisting my words. I never said what you claimed. It was a doctrinal matter.
Honesty in our discussions is important.

You have just admitted that there is no such doctrine. But again, show me the doctrine which says we must eat with Gentiles.

This says nothing about infallibility.

Sure it does. God ratifies every decision made by Peter.

That means that they are simply assumptions based upon yopur interpretation of scripture. I prefer to accept God's word as face value.

In other words, you read the letter of the word. But Scripture is quite clear:
2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

[Tj3]

St. Peter is listed first amongst the Apostles in all but one of the lists. Jesus and Israel are never listed together.

Same old, same old. Already addressed. You also seem to think that this has something to do with leadership, a second point that falls flat. Just stating something that is your opinion does not make it true.

Because you couldn't .

But I did.

You are not only twisting Scripture but my words as well.

What claimed scripture says is not even found in scripture,a and is significantly different from that which is found in scripture.

I only deny what you say.

I quote from dictionaries and lexicons.

No one denies that God is the Rock nor that Jesus is the Rock.

Good - then we agree -it is Jesus who is the Rock.

On the contrary, it is you who deny that Jesus gave Simon His name.

Not at all. I just acknowledge what it actually was that Jesus said, and what he actually called Peter.

So it is you who deny Scripture.

Can we keep this honest?

You have just admitted that there is no such doctrine.

Like I said, can we keep this honest? If you must lie about me to defend your beliefs, are they worth defending?

But again, show me the doctrine which says we must eat with Gentiles.

Did you even read what I said?

God ratifies every decision made by Peter.

So, God is the servant of Peter and must obey everything that Peter says.

Good luck with that!! :D :p

[arcura]

Tj3,
Please quit twisting what others ans Scripture says.
I've asked you to stop doing that for years.
You don't hold a candle to De Maria's knowledge of Scripture as have been proven yet You ether refuse to accept that of twist what he and Scripture says.
Please stop.
Fred

[Tj3]

Tj3,
Please quit twisting what others ans Scripture says.
I've asked you to stop doing that for years.
You don't hold a candle to De Maria's knowledge of Scripture as have been proven yet You ether refuse to accept that of twist what he and Scripture says.

Fred,

False accusations do not enhance your credibility. If you have nothing of value to add, then it might be best to just read the posts.