Peter Is Not The Rock!

[beamishboy]

From what i have seen in your recent posts is that you are under the impression that there are no writings prior to 200 AD.
BB, before you 'write' a book, I strongly suggest you do serious research.
Publishers will not look twice at a commentary that disregards many intact writings of ecf's PRIOR to 200 AD such as...

.

Hi WarriorAngel,

You totally MISREAD my posts. Let me be clear to you: I did not say there were no writings before 200AD. Of course I'm aware of the writings of the ECFs. BUT I AM SAYING THAT THE UNAPOSTOLIC TRADITION THAT RCs AND ORTHODOX PRACTISE TODAY CANNOT BE TRACED TO THE CHURCH BEFORE 200AD.

I am also saying that much of what the RCs claim to be from the ECFs are in fact a misreading of their works.

You may not have read enough debates between RCs and Protestants, but even in CF, SimontheZealot has debated with RCs and it's sometimes laughable how the RCs changed the clear meaning of what the ECFs say. That should not surprise me because they do the same thing to the clear meaning of the Bible.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

“Upon this rock I will build my church.” Thou art Petros (Greek), but upon this petra (Greek) I will build my church. Peter wasn’t the foundation, “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus", I Corinthians 3.” But Peter was one of the chief stones as the building went up (along with other Apostles).

Therefore, Peter was NOT "the Rock" but Christ, Himself spiritually through Peter and other Apostles.

I love the way the author of Hebrews put it

Hebrew 11:10 For he waited the of the foundations having a City of which a Cratsman/tecnithV <5079> and architect/dhmiourgoV <1217> the God. [Reve 18:22]

Reve 18:22 and sound of lyre-singers and of entertainers and of flutists and of trumpeters not no shall be being heard in Thee further.And every craftsman/tecnithV <5079> of every craft/tecnhV <5078> not no may be being found in Thee further. And sound of a millstone not no should be being heard in Thee further.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Saul, Saul why do you persecute me?

Jesus disagrees with you.

Peace

Is that the best you can come up with? Let's see now. Hmmmmm. How about the first commandment? How much should we love and what should be the single object of our love? An institution with a corporate headquarters in Rome? I think not.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Scripture is quite clear that the body of Christ is the Church. Lionroar is correct. So when we Love God we love Him completely.

Christ is equally explicit that He is door, vine, bread, the water, etc. So should we love these things, as well? Have you never heard of a metaphor?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Christ is equally explicit that He is door, vine, bread, the water, etc. So should we love these things, as well? Have you never heard of a metaphor?

Yeppperz. Revelation is full of them.

John 15:1 I AM the Vine/ampeloV <288>, the True, and the Father of Me the Farmer/gewrgoV <1092> is.

Reve 14:18 And another messenger came out of the altar having authority upon the fire, and he sounds a voice great, to the one having the sickle, the sharp, saying: "Send! of thee the sickle, the sharp/keen, and pick! the clusters of the Vine/ampelou of the land, that ripe the grapes of her. 19 And did cast the messenger the sickle of him into the land, and picks the Vine/ampelon of the land. And he did cast into the winepress of the fury of the God, the great. [Isaiah 5/Matt 13]

 

[Trento]

Christ is equally explicit that He is door, vine, bread, the water, etc. So should we love these things, as well? Have you never heard of a metaphor?

There is no metaphor here.


Who is Saul persecuting in Acts 8:1-3?
It is the [SIZE=+2]CHURCH [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]as mentioned twice in those three verses.

2. Then why does Jesus Christ say, [/SIZE][SIZE=+2]"Why dost thou persecute me?" [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Instead of 'Why dost thou persecute My Church'?
It is because we are the body and He is the head of His Church. Whatever happens to the body is registered in the head. [/SIZE]

Eph 1:22-23 and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, 23 which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all.


1 Cor 12:12-27 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one bodyJews or Greeks, slaves or freeand all were made to drink of one Spirit. 14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18 But as it is, God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single organ, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." 22 On the contrary, the parts of the body which seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and those parts of the body which we think less honorable we invest with the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior part, 25 that there may be no discord in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. 27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it

 

[WarriorAngel]

&#8220;Upon this rock I will build my church.&#8221; Thou art Petros (Greek), but upon this petra (Greek) I will build my church. Peter wasn&#8217;t the foundation, &#8220;For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus", I Corinthians 3.&#8221; But Peter was one of the chief stones as the building went up (along with other Apostles).

Therefore, Peter was NOT "the Rock" but Christ, Himself spiritually through Peter and other Apostles.

Hey I love the avatar...is that your widdle grandbaby?
AWWWWWWWWWWWW.

Anyway - where was I?

In the original written Gospel, Matthew wrote in Aramaic - and Simon of Jonah was called 'Kephas' and interesting to note you will see Cephas written even in Greek through out the NT.

When Matthew translated the Aramaic he borrowed and changed the word Kephas to Greek, and made it Petros not because it wanted a small pebble, but because Petra [which is a huge rock] was feminine...
And Matthew did not want to give Simon of Jonah the name in the feminine version.

Petra is actually an apt translation, but it would not do well to give him that name - so Greek was not compatible with what Matthew was writing.

Later he kept the name Cephas in his writings. Which tho a rock, was not a significant rock in Greek since in Greek it was now merely a nickname [Cephas] but not an emphasis on Rock which was what he was trying to emphasize in the Greek writing of that passage.

Certainly in English we call ppl Peter, but we wouldnt actually refer to them as rock.

'Hey rock, how are you...?'
So the name has stuck..Peter which means rock in English.

YET - Matthew made it a point to make sure he used Rock in Greek so they understood this was not a term used for a nickname, but for the sentence to take on importance of what Christ was doing.
And not merely giving a nickname.

See?

Hi WarriorAngel,

You totally MISREAD my posts. Let me be clear to you: I did not say there were no writings before 200AD. Of course I'm aware of the writings of the ECFs. BUT I AM SAYING THAT THE UNAPOSTOLIC TRADITION THAT RCs AND ORTHODOX PRACTISE TODAY CANNOT BE TRACED TO THE CHURCH BEFORE 200AD.

I am also saying that much of what the RCs claim to be from the ECFs are in fact a misreading of their works.

You may not have read enough debates between RCs and Protestants, but even in CF, SimontheZealot has debated with RCs and it's sometimes laughable how the RCs changed the clear meaning of what the ECFs say. That should not surprise me because they do the same thing to the clear meaning of the Bible.

As i said before - all Traditions are in the scriptures which are pre 200 AD.

And we could discuss this i suppose in another thread - if i have the time.



But i have the scriptures handy if we need to go there.
That aside - you need to read the writings of the earlier ecf's and see that Tradition is very much in there.

St Ignatius makes a lot of statements of the importance of the Bishop of the Church.

And St Justin Martyr also has a lot of stuff to go thru.

So its not that the Traditions didnt exist - its how ppl think they ought to be read that causes the divisions in understanding.

 

[Rick Otto]

You're going to have to help me out here. Who were these Protestants in the fifth century?

They were in large part in the east and about 5 centuries later became known as "Eastern Orthodox"

 

[WarriorAngel]

'..Where the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church...'
~ ST Ignatius 110 AD.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

They were in large part in the east and about 5 centuries later became known as "Eastern Orthodox"

Lo! I found a therad on that

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7021264&page=6
Question. Can Orthodox also be considered Protestants?

 

[lionroar0]

No, it says that the referenced affirmation is not aimed at those who DO NOT KNOW the gospel or the Church. Those who DO know the gospel and/or the Church are INCLUDED in the affirmation. Look at the paragraph in the catechism immediately preceding the one you cited. Secondly, you have assigned a particular interpretation to "or." "And" is also used in the same paragraph. "Or" can have more than one application. For the legislative intent here, we do need an authoritative source, bearing the appropriate imprimatur. Can you cite to one in reference to the intended meaning of "or" here?

But more on this later. I must head out the door at the moment.

Cheers.

No it is not.


The Church and non-Christians
839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways." 325

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, 326 "the first to hear the Word of God." 327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ", 328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable." 329
840 And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." 330
842 The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:

All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . . 331​

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life." 332
844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:

Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair. 333​

845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood. 334

continued....

 

[lionroar0]

Originally Posted by archierieus

No, it says that the referenced affirmation is not aimed at those who DO NOT KNOW the gospel or the Church. Those who DO know the gospel and/or the Church are INCLUDED in the affirmation. Look at the paragraph in the catechism immediately preceding the one you cited. Secondly, you have assigned a particular interpretation to "or." "And" is also used in the same paragraph. "Or" can have more than one application. For the legislative intent here, we do need an authoritative source, bearing the appropriate imprimatur. Can you cite to one in reference to the intended meaning of "or" here?

But more on this later. I must head out the door at the moment.

Cheers.
​

Prior to that section we see this.


Wounds to unity
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." 269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism 270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers. 271​

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church." 272 819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" 273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." 274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, 275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity." 276

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

Is that the best you can come up with? Let's see now. Hmmmmm. How about the first commandment? How much should we love and what should be the single object of our love? An institution with a corporate headquarters in Rome? I think not.

Wrong

More from the Cathechism.



I. NAMES AND IMAGES OF THE CHURCH
751 The word "Church" (Latin ecclesia, from the Greek ek-ka-lein, to "call out of") means a convocation or an assembly. It designates the assemblies of the people, usually for a religious purpose. 139 Ekklesia is used frequently in the Greek Old Testament for the assembly of the Chosen People before God, above all for their assembly on Mount Sinai where Israel received the Law and was established by God as his holy people. 140 By calling itself "Church," the first community of Christian believers recognized itself as heir to that assembly. In the Church, God is "calling together" his people from all the ends of the earth. The equivalent Greek term Kyriake, from which the English word Church and the German Kirche are derived, means "what belongs to the Lord."
752 In Christian usage, the word "church" designates the liturgical assembly, 141 but also the local community 142 or the whole universal community of believers. 143 These three meanings are inseparable. "The Church" is the People that God gathers in the whole world. She exists in local communities and is made real as a liturgical, above all a Eucharistic, assembly. She draws her life from the word and the Body of Christ and so herself becomes Christ's Body.

Peace

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

44 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:

Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair. 333

2 Thessalonians 2:
1 We are asking yet ye brothers over the parousia of the Lord of us, Jesus Christ, and of us together assembling upon Him

8 And then shall be being uncovered the lawless-one, whom the Lord shall be according taken away to the spirit of his mouth, and shall be abolishing to the appearance of the parousia of Him

Reve 19:11 And I perceived the heaven having be opened and Lo! A horse, white and the One sitting on it/him being called Faithful and True and in justice He is judging and is battling

 

[archierieus]

Define belief. Define fact and how it opposes belief.

Certainly. Take an example. One may believe that the Bible is true. That is a belief. A growing body of historical, archaeological and textual evidence has validated Biblical accounts. Such evidence is factual in nature. The empirical issue of reliability of evidenceis always present, of course, but the evidence still is objective in nature as opposed to subjective such as a belief. Application: A person such as yourself may choose to 'believe' that the Roman Catholic church is God's church. The Scriptural, historical, archaeological evidence would be a factual foundation or lack thereof for such a belief. If the Bible teaches something significantly different than the RCC teaches, then of course such a belief would be invalid.

It is also a matter of Catholic belief that Jesus Christ was resurrected. Is this a fact or a belief opposed to fact?

Many people other than Catholics also believe that. There is historical/archaeological evidence in support of such a belief, as well supporting the testimony of Scripture. Josh McDowell has written a book about that, I recall.

Please tell us when it was founded. I just wondering if it's one of the classics.

Christ founded His church before His crucifixion. He called the twelve, He commissioned them for service, for evangelism, and He said that upon 'this Rock,' upon Himself as the CHIEF CORNERSTONE, the stone the builders rejected, He would build His church. Not Peter, but the Lord Jesus Christ btw.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Christ founded His church before His crucifixion. He called the twelve, He commissioned them for service, for evangelism, and He said that upon 'this Rock,' upon Himself as the CHIEF CORNERSTONE, the stone the builders rejected, He would build His church. Not Peter, but the Lord Jesus Christ btw.

Whatever happened to those builders?

Matt 23:15 "Woe to ye scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! that ye are going-about the Sea and the Dryto make one proselyte, and whenever he may be becoming, ye are making him a son of geennha twofold-more of-ye. [Haggai 2:6/Luke 23:31]

Reve 14:11 And the smoke of the tormenting of them into ages of ages is ascending, and not they are having rest of day and of night the ones worshipping the wild beast and the image of it and if anyone is getting the image of the name of it.

 

[lionroar0]

Certainly. Take an example. One may believe that the Bible is true. That is a belief. A growing body of historical, archaeological and textual evidence has validated Biblical accounts..

Which one's? Please post this evidence.

Such evidence is factual in nature. The empirical issue of reliability of evidenceis always present, of course, but the evidence still is objective in nature as opposed to subjective such as a belief. Application: A person such as yourself may choose to 'believe' that the Roman Catholic church is God's church. The Scriptural, historical, archaeological evidence would be a factual foundation or lack thereof for such a belief. If the Bible teaches something significantly different than the RCC teaches, then of course such a belief would be invalid.

That's somewhat a premature conclusion. As there has been no historical, archeological evidence that has validated Biblical accounts posted.

Many people other than Catholics also believe that. There is historical/archaeological evidence in support of such a belief, as well supporting the testimony of Scripture. Josh McDowell has written a book about that, I recall.

Talks cheap

Christ founded His church before His crucifixion. He called the twelve, He commissioned them for service, for evangelism, and He said that upon 'this Rock,' upon Himself as the CHIEF CORNERSTONE, the stone the builders rejected, He would build His church. Not Peter, but the Lord Jesus Christ btw

That's not what Scriptures says. It says that Jesus is the corner stone not St. Peter. St peter is the Rock.

In ancient times the corner stone usually had information on it. This information included, who built the building, who paid for it, when was started and finished.


Peace

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

That's not what Scriptures says. It says that Jesus is the corner stone not St. Peter. St peter is the Rock.

In ancient times the corner stone usually had information on it. This information included, who built the building, who paid for it, when was started and finished.

What happened to the ones the Jews had?

John 2:20 Say then the Judeans: "Forty and six to-years was built the Santuary/naoV <3485>, this, and Thou in three days shall be raising/rousing him"?

Luke 21:5 And certain saying about the Temple/ierou <2411> that to Stones ideal, and devoted-things/anaqhmasin <334> it hath been adorned,He said,.......

 

[archierieus]

You’re being pretty liberal with the word “know”.

The word has a generally-recognized range of meanings. The referenced paragraphs says, 'know the gospel . . . or His church.' One may know the gospel without accepting the gospel. They are different words with different meanings. One may know of a church without accepting that church. If the authors of the catechism had a specific meaning for the word in mind, then we need to see an authoritative statement to that effect. So far, what you have presented is your personal opinion, which you are entitled to--but it is not authoritative in behalf of the RCC.

That’s still the teaching, but the Church is inclusionary, not exclusionary. To clarify, the Church, as the Body of Christ, includes all believers, regardless of their professed relationship to the “visible church”.

That is not what the catechism says here. Note the following:

"811 "This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic."256 The SPECIFIC reference, over the centuries, is to the Roman Catholic Church. This catechism has not changed that teaching. Note that par. 811 is under the heading, 'Profession of Faith,' Article 9, "I believe in the holy Catholic church."

Your views, backquoted above, are your personal views, but they are at variance wtih the express statements both of this catechism and of the RCC consistently over the centuries.

You can’t pick and choose context. Unam Sanctam itself was written to French Catholics in regards to issues with their king, Philip the Fair; and at the time that Unam Sanctam was written, there were no Protestant churches. To demand that the wording of a 14th century encyclical be 100% compatible with 20th century thought and 16th century issues makes about as much sense as Biblical literalism.

The current edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia states that "this has been the constant teaching of the Church." That is, the line about submission to the Roman pontiff being necessary for salvation. Indeed, portions of Unam Sanctam were specific to that situation, but included in the encyclical are timeless spiritual claims.

Oh really? Like lionroar0, I love it when people tell us what we believe; particularly when it directly contradicts what we really do believe. From the Catechism (for the umpteenth time…):

“All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

Except that a few paragraphs later the class definition is very significantly shrunk:


"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336" Thus, the Catholic church "is necessary for salvation . . . Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." I have refused to enter the Catholic church. I know the circumstances of the founding of the Catholic church--although it was founded by man. According to the catechism, therefore, I "cannot be saved."

Speaking of official citation…

Sola Scriptura. That is the test of a church's teaching.

You can’t have one without the other, as neither would exist in any recognizable form without the other; and putting divisions between the two is arbitrary and unnecessary – they point to the same truths.

Absolutely, categorically disagree. The Bible stands on its own merits, and is to be understood WITHOUT reference to human tradition.

Dave

 

[archierieus]

Which one's? Please post this evidence.

The archaeological and historical evidence in support of Scriptural accounts? Not here. I assume there is a Board for that on CF? There is a large body of evidence. It would make a good collaborative project, but I would guess that subject has already been addressed somewhere on these forums?

That's not what Scriptures says. It says that Jesus is the corner stone not St. Peter. St peter is the Rock.

Peter ain't no rock, buddy. He was a rolling stone, a 'pebble,' as the original word connoted, as I recall. Christ was and is the only Rock, not Peter. By the way, Peter was NOT the head of the Jerusalem church, nor was he the bishop of the church at Rome. But he was a good evangelist.

Dave


Peace[/quote]