"Non Denominational Church"

Wolf_Says

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2016
644
323
USA
✟23,012.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I always am impressed that Catholics adamantly refuse to believe what their own approved Bible translators have clearly provided for them in at least five clear passages from three Gospel writers. If you choose to keep your brain pickled in your dogmatic Tradition, it is really of no concern of mine. Just don't tell anyone that you believe the Bible to be true.

You sure seem to be mean spirited today, why?

Of course I believe the Bible, the ENTIRE Bible.

Do you go to confession as Jesus commanded? Do you eat His flesh and drink His blood? Do you celebrate the Last Supper as He commanded?

You have absolutely no defense against WHY Jesus gave Mary to John at the foot of the cross if Jesus had siblings because Jewish customs would have left Mary taken care of by Jesus' siblings.

If you believe by faith alone and sola scriptura, you do not believe the Bible but your own traditions and interpretation of it.

You accept the Bible, yet you dont trust the source that gave you the Bible. If you dont trust the source how can you believe in the Bible alone??
 
Upvote 0

Wolf_Says

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2016
644
323
USA
✟23,012.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I always am impressed that Catholics adamantly refuse to believe what their own approved Bible translators have clearly provided for them in at least five clear passages from three Gospel writers. If you choose to keep your brain pickled in your dogmatic Tradition, it is really of no concern of mine. Just don't tell anyone that you believe the Bible to be true.

Here you go, for the "brothers" that you believe Jesus had.

Please read, as it contains scripture and writings from the Early Church as proof.

Jesus had Brothers? | Catholic Answers
 
Upvote 0

Wolf_Says

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2016
644
323
USA
✟23,012.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
You are certainly right that for Jesus to have made a play on words involving the idea of a rock does not mean that Peter was being made a Pope. :doh: In fact, the verses that follow this one verify your point, in that when Peter's rock-ribbed faith faltered, Jesus responded with the "Satan" comment. That was undoubtedly the issue there--Peter's faith/loyalty/steadfastness.

Peter was only human, but please using your interpretation that this verse is a joke:

Why did Jesus give Peter the authority to bind and loose? Do you understand what bind and loose mean?

Why did Jesus give Peter the keys to the kingdom.of heaven? Do you understand what the keys are?

Why did Jesus pray for Peter specifically by name and none of the other Apostles?

Why did Jesus ask Peter and none of the other Apostles to "tend my sheep"?

Why did Jesus travel far to a rock with a hole called the gates of hades just for a play on words?

Please, I am curious as to your answer to this questions
 
Upvote 0

wilts43

Newbie
May 22, 2011
236
79
✟21,547.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Wrong again. You need to repent of that cult and ask the Lord to guide you through his Word.Mary was not a virgin after Jesus. Every Catholic stumbles at this passage.

Mark 3:31-35 (KJV)
31 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.

32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.

33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?

34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!


35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

I assume you are not implying Jesus was being rude to, or rejecting, His mother.
As The perfect Jew Jesus must "Glorify His father & His mother" (4th commandment) more than anyone else ever living.
Therefore we are left with the obvious rhetorical device of using what is at hand to make a point...... "My family? Anyone who does God's will is like family".
Or certainly in Mary's case she was His mother, not by any fluke, but because she was "full of grace" as the Angel addressed her......i.e. because "She did God's will".
What really happened in the verses 31-35 is this. Jesus was teaching dramatically, and comparing two things, the dignity of being physically the Mother of God, and the privilege of hearing the word of God and keeping it. She was, of course, at the peak in both categories.

As for Jesus "brethren" you must know that is very far from clear that this mean full blood brothers as we use the term. The language used means they could well have been cousins, or children of an earlier marriage of Joseph. Most early Protestant reformers held to this. And Jesus confiding Mary to John's care would have been illegal if He had brothers. Was His last act on the cross such a transgression? it's impossible.
 
Upvote 0

wilts43

Newbie
May 22, 2011
236
79
✟21,547.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Sorry I had not caught the second portion of this post from yesterday. Yes, pretty much. She wants to study at home . She tried a couple of churches and just didn't hit it off. I belong to a world wide outreach out of Baltimore and we have a small local satellite bible study here in town, she and some friends went to that for several months. But that was about it. It's just this fellowship part that bugs her. What I'm afraid of is without that Body energy, over time you can fall away and start backsliding. Next thing you know you're picking up old habits from the world. She is strong but satan loves a lone sheep.

Do you begin to realise how unlike the early Church this sounds?
"Oh I didn't hit it off in Peter's church....so I tried Paul's for a while.....but the fellowship wasn't great so we tried Pillip's for a while"
Why to Protestants kid themselves they own The Bible (A Catholic Book) and get to be so completely unbiblical in shopping-around for churches?
It's more about being an American consumer looking for your best match.....and less to do with seeking out His True Church.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

wilts43

Newbie
May 22, 2011
236
79
✟21,547.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
The Rock Jesus was referring to was in Peter, it was his faith in Jesus. On that faith He Has built His church. All true Christians have the same faith and He knows who we are. Then men come along and build a glorified building over Peters dead body. I would submit it's likely Jesus couldn't care less about the building or the dead remains of human flesh, Peter will get his new Glorified body the same time the rest of us do.
You say.............

" The Rock Jesus was referring to was in Peter, it was his faith in Jesus."

Please tell me where, in scripture, it says that Jesus was referring to Peter's faith and not to Peter?
No where?
So by what authority do you change the plain meaning of scripture?

That unsatisfactory interpretation is a Protestant man-made tradition!

It ignores the context and the ensuing verses giving clear Davidic stewardship-authority to Peter.

It ignores the mind of the whole Church & Councils from Jesus until after Luther.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,434
11,981
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,724.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
It ignores the mind of the whole Church & Councils from Jesus until after Luther.
In actual fact, the majority of church fathers interpret the "rock" as the faith Peter had in Christ.
 
Upvote 0

wilts43

Newbie
May 22, 2011
236
79
✟21,547.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
In actual fact, the majority of church fathers interpret the "rock" as the faith Peter had in Christ.
As you are not Protestant I'm surprised you fell into their either/or thinking. I thought you would see Catholic both/and thinking.....especially here.
The Fathers also saw Peter as the rock.

As indeed Protestant scholars do today.... Here is a selection.......


Trevor G. Jalland, PhD (Anglican)

“The solemn words…proclaim in effect that the eponym now bestowed upon Simon is no mere nickname like Boanerges (son of thunder), ‘Petra’ (Kepha) literally denotes the apostle himself as ‘Rock”, and it is on Peter as on rock that the foundations of the new ekklesia, described in the metaphor of a building, are to be laid. Against that building so erected, in virtue of the immovable nature of the substance on which its foundations rest, neither the forces of evil nor of death can ultimately prevail.” (Jalland, Trevor G., The Church and the Papacy, London: SPCK, 1946, page 55)

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)

“On the basis of the distinction between 'petros' . . . and 'petra' . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere 'stone,' it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the 'rock' . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between 'petros' and 'petra' simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine 'petra' could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been 'lithos' ('stone' of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor's Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

"The word Peter petros, meaning 'rock,' (Gk 4377) is masculine, and in Jesus' follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter." (Carson, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1994], volume 2, page 78, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 18)

Oscar Cullman (Lutheran)

"The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and petros: petra = Kepha = petros....Since Peter, the rock of the Church, is thus given by Christ Himself, the master of the house (Is. 22:22; Rev. 3:7), the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he is the human mediator of the resurrection, and he has the task of admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection...The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story...For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of 'thou art Rock' and 'on this rock I will build' shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom He has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected." (Cullmann, article on "Rock" (petros, petra) trans. and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Eerdmans Publishing, 1968], volume 6, page 98, 107, 108)

Ivor H. Jones (Methodist)

"...in 16.18 Peter is the rock on which the new community could be built, as Abraham was described in rabbinic writings as the rock on which God could erect a new world to replace the old....The arguments have raged across the centuries over the phrase 'on this rock' : does it mean on Peter, or on Peter's confession? But the text is clear: Peter was divinely inspired and this was the reason for his new function and the basis of his authorization. His function was to provide for Jesus Christ the beginnings of a stronghold, a people of God, to stand against all the powers of evil and death...They are God's people, the church...as the church they represent God's sovereign power over evil (18.18b) and rely upon a new kind of divine authorization...This authorization is given to Peter; so Peter is not only a stronghold against evil; he also is responsible for giving the community shape and direction." (Jones, The Gospel of Matthew [London: Epworth Press, 1994], page 99)

David Hill (Presbyterian)

“On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)
 
Upvote 0

Dave G.

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2017
4,629
5,307
73
Sandiwich
✟314,403.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
In actual fact, the majority of church fathers interpret the "rock" as the faith Peter had in Christ.
Ya it's about Peter's Faith without doubt, the whole exchange wouldn't have happened without that and Jesus stating this wasn't from him but the Father. But the poster wants the scripture that says petra has anything to do with faith I think... Jesus was taking Petro which is shaky or loose stone and making it strong in pretra ( it's not so far away from anyone's faith coming into Christianity, but Jesus sees even loose or shaky faith and builds on it.. In the end Jesus is the foundation of the church anyway, not any man. It's clear to me Jesus was fortifying Peter as he had done elsewhere in the bible; Ephesians 2:19-22 and 1 Corinthians 10:1-5 also 1 Peter 2:4-8. Catholic Doctrine will do as it will though. You can read many many commentaries on this as well, outside Catholicism that say something else. But Catholics don't care about that.

I mean no disrespect when I say that incidentally, it's how it is .
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Peter was only human, but please using your interpretation that this verse is a joke:
It's a pun. I think most people would understand why he might speak that way to Peter.

Why did Jesus give Peter the authority to bind and loose?
Why wouldn't he? That doesn't make the pun any less of a pun in any case.

Why did Jesus give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven? Do you understand what the keys are?
Yes. He was saying that Peter was going to open the world to the Gospel in a special way. That is exactly what happened on Pentecost. I am sure I don't need to recount the details to you.

Why did Jesus pray for Peter specifically by name and none of the other Apostles?

Why did Jesus ask Peter and none of the other Apostles to "tend my sheep"?
First, we do not know that he did not give to the others also. And in some cases, we know that he actually did. But in neither case are we entitled to extrapolate from what is written and come up with authority or responsibility that goes beyond what was given.

Some people, for example, insist that "feed my sheep" conferred infallible, worldwide leadership upon not only Peter but other men who came later in history. All of that is purely speculation and was promoted, not surprisingly, by the people who had the most to gain from having it accepted. You know that the oldest Christian bishoprics (the Eastern Orthodox) don't buy that line of thought and never did.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,434
11,981
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,724.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
As you are not Protestant I'm surprised you fell into their either/or thinking.
I didn't give any indication of my thinking, I simply stated that the MAJORITY of church fathers interpret it as Peter's faith.
I thought you would see Catholic both/and thinking.....especially here.
The Fathers also saw Peter as the rock.
Some, saw Peter as the rock, some saw it as both, more saw it as Christ.
As indeed Protestant scholars do today.... Here is a selection.......
So when they agree with your minority view they are right and when they agree with the majority view they are wrong?
 
Upvote 0

Wolf_Says

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2016
644
323
USA
✟23,012.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
It's a pun. I think most people would understand why he might speak that way to Peter.


Why wouldn't he? That doesn't make the pun any less of a pun in any case.


Yes. He was saying that Peter was going to open the world to the Gospel in a special way. That is exactly what happened on Pentecost. I am sure I don't need to recount the details to you.


First, we do not know that he did not give to the others also. And in some cases, we know that he actually did. But in neither case are we entitled to extrapolate from what is written and come up with authority or responsibility that goes beyond what was given.

Some people, for example, insist that "feed my sheep" conferred infallible, worldwide leadership upon not only Peter but other men who came later in history. All of that is purely speculation and was promoted, not surprisingly, by the people who had the most to gain from having it accepted. You know that the oldest Christian bishoprics (the Eastern Orthodox) don't buy that line of thought and never did.

Incorrect, it was not a pun. There is nothing in the Bible that even suggests this.

Wrong, study scripture. The keys are NOT the gospel, but in fact a reference back to Isaiah 22:15-25. Jesus is referencing the OT and taking the keys from the Pharisees and giving it to Peter.

Not the Gospels.

I never stated infallability, as this is something else. Clearly you have no explanation then using that interpretation.

Please go study scripture some more.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Incorrect, it was not a pun.
Then we're in disagreement about that.

Wrong, study scripture. The keys are NOT the gospel, but in fact a reference back to Isaiah 22:15-25.
I did not say that the keys are the Gospel. But keys open things, and the world was opened to the Gospel on Pentecost with Peter preaching and being heard by Jews from far and wide, each in his own language simultaneously. Afterwards, thousands were baptised.

There is no possibility that the keys referred to in the NT refer to the key in Isaiah 22.
 
Upvote 0

Traveling teacher

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2017
993
499
64
Belton
✟31,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There were 2 or more. james in the Bible..
1. James the brother of John...sons of zebedee
Fisherman from galilileee...grew up around Jesus
Matthew 4:21
Killed by herod
Acts 12:2
2. James the brother of Jesus
Matthew 13:55
The Lord,s brother
Galations1:19
Pillar and leader in Jerusalem church
Galations 2:9
Seems to have the final authority in the Jerusalem counsel
Acts 15:13-23
James saw the risen Lord
1 corinthians 15:7
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Wolf_Says

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2016
644
323
USA
✟23,012.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Then we're in disagreement about that.


I did not say that the keys are the Gospel. But keys open things, and the world was opened to the Gospel on Pentecost with Peter preaching and being heard by Jews from far and wide, each in his own language simultaneously. Afterwards, thousands were baptised.

There is no possibility that the keys referred to in the NT refer to the key in Isaiah 22.

How not?

You provide zero evidence for your aims. They are simply getting funny at this point.

The keys are in refrence to the keys in Isaiah, and Jesus made Peter His steward while He is away in heaven.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Did you miss the point of the bold face and oversized font in that post? You are attempting to prove your theory by comparing apples to oranges. What Christ gave to Peter cannot be the same as the keys mentioned in Isaiah. The two verses aren't even speaking of the same item.

And you have provided zero evidence for your claim; you merely found two words that are similar and two unrelated situations.
 
Upvote 0

Wolf_Says

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2016
644
323
USA
✟23,012.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Did you miss the point of the bold face and oversized font in that post? You are attempting to prove your theory by comparing apples to oranges. What Christ gave to Peter cannot be the same as the keys mentioned in Isaiah. The two verses aren't even speaking of the same item.

And you have provided zero evidence for your claim; you merely found two words that are similar and two unrelated situations.

The jews knew the OT, as that is their scripture. Jesus is the fullfillment to the OT.

Jesus is also from the House of David, and as it states in Isaiah, "what he shall open, nobody can shut." Jesus is the King, and He reclaimed His keys from the Pharisees, who were the bad stewards due to their hypocrisy, and as King Jesus made a new steward in Peter.

In the older days, in kingdoms, the steward was the highest person besides the king. He held the keys to the city, and in the courts his voice carried the most weight.

Jesus, in fulfilling the prophecy from Isaiah 22, has taken back His keys. Peter is His new steward. The keys to the kingdom of heaven are given to Peter, and he is made charge while Jesus prepares a place for them in Heaven.

In all paintings of Peter you see him clutching onto the keys, because they are his responsibility. All paintings except 1, at the Vatican, in whch we see Peter returning the keys to Jesus at the end of time.

Its honestly peotic how the OT and NT tie in together.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,812
13,119
72
✟362,418.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Paintings? Really? I thought I knew what Catholic Tradition includes, but now I learned that it derives its authenticity from aesthetic ideas portrayed by painters living many centuries after Christ.

For the record, such ideas are not limited to Catholics. I once lived in a slum which originally had been an exclusive area of the city. A lovely Episcopal church building had fallen on hard times and,when I visited it a Pentecostal congregation owned it. The pastor showed us around the beautiful building. There were lovely stained glass windows with interesting quote bubbles from the mouths of the individuals depicted. In one of the windows the quote bubble came from a man saying, "Behold the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world." The pastor asked us if we recognized who that individual was pointing to. We said,of course, "Jesus Christ." He corrected us, informing us that that could not be Jesus Christ because He does not look like that. I asked him how he knew. He told me quite sincerely that the picture of Jesus in his Bible clearly was not at all the same as in the window. End of discussion.
 
Upvote 0