Peter Is Not The Rock!

[LittleLambofJesus]

How come no one quotes from the Jewish/Hebrew book revelation on these threads?

 

[archierieus]

Doctrines are not dogmas and doctrines can be further clarified and developed.

Well, the Catholic Encyclopedia states that the 'no salvation outside of submission to the Roman pontiff' claim "has always been the teaching of the Church." Do you dispute that?

I'm aware that you are way out line trying to tell me what is Scriptural and what isn't.

I believe in the priesthood of all believers. I also note what John Wycliffe said to a learned Church doctor in his day--to the effect that the time will come when a plowman will know more about the Scriptures than you do. True Bible study is a meritocracy.

Dave


Peace[/quote]

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

If we change this form of the word in Matt 16, does that mean we also change the other verses that use this exact word form?
How far do the RCs want to go to change words around in the NT to support their Popacy doctrine.

Matt 16:18 `And I yet to thee am saying, that thou art Peter, and upon this/tauth <3778>, the rock/petra <4073> I shall be building of Me the 0ut-called, and gates of Hades not shall be prevailing of her;

http://www.scripture4all.org/

petra <4073> Used 4 times in NC/NT Matt 16:18, Matt 27:60, 1 Corin 10:4, 1 Peter 2:8

Textus Rec.) Matthew 16:18 kagw de soi legw oti su ei petroV kai epi tauth th petra oikodomhsw mou thn ekklhsian kai pulai adou ou katiscusousin authV

 

[Rick Otto]

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

A dangerous overstatement in light of "where 2 or 3 are gathered".
"Nicolaitan" Authority Problem, that:
"...There are two main views concerning the identity of the Nicolaitans. The first view holds that they are an early cult which followed or perverted the teachings of Nicolas, one of the seven men chosen by the congregation in Acts 6:5. The second view discounts this historical witness1 in favor of understanding the designation “Nicolaitan” as denoting the error of their practice which asserted authority over the people in an unnatural distinction between clergy and laity (and which continues to be a distortion of biblical teaching to our own time). In favor of the first view is the mention of a cult purportedly related to Nicolas by early members of the church.
Ireneus (Haer. 1.26.3) basically repeats the biblical material, adding the assertion that the Nicolaitans were heretical followers of Nicolaus, the proselyte of Antioch who was chosen to be one of The Seven (Acts 6:5). Hippolytus (Haer. 7.24) underscores Irenaeus, adding that Nicolaus departed from true doctrine. Clement of Alexandria (Str. 2.20) claims that Nicolaus was an ascetic, and then current Nicolaitans were not his true followers because they perverted his teaching that it was necessary to abuse the flesh.
The importance of these early citations has been questioned because they include precious else about the sect. Yet there is no evidence in the early church of alternate explanations or a challenge to the statements of these men, except to say that the Nicolaitans misrepresented the true teachings of Nicolas. Perhaps the Nicolaitans distorted the teachings of Nicolas in a similar way that antinomian sects throughout history have distorted Paul’s teaching on liberty? The relationship which may exist between the mention of the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:15) in close association with Balaam (Rev. 2:14) has also been noted. The two names (Nicolaitans, Balaam) have very similar meanings in their respective languages: “Balaam is derived from two Hebrew words,[B&#257;la] (‘he swallows’) and [&#257;m] (‘people’). Interestingly, according to the derivative meanings of the names, the two groups troubling this church [Pergamos] were ‘swallowers of the people’ (i.e., the Balaamites) and ‘conquerors of the people’ (i.e., the Nicolaitans).” If the similar meaning of their names is significant and their mention in adjoining verses in the letter to Pergamos is intended to show a relationship, then it is thought that the licentious tendencies of the Nicolaitans might be understood in light of the doctrine of Balaam.
Was there, in the first place, any sect existing at the time when these words were uttered, which actually bore this name? I believe not. . . . the key to the right understanding of it is given us at Rev2:14-15where those “that hold the doctrine of Balaam” (Rev2:14) are evidently identical with those “that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans” (Rev2:14). we are here set upon the right track. . . . it may be observed that his name [Balaam], according to the best etymology, signifies “Destroyer of the people” ( . . . from [bela] and [&#257;m] ; and [Nikolaos] [nikan ton laon] ) is no more than a Grecizing of this name . . . The Nicolaitans . . . are the Balaamites . . . those who in the New Dispensation repeated the sin of Balaam in the Old, and sought to overcome or destroy the people of God by the same temptations whereby Balaam had sought to overcome them before."
from http://thedissidentblog.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/

 

[archierieus]

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

Section 846 begins a separate section, under this heading:

"Outside the Church There is No Salvation."

This section stands on its own, separate from the section about non-Christians. There is a section on non-Catholic Christians, a section on non-Christians, and a section entitled "outside the Church there is no salvation." These sections are both preceded and followed by other sections which deal with additional issues. The 'no salvation outside the Church' section very clearly states that if someone knows the gospel or the Church, but fails or refuses to join the Church, he/she cannot be saved. That would embrace Protestants, of which I am proudly one--sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide.

Dave

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Section 846 begins a separate section, under this heading:

"Outside the Church There is No Salvation."

This section stands on its own, separate from the section about non-Christians. There is a section on non-Catholic Christians, a section on non-Christians, and a section entitled "outside the Church there is no salvation." These sections are both preceded and followed by other sections which deal with additional issues. The 'no salvation outside the Church' section very clearly states that if someone knows the gospel or the Church, but fails or refuses to join the Church, he/she cannot be saved. That would embrace Protestants, of which I am proudly one--sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide.

Dave

Would ya think ill of me if I said I am solo scriptura

 

[Rick Otto]

The best protestant churches are powered by sola panels.

 

[archierieus]

Scripture is quite clear that the body of Christ is the Church.

And what is the 'church,' the true body of Christ? "The pillar and ground of the truth." Where do we find the truth? "Sanctify them through Thy truth: thy Word is truth." The true body of Christ is the pillar and ground of the truth, sanctified, washed, purified by the Word, the Bible. If a church teaches error according to the Bible, then it is not 'the pillar and ground of the truth.'

Dave

 

[Rick Otto]

Originally Posted by JacktheCatholic

Scripture is quite clear that the body of Christ is the Church.
​

And clearly with only one head.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The best protestant churches are powered by sola panels.

Da solie panels do not work well in da darkie.......

Reve 2:5 Be thou remembering then! , whence/which-place thou hast fallen and reform thou! And the first works, thou do ! If yet no, I am coming to thee [*swiftly], and shall be removing the Lamp-stand of thee out of the Place of her, if ever no thou should be reforming".

Reve 16:10 And the fifth one pours out the bowl of him on the throne of the wild-beast, and became/egeneto <1096> (5633) the Kingdom of it having been Darkened and they gnawed the tongues of them out of the misery.

 

[lionroar0]

Would ya think ill of me if I said I am solo scriptura

Nope.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

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?

Talk is cheap.

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

That's not what Scriptures says. They call St. Peter the Rock.

It's also a historical fact that he was in Rome

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

Well, the Catholic Encyclopedia states that the 'no salvation outside of submission to the Roman pontiff' claim "has always been the teaching of the Church." Do you dispute that?

I have already aswered your question. If it was not the one that was expected too bad.

I believe in the priesthood of all believers. I also note what John Wycliffe said to a learned Church doctor in his day--to the effect that the time will come when a plowman will know more about the Scriptures than you do. True Bible study is a meritocracy.
Dave

Thank you for the persecution. As you have no idea what I know of Scriptures and what I don't know.

10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Peace

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I have already aswered your question. If it was not the one that was expected too bad.

Thank you for the persecution. As you have no idea what I know of Scriptures and what I don't know.

10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Peace

I have a rather unique view of that "dragon" in Revelation..........

Matt 23:34 "Because of this behold! I am Commissioning toward ye Prophets and Wise-men and Scribes, out of them ye shall be killing and ye shall be Crucifying and out of them ye shall be scourging in the synagogues of ye, and ye shall be persecuting/persuing/diwxete <1377> (5692) from City into City"

Matt 10:23 "Whenever yet they may be pursuing/persecuting/diwkwsin <1377> (5725) ye in the city, this, be fleeing into the other.
For Amen I am saying to ye, not no ye should be finishing the cities of the Israel till ever may be coming the Son of the Man".

Reve 12:13 And when saw the Dragon that it was cast into the land, it chases/pursues/ediwxen <1377> (5656) the woman who-any brought forth the male

 

[lionroar0]

Section 846 begins a separate section, under this heading:

"Outside the Church There is No Salvation."

This section stands on its own, separate from the section about non-Christians. There is a section on non-Catholic Christians, a section on non-Christians, and a section entitled "outside the Church there is no salvation." These sections are both preceded and followed by other sections which deal with additional issues. The 'no salvation outside the Church' section very clearly states that if someone knows the gospel or the Church, but fails or refuses to join the Church, he/she cannot be saved. That would embrace Protestants, of which I am proudly one--sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide.

Dave

Wrong again.


"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​

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. 337​

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men." 338



It seems to me that all of your debating against the CC proves that you don't know that "that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. 336"




Thanks for playing. No points awarded but you keep on trying.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

I have a rather unique view of that "dragon" in Revelation..........

Matt 23:34 "Because of this behold! I am Commissioning toward ye Prophets and Wise-men and Scribes, out of them ye shall be killing and ye shall be Crucifying and out of them ye shall be scourging in the synagogues of ye, and ye shall be persecuting/persuing/diwxete <1377> (5692) from City into City"

Matt 10:23 "Whenever yet they may be pursuing/persecuting/diwkwsin <1377> (5725) ye in the city, this, be fleeing into the other.
For Amen I am saying to ye, not no ye should be finishing the cities of the Israel till ever may be coming the Son of the Man".

Reve 12:13 And when saw the Dragon that it was cast into the land, it chases/pursues/ediwxen <1377> (5656) the woman who-any brought forth the male

Yeah you do.

Peace

 

[archierieus]

That's not what Scriptures says. They call St. Peter the Rock.

No they don't. Nowhere do they call Peter 'the Rock.' There is no such verse in the Bible. Christ said, "Upon this Rock I will build My church." He did not say that Peter was the rock. Simon son of Jonas was given the nickname, 'Cephas,' translated being 'petros' or rolling stone. In Mt. 16:18, Christ did not say that He would build His church upon 'petros,' but upon 'this Rock' 'tauth th petra' He would build His church. 'Petros' was Simon's nickname, given him at the beginning. 'th petra' is a different word, wiith a different meaning. In addition, Scripture elsewhere points to Christ as the Rock, and Peter himself in hs epistle, refers to Christ as the Rock. Nor did the apostles recognize Peter as the head of the Church. Nor did he function as the head of the Church. That was James the brother of Jesus.

It's also a historical fact that he was in Rome

It is a historical fact that Peter visited Rome around 42 A.D., after Herod tried to put him to death. It is also a historical fact that Peter left Rome and evangelized in a number of countries, including Britain. And, years later, Peter revisited Rome, disputed Simon Magus, and was put to death. He did not remain in Rome during all those years. He was not the bishop of Rome. There was a Simon at Rome during those years, Simon Magus.

Dave

 

[archierieus]

I have already aswered your question. If it was not the one that was expected too bad.

Not sure if I recall what your answer was, but I do recognize that you may have given your personal opinion. As between the Catholic Encylopedia and someone's personal opinion, I will go with what is stated in the Encyclopedia being more authoritative as speaking for the RCC.

As you have no idea what I know of Scriptures and what I don't know.

An individual's personal knowledge or lack of knowledge of Scripture is not the issue. What the Bible in fact says is the issue.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by JacktheCatholic Scripture is quite clear that the body of Christ is the Church.

And clearly with only one head.

Hey lookie here!!! That head in Revelation 13 is Feminine!!! Heck, all the heads are Feminine

Reve 5:6 And I saw and behold! in midst of the throne and of the four living-ones and in midst of the elders a lamb-kin standing, as having been slain/slaughtered/esfagmenon <4969> (5772)N

Reve 13:3 And one, out of the heads/f of it/n, as having been slain/slaughtered/esfagmenhn <4969> (5772)F into death, and the blow of the death of it was healed, and marvels whole the land behind of the wild-beast.

 

[archierieus]

Wrong again.

You have stated your opinion, but you have not provided any citation of recognized authority. Your statement has value as your opinion, but only as an opinion. As for the catechism, the content and structure speak for themselves, according to the ordinary rules of grammer. If the RCC intends some different meaning, then such needs to be clearly specified. Can you cite to an authoritative source on this point? (which would not be your opinion)

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

It seems to me that all of your debating against the CC proves that you don't know that "that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. 336"

Thank-you for acknowledging the "knowing" issue. Again, the word seems to be clarified here:

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation."

'knowing' according to this, would appear to mean, 'do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church.'

Please cite to an authoritative source which defines what the RCC intends by the use of this word here. So far, 'knowing' appears linked to 'know the Gospel of Christ or His Church." Therefore, those who DO know the gospel or the RCC, but fail or refuse to join the RCC, by definition would fall under the affirmation. Please, not a statement of opinion, but a recognized reference source.

Dave