• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Peter Is Not The Rock!

Status
Not open for further replies.

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,550
28,531
74
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
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)

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." Please, not a statement of opinion, but a recognized reference source.

Dave
Watch out for that "other Gospel" ;)

Gala 1:68 But even if-ever we, or a messenger out of heaven, should be well-messaging/euaggelizhtai <2097> (5735) to ye beside which we well-messagizing/euhggelisameqa <2097> (5668) to ye, anathema/anaqema <331> let him be.
9 As we have declared before and at present again, I am saying if any is well-messagizing beside which ye beside got, anathema/anaqema <331> let him be.

Reve 22:3 and every anathema/kat-anaqema <2652> not shall be still. And the throne of the God/YHWH and of the Lamb-kin/Word in Her shall be, and His bond-servants shall be offering divine-service to Him.
 
Upvote 0

lionroar0

Coffee drinker
Jul 10, 2004
9,362
705
54
✟35,401.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
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 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

Nope the Scriptures call Him the Rock.

And he was the Bishop of Rome.

Peace
 
Upvote 0

lionroar0

Coffee drinker
Jul 10, 2004
9,362
705
54
✟35,401.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
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.

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

NO you do not recognize anything.

I have given direct quotes from the Catechism which is the authority on Catholic teaching.

That is not my opinion.

I'll take the Church that wrote and complied the bible over what an individual states what it "factually" says.

Peace
 
Upvote 0

lionroar0

Coffee drinker
Jul 10, 2004
9,362
705
54
✟35,401.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
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)

No I did not state my opinion. I cited the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is the authority on Catholic teaching.

From now on take care not to put words in my mouth. When I give my opinion I will say so.

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

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

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. 337
CITED TEXT:
Lumen gentium 16
Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.



continued.....
 
Upvote 0

lionroar0

Coffee drinker
Jul 10, 2004
9,362
705
54
✟35,401.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
NOTES
125. Cf. Rom. 9, 4-5
126. Cf. Rom. 1 l, 28-29.
127. Cf. Acts 17,25-28.
128. Cf. 1 Tim. 2, 4.
129. Cf Rom. 1, 21, 25.
130. Mk. 16, 16.
Supplementary notes (*)
(18) Cfr. S. Thomas, Summa Theol. III, q. 8, a. 3, ad 1.
(19) Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72.
(20) Cfr. Eusebius Caes., Praeparatio Evangelica, 1, 1: PG 2128 AB.

ongregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to the Archbishop of Boston, 1949: DS 3866-3872

THE SUPREME SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE
From the Headquarters of the Holy Office August 8,1949
Protocol Number 122/49.
Your Excellency:
This Supreme Sacred Congregation has followed very attentively the rise and the course of the grave controversy stirred up by certain associates of "St. Benedict Center" and "Boston College" in regard to the interpretation of that axiom: "Outside the Church there is no salvation."
After having examined all the documents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of "St. Benedict Center" explain their opinions and complaints, and also many other documents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom: "outside the Church there is no salvation," was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities.
Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session, held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the August Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:
We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (Denzinger, n. 1792).
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.
Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt., 28:19-20).
Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place, by which we are commanded to be incorporated by Baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation, without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the Sacrament of Regeneration and in reference to the Sacrament of Penance (Denzinger, nn. 797, 807).
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943 "On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ" (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.
Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is composed here on earth, the same August Pontiff says: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."
Toward the end of this same Encyclical Letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, loc. cit., 243).
With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution "Singulari quadam," in Denzinger, nn. 1641, ff.&#8212;also Pope Pius IX in the Encyclical Letter "Quanto conficiamur moerore" in Denzinger, n. 1677).
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Hebrews, 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 801).
From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical "From the Housetops," fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.
From these declarations which pertain to doctrine certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unimown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church" (Acts, 20:28).
Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of Canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.
Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest and an ordinary member of the Church.
Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church Authority, called the "imprimatur," which is prescribed by the sacred canons.
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them applies without any restriction that principle; submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.
In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain
Your Excellency's most devoted
F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani
A. Ottaviani
Assessor

To His Excellency
Most Reverend Richard James Cushing
Archbishop of Boston

1px_transparent.gif

1px_transparent.gif
 
Upvote 0
well since sctipure tells us that it is the HOlY Spirit that will lead us into all truth and that we have no need for a man to teach us I would say the vicar of Christ is Indeed the Holy Spirit for He could not come until Christ Ascended.. For the Spirit of Christ lives in His people. Peter being a fellow elder was one of the 12 plus Paul. This is why Jesus Chose 12 and not just one. :)
 
Upvote 0

katholikos

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2008
3,631
439
United States
✟6,027.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Three reasons why Peter is the Rock:

1) The striking pun on the words &#960;&#949;&#964;&#961;&#959;&#962; and &#960;&#949;&#964;&#961;&#945;. This is quite difficult to ignore. Jesus is equating the Greek moniker of Simon and the rock upon which the church is built. On this point, to quibble at case endings shows a misunderstanding of the way language works.

2) If Paul and John taught a strikingly similar version of this doctrine, then why should we object?

Ephesians 2:19-21: “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.”

Revelation 21:14: “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

3) If Jesus is the rock, then the passage’s metaphor becomes non-sensical. The image drawn is Jesus building upon himself. In this metaphor, Jesus is the builder, and certainly not the foundation as well.


 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,550
28,531
74
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Nope the Scriptures call Him the Rock.

And he was the Bishop of Rome.

Peace
Rome/Romans is mentioned 12 times [interesting number] in the NT including 1 time in the Gospels, John 11:48 and the rest only Acts.

Why would the denary be showing in Revelation 6? Did Peter incite the romans to attack Jerusalem? :)

Luke 20:24 "Shew ye Me a denary. Of whom is having image and inscription"? The yet they say "of Caesar".

John 11:48 "If-ever we may be be letting Him thus, all shall be believing in Him.
And shall be coming the Romans and they shall be taking away/arousin <142> (5692) of Us and the Place and the Nation

Revelation 6:6 And I hear a voice in midst of the four living-ones saying: "choinex of grain/wheat a denary and three choinex of barleys/kriqhV <2915> a denary, and the oil and the wine no you should be injuring".
 
Upvote 0

JacktheCatholic

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.
Mar 9, 2007
24,545
2,797
57
Michigan, USA
Visit site
✟51,888.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Three reasons Peter could not be the rock. :)

Peter was a fallable man and not God in the flesh
Peter fell a number of times
Peter is not the cornerstone to whom all others are joined Christ is.

It is not your fault that you have learned a false teaching of the last few hundred years. The Truth is out there and you can find it. But it is not from your current teachers. The teachers of the early church still speak to us in there writings. Try looking there I pray of you. :crossrc:
 
Upvote 0

Anglian

let us love one another, for love is of God
Oct 21, 2007
8,092
1,246
Held
✟28,241.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Dear Beamishboy,
My dear Anglian,

Surely you agree that it's folly to state what you've just stated.

Rhetorical questions so framed rarely invite an answer in the affirmative; this one is no exception.

Let's take Paul's epistles.
Yes, let us. His letter to the Corinthians was so clear that within moments of his leaving there were disagreements and he had to write further admonitions. The Epistle of James was so clear that old Luther pondered whether it was Apostolic. Scripture so interprets itself that there are whole libraries of commentaries and we disagree here even on one verse. So, no, Scripture does not interpret itself, and that is why it nowhere says it does. The idea that it does is a man made doctrine to which you and other subscribe; it is unheard of before the sixteenth century.

You are again wrong. The Apostles agree with me. Show me a single mention of Marian veneration by the Apostles.

We have been through this before. Show me where it says Scripture interprets itself? Show me where the word 'Trinity' is used? I have already shown you where St. Luke quotes the Angel as saying that Mary will be called blessed; we call her blessed, so did Luther. What do you do?

Are you a curator in a museum? You seem to have a fascination for old things.[/QUOTE]
What was held from the beginning is still held in my Church. What was held then matters because it is still what we hold today. The Faith is not a museum, but nor are we allowed to reinvent the 'faith once received' to suit our own private interpretation of Scripture. No one thought that before the sixteenth century. This is another of the man made ideas you attribute to the Apostles. If the Apostles had held it, we should have heard of it before the sixteenth century.

The correct question is "who follows the teachings of the apostles?" The answer must be in today's context,
Are you suggesting that the Truth changes to fit the times? We hold that the Faith was 'once received' and that those who have followed the Apostles since the beginning and do so today follow those teachings; if you wish to see the truth as being relative to the context, that is yet another man made idea of recent provenance.

Tracing is dangerous.

That is another novel, man-made idea.

Talk to me about truth, about apostolic truth; not antiquity
Apostolic Truth has not changed from when the Apostles taught it. If what you hold cannot be traced to the Apostles in antiquity, you should consider why you think it Apostolic.

.
Show me how your beliefs can be supported by Scriptures (not in the fanciful and quantum-leap way that has so far been shown to me).
Not a single thing that has been quoted is not supported from Scripture - and from the Church which recognised that Scripture. Little of what you say appears before the sixteenth century; it is novel, it is man made, and the fact it has no lineage proves that.

I am surprised you think antiquity and lineage count for so little. If a man calls himself 'Lord Salisbury' you'd want to know his ancestry and his claim to that title, and you would not accept his claim that the peerage is to be interpreted by anyone, and who cares what the College of Heralds or the House of Lords or the Queen said, the country is a democracy, and anyone who declares himself a Lord can do so and give himself whatever title he wants.

If someone put that argument to you about the English peerage, you'd quote precedent and the relevant authorities; yet when we do that on something far more important and far older, you give us a variant of the argument that anyone can say what they like. Not convinced, and not convincing, I fear. More work on antiquity for you, I think.

peace,

Anglian
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,550
28,531
74
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
It is not your fault that you have learned a false teaching of the last few hundred years. The Truth is out there and you can find it. But it is not from your current teachers. The teachers of the early church still speak to us in there writings. Try looking there I pray of you. :crossrc:
Yeah, I can imagine them pouring over the book of Revelation and scratching their heads :)

Luke 21:22 That Days of vengeance/out-justing these are, of the to be filled all the having been written/gegrammena <1125> (5772).

Revelation 1:3 Happy the one reading, and the ones hearing, the Words of the Prophecy, and keepings in it/her having been written/gegrammena <1125> (5772), for the Time Is-Nigh/egguV <1451>.
 
Upvote 0

JacktheCatholic

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.
Mar 9, 2007
24,545
2,797
57
Michigan, USA
Visit site
✟51,888.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yeah, I can imagine them pouring over the book of Revelation and scratching their heads :)

Luke 21:22 That Days of vengeance/out-justing these are, of the to be filled all the having been written/gegrammena <1125> (5772).

Revelation 1:3 Happy the one reading, and the ones hearing, the Words of the Prophecy, and keepings in it/her having been written/gegrammena <1125> (5772), for the Time Is-Nigh/egguV <1451>.

Prophecies like Revelation are not something you can understand from study of the language. Just like Joseph it has to come from God. If God wants Revelation to be understood then he will give this knowledge to His Church. No amount of study will provide it to you.

I think God has already revealed much about Revelation and I believe the Catholic Church has this knowledge and that they do not release it all for fear of our salvation. If you have ever studied Our Lady of Fatima you would know that God gave revelation to children and that three things were prophesied. The first two are well known but the third is not. The Church has released some but not all. Check it out bro, you will not be disappointed.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,550
28,531
74
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Not a single thing that has been quoted is not supported from Scripture - and from the Church which recognised that Scripture. Little of what you say appears before the sixteenth century; it is novel, it is man made, and the fact it has no lineage proves that.
Greetings. Though this was not addressed to me, I would say that more Christians need to put themselves back in the Era and yes, even back in the Era of the OC of the Bible to perhaps better grasp it.

Translatations have also been the bane of Christianity as everyone seems to have a certain translation they use to interpret from and one reason we appear to have a problem with Peter and the Pope. Would you agree with this?

For example what writing would Jesus be referring to in John 19:28? I would say Isaiah so we have to go back to the OC Hebrew Scriptures to find out what one He was fulfilling.

Here is what Jesus quoted from in Luke 4 and note "Writing" is in the singular in John 19:

Y@sha`yah 61:2 To call of Year of acceptance/07522 ratsown for YHWH, and a Day of Vengeance for our Elohiym to comfort all of mourning ones.

John 19:28 After this, the Jesus having saw that already all has-been-finished/tetelestai <5055> (5769), that may be being finished/teleiwqh <5048> (5686) the Writing, He is saying "I am thirsting".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

beamishboy

Well-Known Member
Jan 3, 2008
5,475
255
30
✟6,878.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
Show me where the word 'Trinity' is used? I have already shown you where St. Luke quotes the Angel as saying that Mary will be called blessed; we call her blessed, so did Luther. What do you do?


Let me expose your errors:-

1. This rubbish about the word Trinity not being used is constantly bandied about by RCs and Orthodox but it's so childish I hope people will stop this ridiculous chatter. Nobody is asking for a particular word being used. I'm not asking for the Apostles to call her Lady of Lourdes or Lady of Fatima. Names don't mean a thing. I'm asking for a single instance of Marian veneration. You have none. You know it's unscriptural. So you pull out Tradition - which is an excuse for anything unscriptural. Tradition is a hazy excuse. No RC or ORthodox I know can tell me exactly what Tradition is. Some say that people in the past memorised Tradition for years so that it's accurate (lionroar says that in another thread; see this: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=48678353#post48678353

So, Tradition means nothing. It's ambiguous and hazy and it's meant to be so. This will allow recourse to be made to it whenever an RC or an Orthodox is caught in a bind and Protestants accuse them of unapostolic beliefs - that's when Tradition can be thrown back as a defence. But what it is, what its total ambit and parameters are, what it says precisely, nobody knows.

Just because someone is called blessed, he is to be venerated? Blessed are the peacemakers, says Jesus. Do you venerate them the way you do Mary?

YOu must decide what you want to do. On the one hand, you hit out at Luther, next you use him as an example. Please drop him. You see, Anglian, it's very hard for you to understand but we only revere God and follow him. We know men are fallible. We have no infallible popes and patriarchs. Even if Luther is wrong, it means nothing to me. Please get that into your system so we can save some time.



Are you a curator in a museum? You seem to have a fascination for old things.[/quote]
What was held from the beginning is still held in my Church. What was held then matters because it is still what we hold today. The Faith is not a museum, but nor are we allowed to reinvent the 'faith once received' to suit our own private interpretation of Scripture. No one thought that before the sixteenth century. This is another of the man made ideas you attribute to the Apostles. If the Apostles had held it, we should have heard of it before the sixteenth century.[/quote]

Hazy words again. "What was held in the beginning." You know as much as I do that that is not true. You can't date your church to the beginning. You can only make claims. Much of your beliefs and practices came about long after the apostles. You can at best date most of your practices up to 200AD and even then, much of it is disputed with your church of course striving to push back the date as best it can. It's not from the beginning. It's from 200AD in very few matters and in the more serious matters which Protestants believe are unapostolic, you can trace these back to only about 400AD or even later. You will point to a particular person who lived in 100AD or even earlier but THAT DOES NOT HELP YOUR CAUSE BECAUSE YOU WILL HAVE TO SPECIFY WHICH DOCTRINE OF YOURS CAN BE TRACED TO THAT PERSON THAT WE DON'T BELIEVE IN. Too often, RCs and Orthodox will mention a person or a document that dates back to 100AD or even earlier. But they try to lump all their beliefs into that one person or document and herein lies the falsehood - that person or document probably mentions a belief that Protestants already accept. What my dispute is should be made clear - you can't date your beliefs and practices which Protestants hold as wrong and unapostolic earlier than 200AD and usually, it's after 400AD. So please don't say something hazy like your church has held its beliefs "from the beginning". That simply is not true. What beliefs are you talking about. Many of them emerged very very long after the beginning.



Are you suggesting that the Truth changes to fit the times? We hold that the Faith was 'once received' and that those who have followed the Apostles since the beginning and do so today follow those teachings; if you wish to see the truth as being relative to the context, that is yet another man made idea of recent provenance.

On the contrary, it's because you people have beliefs that don't accord with apostolic teachings that I'm in disagreement about. You can't trace your beliefs that we reject to the apostles. YOu can't even trace them to the early christians. At best, you can trace them to a few hundred years after the Apostles. That's my objection. You guys have added on to apostolic truth. When I ask you to show me a single mention of marian veneration by the apostles, you say Mary was called "blessed" in Luke. I'm shocked you can even say it. I don't see you guys venerating all the other peace makers that Jesus says they are blessed too. Let's be honest. Marian veneration came about long after the Apostles. They didn't even know a thing about it. That's why Mary was so insignificant to the Apostles and NT writers that her name was not even mentioned in any of the epistles and in the Gospels when she's mentioned, it's only because she was bearing Jesus. After that, she was only mentioned to show her lack of understanding of Jesus' role. That's all. Where is the veneration? How can it even be remotely considered apostolic???



Apostolic Truth has not changed from when the Apostles taught it. If what you hold cannot be traced to the Apostles in antiquity, you should consider why you think it Apostolic.

Protestants believe in and practise only apostolic truth. How do I know our beliefs and practices are apostolic truth? Simple. The Apostles say so themselves in writing. Not in some hazy nebulous ambiguous whisperings called Tradition that nobody seems to know anything about except when it's necessary to defend a piece of unapostolic belief but the written word itself. Only those who follow apostolic teachings in the NT and not on extraneous beliefs can be said to adhere to apostolic teachings.


Not a single thing that has been quoted is not supported from Scripture - and from the Church which recognised that Scripture. Little of what you say appears before the sixteenth century; it is novel, it is man made, and the fact it has no lineage proves that.

On the contrary, EVERY belief that is rejected by Protestants is rejected because it's not apostolic. It does not feature in the writings of the Apostles. You have NO EVIDENCE that the Apostles taught it. Your only recourse is to cling to what you call Tradition. I have challenged people to show me what this Tradition is. Specify it. Detail it. Give me Tradition in full. It's not that simple because Tradition is not a storehouse of information that was imparted by the Apostles and fixed by them. If it were, it could have been written down by 100AD and all the Tradition you'll ever need will be there. But what do we see? Tradition crops up all the time in different centuries in a way that makes it clear to any reasonable man that that new part of Tradition did not crop up in an earlier century.

I am surprised you think antiquity and lineage count for so little. If a man calls himself 'Lord Salisbury' you'd want to know his ancestry and his claim to that title, and you would not accept his claim that the peerage is to be interpreted by anyone, and who cares what the College of Heralds or the House of Lords or the Queen said, the country is a democracy, and anyone who declares himself a Lord can do so and give himself whatever title he wants.
If someone put that argument to you about the English peerage, you'd quote precedent and the relevant authorities; yet when we do that on something far more important and far older, you give us a variant of the argument that anyone can say what they like. Not convinced, and not convincing, I fear. More work on antiquity for you, I think.

You are right. In religion, lineage means nothing to me. That's because as a Protestant, I believe only in what the NT teaches me and Jesus tells the Jews that they should not bank on their lineage to Abraham for them to be saved. Can't you see, Anglian. Jesus doesn't give a toss about whether you can trace your lineage to St Athanasias or St Peter. What's important to him is only whether we are practising His teachings and those of His apostles. I'm saying that those who believe in things that are extraneous of the Bible are believing in another gospel. You can't use Tradition to save you because nobody really can be sure the full ambit of Tradition. The ECFs were prolific writers. If Tradition weren't an ambiguous hazy yet-to-be-thought-out ideas, the earliest ECFs would have written them all down, specified from whom each "tradition" came from and when it was told to them and we won't have this terrible ambiguity that seems only to benefit people who enjoy the ambiguity since it affords them a ready defence all through the ages.

I hope I'm making sense. I didn't have enough sleep last night and I need to go to bed now!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rick Otto
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,550
28,531
74
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Prophecies like Revelation are not something you can understand from study of the language. Just like Joseph it has to come from God. If God wants Revelation to be understood then he will give this knowledge to His Church. No amount of study will provide it to you.

I think God has already revealed much about Revelation and I believe the Catholic Church has this knowledge and that they do not release it all for fear of our salvation. If you have ever studied Our Lady of Fatima you would know that God gave revelation to children and that three things were prophesied. The first two are well known but the third is not. The Church has released some but not all. Check it out bro, you will not be disappointed.
:confused: The book of Revelation is about SALVATION. It is the Final Consummation of all things having been WRITTEN.

Genesis 49:18 To Salvation of Thee I expect YHWH.

03444 y@shuw`ah {yesh-oo'-aw} passive participle of 03467; TWOT - 929b; n f
AV - salvation 65, help 4, deliverance 3, health 3, save 1, saving 1,

Reve 19:1 [*And] after these I hear [*as] a sound great of a throng, vast in the heaven saying "allelouia, the Salvation/swthria <4991> and the glory [*and the honor] and the power [*of-Lord] of the God of us,

4991. soteria so-tay-ree'-ah feminine of a derivative of 4990 as (properly, abstract) noun; rescue or safety (physically or morally):--deliver, health, salvation, save, saving.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

swthria <4991> Used 8 times. Luke, John, Acts, Romans, Revelation [3 times]
 
Upvote 0

JimfromOhio

Life of Trials :)
Feb 7, 2004
27,738
3,738
Central Ohio
✟67,748.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
:wave: Hey I love the avatar...is that your widdle grandbaby?
AWWWWWWWWWWWW.:kiss::kiss::kiss:

Anyway - where was I? :D

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?


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.

Thanks about the comment about grandpa, I am going to be a grandpa again in 9 months. :)

Christians believers are in Christ, we are in His body, the church, SPIRITUALLY, not the system. Reading the the New Testament focuses on the basic doctrine of the church--what it is and how believers function within it. During the Dark Ages from 400 to 1500, prior to the Reformation, Christian believers set themselves apart from that Church system. Salvation is by faith alone through Christ alone through God’s grace alone without Church's involvment because I have learned that RCC teaches that Eternal life in the Catholic system is something you earn by your works, you merit it and you receive it because of your merit.

To me, I don't care which "organization" claim the "rights" to be connected as part of "first Church". We are to focus on spiritual matters in the invisible church rather than temporal matters of the visible Church. We who love Jesus Christ constitute the true church. We belong to the collective Body of Christ whether we're alive or in glory. The Greek word for church is ekklesia, which means "an assembly of called-out ones. " The church is made up of people called by God to be His children. We have become united with all other believers by faith in Christ, who said, "I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

Jesus meant He would gather together a body of believers. He wasn't talking about organizations or systems; He was talking about people. We who know and love Him are the living church that has been born into the family of God by the Holy Spirit. As members of "the general assembly and church of the first-born, who are written in heaven" (Heb. 12:23), we have been declared righteous because our sin has been washed away by the blood of Jesus Christ (Rev. 1:5).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rick Otto
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.