• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Protestants Versus Catholics forum...

Discussion in 'One Bread, One Body - Catholic' started by BlalronResurrected, Dec 10, 2001.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. VOW52

    VOW52 Guest

    +0
    If you accept that the Catholic Church was the first church, commissioned by Jesus, with Peter as the head and the Apostles as the leaders, then how can you NOT accept the words of Jesus to the Church, namely, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 16: 18-19) Does this sound like Jesus would ALLOW the church to "stray from their original doctrines over the past millenia or so"????

    Think back over the scriptures. Peter was not perfect; he had some very memorable screw-ups. Yet, at NO time did Jesus say, "Hey, Pete, I changed my mind. You've blown it, Man. Gimme back the Keys to Heaven."

    Now, to MY simple, uneducated brain, this says that it's very possible the Church could have some problems, because Peter, and his successors, are indeed human. However, no matter WHAT mistakes they made, or will make, the Church will prevail.

    :::shrugging:::

    That's my take on the subject.


    Peace be with you,
    ~VOW
     
  2. AngelAmidala

    AngelAmidala Legend

    +617
    Methodist
    Single
    Wow...all this interesting conversation...has eased my migraine. Go figure! :)

    Anyway, on some of the previous pages, the comments were made by Blalron and I just wanted to briefly address them:

    This was in regards to a link someone else posted about how you viewed Catholicsm (sp? For some reason I am having a probably spelling that word today!). I looked at the date on the post, and it was from last month. So, yes, that post is in the past, but it's not what I would consider a dug up thread...*shrugs* Now if it was a year ago...okay...but to me that's almost still new. *shrugs again*

    That's not exactly true. LouisBooth is not a Catholic, and he visits here frequently. I am not a Catholic, and I am here all the time, and not just because I'm an admin...because I like this forum. I think there are a couple others who aren't Catholics who participate here also...but I can't think of their names offhand. So you're not the only Protestant here. :)

    Okay...that's all I have to say. :)
     
  3. Catholic Church interprets that as making Peter the first Pope and establishing that organization as the one and only church commissioned by Jesus.

    Protestants say that the Rock referred to is Jesus. God is called the Rock in the Old Testament many times. (2 Samuel 22:32, Psalms 19:14, Isaiah 26:4).

    As for the binding and loosing. He is giving Peter and the other Apostles the ability to speak with authority in His name. That was needed because there was no New Testament at that time. They were the way Jesus built His church and passed down authority until the New Testament was written.This was for the Apostles only, it was not handed down from Peter to anyone. Until the time of the fulfillment of the cannon of Scripture God used the Apostles to give the church structure.
     
  4. Kirkland1244

    Kirkland1244 Regular Member

    195
    +3
    Anglican
    You know, Blalron, we can't miss you until you're gone.
     
  5. nyj

    nyj Goodbye, my puppy

    +1,247
    Catholic
    Blalron stated:
    Actually Blalron, as I shall show, not all non-Catholics say the Rock is Jesus.

    Fact #1

    Protestant Greek scholars like D.A. Carson and Joseph Thayer admit there is no distinction in meaning between petros and petra in the Koine Greek of the New Testament. [Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996), 507; D.A. Carson, "Matthew," in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), vol. 8, 368.] As it has been pointed out, petra means a 'rock.' It even usually means a 'large rock.' And that's exactly what petros means, too - large rock. It does not mean 'pebble' or 'small stone,' as some have claimed. The Greek word for 'pebble' or 'small stone' is lithos, not petros.

    Fact #2

    Looking at the Greek, Matthew used the demonstrative pronoun taute, which means 'this very,' when he referred to the rock on which the Church would be built: 'You are Peter, and on taute petra(this very rock), 'I will build My Church.'

    Also, when a demonstrative pronoun is used with the Greek word for 'and,' which is 'kai,' the pronoun refers back to the preceding noun. In other words, when Jesus says, 'You are rock, and on this rock I will build My Church,' the second rock He refers to has to be the same rock as the first one. Peter is the rock in both cases.

    Jesus could have gotten around it if He'd wanted to. He didn't have to say, 'And(kai) on this rock I will build My Church.' He could've said, 'But(alla) on this rock I will build My Church,' meaning another rock. He would have then had to explain who or what this other rock was. But He didn't do that.

    Fact #3

    Peter was not a common name in the apostolic age. In fact, it was unheard of. Peter means "Rock" and comes from the Greek "Petras" which is a translation of the Aramaic "Kephas", the language Jesus and the apostles spoke. It is a new name given to him by Jesus as soon as Jesus first approaches this future apostle, Simon in John 1:42: "Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, 'You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas'".

    We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the Cross, 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?' That isn't Greek; it's Aramaic, and it means, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'

    What is Cephas? It is a transliteration of the Aramaic "Kephas", meaning massive rock. We have this name preserved 4 times in Galations and 4 times in 1 Corinthians. The Aramaic for small stone or pebble is evna. In the Old Testament, "Rock" referred exclusively to God alone, and here we have Jesus telling one of his disciples that he is the Rock the second they meet. This is obviously a sign that Jesus has something great in mind for this apostle.

    Don't believe the "Petros" argument.. In the apostolic age, Petras and Petros had one and the same meaning (we know this from Greek poetry), and you couldn't name a man with a feminine noun, so to make it fit, the Greek changed Petras to "Petros" for grammatical sake. It was only after this that this Greek noun began to hold dichotomous meanings according to its gender.

    And thus, some people (out of ignorance or distaste of Tradition) still hold to the argument that Matthew 16:18 says "You are Petros and upon this Petras, I will build my church", and since today Petros means "small pebble", Jesus was contrasting Peter from Himself in this passage, which is merely pure misunderstanding of the passage taken out of its lingual context.
     
  6. The church is built upon the foundation of the apostles, (Ephesians. 2:20). The first stones of that building were laid in and by their ministry; hence their names are said to be written in the foundations of the new Jerusalem, Revelations. 21:14. Now Peter being that apostle by whose hand the first stones of the church were laid, both in Jewish converts (Acts 2), and in the Gentile converts (Acts 10), he might in some sense be said to be the rock on which it was built.

    Secondly, Others, by this rock, understand Christ; "Thou art Peter, thou hast the name of a stone, but upon this rock, pointing to himself, I will build my church.’’

    Remember when Jesus said, " Destroy this temple" (John. 2:19), when he spoke of the temple of his body. Then he took occasion from the temple, where he was, so to speak of himself, and gave occasion to some to misunderstand him of that; so here he took occasion from Peter, to speak of himself as the Rock, and gave occasion to some to misunderstand him of Peter.
     
  7. nyj

    nyj Goodbye, my puppy

    +1,247
    Catholic
    Blalron twists Sripture:
    One problem Blalron, Jesus didn't say "but". He said "and" (kai in greek). Which means only one thing (which I already pointed out and you seemingly ignored), He was still talking about Peter.

    Try again.
     
  8. That still does not prove

    (1) The Peter was a "Pope" in the sense that you Catholics have a pope now, or that the other disciples regarded him that way. In fact, Paul publicly corrected him for a mistake he made (Galations 2:11). Would the Catholic Church put up with a Cardinal rebuking the Pope?

    (2) That the authority Jesus gave would be passed on to other successors and realized in the organization of the Catholic Church.
     
  9. nyj

    nyj Goodbye, my puppy

    +1,247
    Catholic
    So Blalron, now that you've changed gears, I am assuming that you have conceded the first point? That Jesus DID name Peter the Rock because the Church was to be built upon him?

    If so, I'll now be happy to address your next two questions.

    BTW: You never said one word about my explanation about prayer to God versus prayer to Mary. Were you satisfied with my answer to you?
     
  10. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    +1,762
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Paul rebuked Peter over a matter of personal behavior, not over a matter pertaining to faith or morals; this does nothing to lessen Peter's position as Vicar of Christ over the universal Church.
    Not only a cardinal, but how about a lowly nun? St. Catherine of Siena publicly took Pope Gregory XI to task in 1376 for not moving the headquarters of the Holy See from Avignon back to Rome, as he said he would do. Her rebuke worked, because Gregory finally did relocate back to Rome.
    If there is no such thing as Apostolic succession, where the authority of the officeholder passes to his replacement upon the officeholder's death, then how do you explain Acts 1:20-26, where the Eleven confer Judas' authority as an Apostle on Matthias? How do you explain the many references to the mantle of authority being passed on by laying on of hands or by Apostolic appointment (Acts 14:23, Eph 2:20, 1 Tim 4:14, 1 Tim 5:22, Titus 1:5)?

    Blessings,
    ---Wols.
     
  11. KC Catholic

    KC Catholic Everybody's gone surfin'...Surfin' U.S.A

    +76
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Ooo...ooooo...ooooo...Mr. Kotter...can I answer this one?

    In fact, if you look at the actions of the disciples after Christ's resurrection and appearance that Peter's role as the leader became more evident.

    Peter lead the decision to pick a disciple to replace Judas, when ever there is a decision, the other disciples look to Peter for the leadership.

    Other examples:
    There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32).

    Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-2:cool: . On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7).

    It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34).

    He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-4:cool: .

    borrowed from Catholic Answers
    www.catholic.com/library/...Papacy.asp
     
  12. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    +1,762
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
  13. You people are no fun to argue with. :(
     
  14. KC Catholic

    KC Catholic Everybody's gone surfin'...Surfin' U.S.A

    +76
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    We do our homework here...
     
  15. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    +1,762
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    LOL. Probably not, but we're good sports about it. Let's all go out for a sandwich. I'm buying. :)
     
  16. VOW52

    VOW52 Guest

    +0
    Blalron stated:

    So then I replied:

    Then I further posed:

    (anyone notice I'm finally getting the hang of the EZCodes? <snort>)

    It was very plain in that Scripture: Jesus GAVE the keys to the kingdom to Peter. So, by Blalron's reasoning, when Peter died, OR when the Church councils got together and assembled the New Testament, the Keys got lost/misplaced/forgotten? Hey! WHY would anyone need Keys, anyhow? To control who gets into Heaven, maybe? That's why *I* lock my car, my front door, even my desk at work. And if I go out of town and ask someone to watch my house, I will pass my keys to someone I trust. OR, if I sell my car, I'll be a nice person and include the keys along with the title.

    I also said:

    Now this makes me think them keys were pretty doggone important. Don't you think if the possession of these keys was just a TEMPORARY thing, as Blalron seems to think, that Jesus would have taken them back again?

    I just don't get it. Whenever we show, through Scripture, no less, that Catholicism IS indeed Scriptural, other people have to work so doggone hard to DISPROVE it. And typically, it is through a tactic that ZooMom pointed out in another thread: usually the disproof consists of "I think..."

    Well, enough water dripping on rock will eventually wear it away. Look at the Grand Canyon!


    Peace be with you,
    ~VOW
     
  17. I have another interpretation. But I'm not going to post it. Two reasons, because I'm afraid you might knock it down. And secondly, because I'm not in the mood for arguing.

    I might go back to this thread, or not. I'm clearly outnumbered so this debate isn't remotely balanced.

    In closing, I say: read the writings of Martin Luther. He was better at arguing then I am. :)
     
  18. Kirkland1244

    Kirkland1244 Regular Member

    195
    +3
    Anglican
    So you're afraid. Well "wah." If you don't have the courage of your convictions, you should go hide out with the other bigots in boards where Catholics are used for little more than target practice.

    I thought you were leaving.

    Kirk
     
  19. ZooMom

    ZooMom Thanks for the memories...

    +983
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    heard anyone say this before while supposedly defending their beliefs.
    If we could 'knock it down' with solid proof, then that means that you are afraid of the TRUTH. Is that what you are saying? That you think it's more important to hold on to your beliefs, even though they may be wrong, than to admit the Church has the better interpretation? That's not even funny. That's just sad.

    Apparently the revolving door is still open. :)
    Numbers don't balance debate, evidence does. And besides, we can only post one at a time. No-one is crowding you.


    God bless...


    Sandy
     
  20. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    +1,762
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    When I go over to Rapture Ready, I am clearly outnumbered. Does this bother me? No---because their arguments are clearly erroneous, and they don't convince me of a thing.

    However, if you still feel uncomfortable discussing your interpretations in an open forum, blalron, feel free to e-mail me, if you like:

    [email protected]

    Blessings,
    ---Wols.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...