Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Peter is the rock that Jesus built His Church
Oh. You fooled me again.Hey Wrangler.....I never said, and The Church has never taught that Peter was THE rock of The Church
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
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!
Peter is the rock that Jesus built His Church
Oh. You fooled me again.Hey Wrangler.....I never said, and The Church has never taught that Peter was THE rock of The Church
Oh goodness Wrangler.....you put the FUN in funny.Oh. You fooled me again.
It's so funny that after 38 pages, you pretend like your interpretation "in other words" is not understood.In other words Peter takes over leadership of The Church upon His crucifixion
Once again, Einstein – “blasphemy” is the mockery of God – not of YOU.The church Paul was persecuting was NOT the Catholic Church whose headquarters is in the Vatican.
Paul was persecuting the church, yes.
So are you.
And your cult is not a church, since you claim there is no salvation outside of your cult. And your cult is full of false doctrines and evil practices and does not even know let alone teach the true gospel of God.
And you are a blasphemer, equating Christ with the fallible, mortal men in your cult who are both capable of sin and who commit the sin of blasphemy against Christ, and claiming that whoever rejects the authority of your cult is rejecting the authority of the one and only true Christ.
Your cult is the thief and the robber who does not go in by the door in John 10. Your cult is the voice of the stranger:
John 10
1 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter into the sheepfold by the door, but going up by another way, that one is a thief and a robber.
2 But he who enters in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
3 The doorkeeper opens to him, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
4 And when he puts forth his own sheep, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him. For they know his voice.
5 And they will not follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.
Though the above reference to the thief and robber is true of your cult, you do not understand this, because you cannot hear.
And you cannot hear because you are not of His sheep. You are a blasphemer:
26 But you did not believe because you are not of My sheep. As I said to you,
27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.
28 And I give to them eternal life, and they shall never ever perish, and not anyone shall pluck them out of My hand.
29 My Father who gave them to me is greater than all, and no one is able to pluck them out of My Father's hand.
30 I and the Father are one!
I’m sticking with the ONLY Church established by Jesus Christ and His Apostles.You really wanna stick with a church that by her own mouth disqualifies herself as the "remnant" church?
Then you're NOT part of Christ's Church . . .No one on Earth rules over me. I am a free man and know Scripture; where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And it ain’t with you Peterians!
Scripture doesn't say, I have never said in our conversations and The Church has never said that one has to believe "Peter is the head of the church as a condition to be saved". ANOTHER false accusation....Tisk Tisk. But that is par for the course with you.However, I think it is clear that Jesus' use of the word "this" is not referring to the person of Peter but his Confession. This is consistent with other Scripture. Romans 10:9 NLT If you openly declare that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
NOTICE It does not declare that believing Peter is the head of the church as a condition to be saved? I think you are incapable of admitting this because then your house of cards will fall.
It's so funny that you can't address all the FACTS I posted.....It's so funny that after 38 pages, you pretend like your interpretation "in other words" is not understood.
IF this were a legitimate take, we submit Jesus would have said that. Moreover, you are doubling down on your pretension that there is a doctrinal purity test of salvation with believing this "in other words" as one of the top conditions of salvation. It is not.
However, I think it is clear that Jesus' use of the word "this" is not referring to the person of Peter but his Confession. This is consistent with other Scripture. Romans 10:9 NLT If you openly declare that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
NOTICE It does not declare that believing Peter is the head of the church as a condition to be saved? I think you are incapable of admitting this because then your house of cards will fall.
@Wrangler doesn't like those verses so he scratched them out of his bible.Then you're NOT part of Christ's Church . . .
1 Tim. 5:17
Let the elders that RULE WELL be counted worthy of DOUBLE HONOUR, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
1 Thess. 5:12
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are OVER YOU in the Lord and who admonish you,
No, "later" was correct. The apostles were not filled with the Holy Spirit until came. He first came--then they were filled.
Did you even read Fitzmyer's refutation in BAR?Many Protestants base their rejection of the Catholic view off of the supposed difference in meaning between Petros and Petra. That difference in meaning doesn’t really exist in the Greek spoken at the time of Christ. But in any case, as John 1:43 shows, Jesus named Peter “Cephas” in Aramaic, which is the exact same word as “Rock.” In Aramaic it’s Cephas and cephas; literally translating that to Greek would give you Petra and petra, which is a problem, since Petra is feminine, and can’t be used as a man’s name. So St. Matthew renders it as the male Petros instead.
Even if Protestants were right about the proper interpretation of “the Rock” in Matthew 16, the broader passage still supports the papacy, since it shows the foundation of an institutional Church, and the giving of specific powers (the Keys, and the powers of binding/loosening) to Peter individually. For this reason, you can have Fathers like St. Augustine, who aren’t sure on the proper interpretation of “the Rock,” but are steadfast in their belief in the papacy, based upon Petrine authority. IN fact, even if Matthew 16 didn’t exist, there would still be abundant support for the papacy throughout the rest of Scripture and in the testimony of the early Christians.
Where?But you already know that because it's in Scripture.
Where?But you already know that because it's in Scripture.
Paul says follow the traditions he taught and practised. Not what future popes would command without the authority.You are admitting it is a Church tradition AND Scripture says hold fast to Traditions but you say that you don't have to adhere to what Scripture says about traditions.
Except they didn't. Show me one example on scripture of a meeting on the first day of the week for the purpose of worship and hearing the gospel. Just one., The Lords Day, just like the Apostles did 2,000 years ago.
"Petra is feminine" is like the grammar of French. It has nothing to due with Gender.Many Protestants base their rejection of the Catholic view off of the supposed difference in meaning between Petros and Petra. That difference in meaning doesn’t really exist in the Greek spoken at the time of Christ. But in any case, as John 1:43 shows, Jesus named Peter “Cephas” in Aramaic, which is the exact same word as “Rock.” In Aramaic it’s Cephas and cephas; literally translating that to Greek would give you Petra and petra, which is a problem, since Petra is feminine, and can’t be used as a man’s name. So St. Matthew renders it as the male Petros instead.
Even if Protestants were right about the proper interpretation of “the Rock” in Matthew 16, the broader passage still supports the papacy, since it shows the foundation of an institutional Church, and the giving of specific powers (the Keys, and the powers of binding/loosening) to Peter individually. For this reason, you can have Fathers like St. Augustine, who aren’t sure on the proper interpretation of “the Rock,” but are steadfast in their belief in the papacy, based upon Petrine authority. IN fact, even if Matthew 16 didn’t exist, there would still be abundant support for the papacy throughout the rest of Scripture and in the testimony of the early Christians.
Just curious; how did they do this stuff:
Luke 10
1After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead of Him, two by two, into every town and place where He himself was about to go... 9Heal the sick in it and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you... 17The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name!”... 19Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you.
It's always confused me the way people restrict the activity of the Holy Spirit to times and places. I get that the Pentecost outpouring was special, but I don't see it as being as exclusive as some make it out to be.
.
Please read the Shepard of Hermas sometime Brother, FriendMany Protestants base their rejection of the Catholic view off of the supposed difference in meaning between Petros and Petra. That difference in meaning doesn’t really exist in the Greek spoken at the time of Christ. But in any case, as John 1:43 shows, Jesus named Peter “Cephas” in Aramaic, which is the exact same word as “Rock.” In Aramaic it’s Cephas and cephas; literally translating that to Greek would give you Petra and petra, which is a problem, since Petra is feminine, and can’t be used as a man’s name. So St. Matthew renders it as the male Petros instead.
Even if Protestants were right about the proper interpretation of “the Rock” in Matthew 16, the broader passage still supports the papacy, since it shows the foundation of an institutional Church, and the giving of specific powers (the Keys, and the powers of binding/loosening) to Peter individually. For this reason, you can have Fathers like St. Augustine, who aren’t sure on the proper interpretation of “the Rock,” but are steadfast in their belief in the papacy, based upon Petrine authority. IN fact, even if Matthew 16 didn’t exist, there would still be abundant support for the papacy throughout the rest of Scripture and in the testimony of the early Christians.
Brother, Friend I enjoy learning from others.Time for a Bible Lesson . . .
The Church is the Bride of Christ.
In Rev. 12, the Church - the Bride - is described as the New Jerusalem coming down from Heaven.
- She is described as having TWELVE foundations of precious stones (Rev 12:9-14).
- Each foundation is emblazoned with the name of each of the TELVE Apostles.
- Peter is the FIRST among the Apostles, as the Scriptures emphatically state (Matt. 10:2, Mark. 3:16, Luke 6:14, Luke 22:31-32, John 21:15-19, Acts 1:13).
WHOSE name do you suppose will be on the first Foundation?
Kepha – Cephas – Peter.
simply brings to mind:Are you serious?
Revelation 12:9-14
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Nothing about new Jerusalem or the church being the bride or twelve stones.
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
Nothing about new Jerusalem or the church being the bride or twelve stones.
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
Nothing about new Jerusalem or the church being the bride or twelve stones.
12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.
Nothing about new Jerusalem or the church being the bride or twelve stones.
13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.
Nothing about new Jerusalem or the church being the bride or twelve stones.
14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
Nothing about new Jerusalem or the church being the bride or twelve stones.
Either you’re just making up things, or your Bible is broken, either way that was the worse Bible lesson ever!
In that context Satan simply means Adversary.If only our papal antichrist friends would understand that Jesus would never choose someone He called "Satan" to build His church upon. He built it upon the unquestionable authority of God's Word...not some man who catholics claims his word "precedes and God subscribes to it".
starts with bedrock Brother, friendWhy is this so hard to understand?
A church (building) starts with a corner stone then the foundation is laid. That corner stone (rock) has to be perfect or the foundation will be uneven. Peter was not perfect, but there is a perfect rock.
Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.