Catholics

  • 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!

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
21,668
3,593
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No. Jesus gave him the title of "apostle"...nothing more.

But, the dance here, is you and the Catholic church dancing around and avoiding the "subject" of Christ's statement, which is the revelation by His Father in heaven. Why do you continue to avoid the greater part?
Really - WHEN did Jesus call Peter "Apostle"?
Chapter and verse
, please . . .

In Matt. 16:18, He referred to him as "KEPHA", which means "ROCK" in Aramaic. This is why Paul refers to Peters as "Cephas" in his letters because it is the closest Greek transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha.

Why does it bother you anti-Catholics so much that Jesus singled out Peter as the leader??
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
21,668
3,593
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Ok, I am finished with foolishness here. If anyone is interested in talking about the Roman Catholic Church with an adult, who will be responsive and respect your faith as a fellow follower of Christ, let me know.

I have taught undergraduate courses in church history at a Presbyterian university and I enjoy discussing similarities and differences within the Christian faith. I am also open to correction and will agree to disagree.
Translation:
"I won't tell you why I claim to be Catholic, yet attend a Quaker church because I have no defense for it."

Listen - I'm not the one making false historical statements about the history of the Church here - YOU are.
When I called you on it - all of a sudden, I'm not "adult" enough to respond to.

The truth is that YOU don't have any evidence of your claim and you're looking for a way to dig yourself out of the hole you dug.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
21,668
3,593
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Here:

...You say that Catholics reject anything other than Christ being the Head of the church, then you say the Pope is the earthly Head.

...Wasn't it you who said "You can't have it both ways?" (now hypocrisy).
Joseph was governor of ALL Egypt and had complete and total Authority over EVERYTHING.
Was he Pharoah - or was he Pharoah's chief agent??

Eliakim was given full and complete power over the house of Israel. What he locked remained locked and what he opened remained open (Isa. 22). Sound familiar??

Jesus gave Peter the SAME power in the Kingdom of Heaven and gave his the keys so that WHATEVER he bound on earth would be bound in Heaven - and WHATEVER he loosed on earth would be loosed in Heaven.

Nobody's trying to have it "both ways".
YOU simply reject GOD'S way because of your flawed human understanding . . .
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,959
1,796
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No, there's others of us out there.
Hi Job,

Thank you for joining our conversation. Are you coming after me? o_O

So when the Spirit helps YOU properly interpret His word and the Spirit helps ME properly interpret His word but both of us have DIFFERENT INTERPETATIONS how do we resolve that?

Does the spirit let YOU know who the "OTHERS"are? Or are the "OTHERS" right only if they agree with YOU?
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,959
1,796
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
1 Thessalonians 5
22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.


Praying to images = The appearance of evil.

Pope-John-Paul-II-prays-to-Black-Madonna.jpg
I see a man, kneeling in prayer, just like Jesus did.

Do you, Job, ever kneel and pray?

Curious Mary
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,959
1,796
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Apparently, you didn't study enough or you wouldn't be attending a Quaker church.
Your Authority is the Church (Matt. 16:18019, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23) and Scripture and Tradition.
Hi BOL,

FYI...I have seen news stories of the Pope attending the services of other Churches.

Maybe Aspen simply just means "attend" which is not the same as accepting the Quaker teaching as his authority. That seems to be what you are suggesting.

My two cents worth...Mary
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: aspen

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,959
1,796
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I am not a "believer." I did not know God, ran out of answers and options in life, called out to him, he answered - and now I "know" what I know...first hand.

Nonetheless, I am not condemning all denominational teaching...just some of the motivation and error that comes from them. Nobody's perfect (save Christ) - I get that.
Hi,

How can you say your not a believer? Wouldn't you have to "believe" in a God before you can "call out to him"?

What does that mean, "first hand"?

Did God give you the ability to determine which denominational teachings are in ERROR and which teachings are not in ERROR?

I agree with you. NOBODY is perfect. Since you are not perfect, could you be wrong when you call out BreadOfLife or me for being in ERROR? Or are you always right when you do that?

Curious Mary
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
508
113
73
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Just for the record, BreadofLife does not speak for the Vatican, all Catholics or me; despite his assertions to the contrary.
BreadofLife never says anything contrary to the Church, and is exercising his right to express his faith within his level of competence, which we all do.
There is nothing in the catechism forbidding anyone to attend any church. If you are Catholic, you would be well advised to be well grounded in the faith so as to not be caught up in errors. If you are Catholic, you cannot partake in their communion.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
508
113
73
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
No. If we see a tree growing after many years, we know that it sprouted up at some point. The tree is the evidence. Likewise, a system of belief that raises up a man to be head of the church, is evidence of it self.
So you have no respect for the martyrs, and don't have a clue what was taught in the first 3 centuries, and think there should never have been one person to lead the church. History is your enemy; your concept of "church" didn't exist until recently.

Isaiah 22:19-25

Isaiah 22: 19
Shebna is described as having an "office" and a "station." An office, in order for it to be an office, has successors. In order for an earthly kingdom to last, a succession of representatives is required.

This was the case in the Old Covenant kingdom, and it is the case in the New Covenant kingdom which fulfills the Old Covenant. Jesus our King is in heaven, but He has appointed a chief steward over His household with a plan for a succession of representatives.

Isaiah 22:21 - Eliakim is called “father” or “papa” of God's people. The word Pope used by Catholics to describe the chief steward of the earthly kingdom simply means papa or father in Italian. This is why Catholics call the leader of the Church "Pope." The Pope is the father of God's people, the chief steward of the earthly kingdom and Christ's representative on earth.

Isaiah 22:22 - we see that the keys of the kingdom pass from Shebna to Eliakim. Thus, the keys are used not only as a symbol of authority, but also to facilitate succession. The keys of Christ's kingdom have passed from Peter to Linus all the way to our current Pope with an unbroken lineage for almost 2,000 years.

Isaiah 22:23 And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house.

Revelation 1:18; Revelation 3:7; Revelation 9:1; Revelation 20:1 - Jesus' "keys" undeniably represent authority. By using the word "keys," Jesus gives Peter authority on earth over the new Davidic kingdom, and this was not seriously questioned by anyone until the Protestant reformation 1,500 years later after Peter’s investiture.

Revelation 3:7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: `The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.

Matthew 16:19 - whatever Peter binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven / when the Prime Minister to the King opens, no one shuts. This "binding and loosing" authority allows the keeper of the keys to establish "halakah," or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves.

Jeremiah 33:17 For thus saith the Lord: There shall not be cut off from David a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel.

Jeremiah prophesies that David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the earthly House of Israel. Either this is a false prophecy, or David has a successor of representatives throughout history.

Daniel 2:44 But in the days of those kingdoms the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, and his kingdom shall not be delivered up to another people, and it shall break in pieces, and shall consume all these kingdoms, and itself shall stand for ever.

Daniel prophesies an earthly kingdom that will never be destroyed. Either this is a false prophecy, or the earthly kingdom requires succession.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
21,668
3,593
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi BOL,
FYI...I have seen news stories of the Pope attending the services of other Churches.

Maybe Aspen simply just means "attend" which is not the same as accepting the Quaker teaching as his authority. That seems to be what you are suggesting.

My two cents worth...Mary
Like I said before - intent is everything.
The Pope attends other services for reasons of ecumenism - not doctrine.
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,959
1,796
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Like I said before - intent is everything.
The Pope attends other services for reasons of ecumenism - not doctrine.
If Aspen said it i missed it.

Did Aspen say he was attending the Quaker meetings for their doctrine?

Mary
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
508
113
73
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Matthew 16:17-19

Protestant scholars have taken a more dispassionate look at this text, they have come to agree more and more that Jesus was referring to Peter himself as the rock. Of course, they disagree with the Catholic interpretation of what this means, but many now agree that the Catholic explanation of the grammar of the text is correct.

W.F. Albright (Protestant) and C.S. Mann
“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence…The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

Albert Barnes (Nineteenth-Century Presbyterian)
"The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion"
[Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].

John Broadus (Nineteenth-Century Calvinistic Baptist)
"As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession"
[Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].

Craig L. Blomberg (Baptist)
"The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification"
[New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].

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

J. Knox Chamblin (Contemporary Presbyterian)
"By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself"
["Matthew" in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].

R.T. France (Anglican)
“Jesus now sums up Peter's significance in a name, Peter . . . It describes not so much Peter's character (he did not prove to be 'rock-like' in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus' church. The feminine word for 'rock', 'petra', is necessarily changed to the masculine 'petros' (stone) to give a man's name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form 'kepha' would occur in both places). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the 'rock' here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. "The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied. . . Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus' new community . . . which will last forever.” (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985], vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)

William Hendriksen (Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary)
“The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.”
(New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973], page 647JPK page 14]

Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)
"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Catholics to justify the papacy"
(Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

David Hill (Presbyterian)
“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)

Herman Ridderbos (Contemporary Dutch Reformed)
"It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter" [Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].

For the Protestant Reformers to rationalize breaking away from what was universally acknowledged in their culture as the Christian Church, it was necessary for them to deny the Catholic Church’s authority. To maintain their positions, they were forced to portray it as a kind of "anti-Church" that was unjustly claiming the prerogatives of Christ’s true (but invisible) Church.

Their chief target was, of course, the pope. To justify breaking away from the successor of Peter, they had to undercut the Petrine office itself. They were forced to deny the plain reading of Matthew 16:18—that Jesus made Peter the rock on which he would build his Church.
 

ScottA

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
13,101
6,208
113
www.FinishingTheMystery.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Really - WHEN did Jesus call Peter "Apostle"?
Chapter and verse
, please . . .
Luke 6:13
"And when it was day, He called His disciples to Himself;and from them He chose twelve whom He also named apostles:"
Why does it bother you anti-Catholics so much that Jesus singled out Peter as the leader??
Because He didn't single him out as a leader (any more than he singled out the rest of His apostles).

When you (and the Catholic church) believe Christ singled out Peter, he was not even the subject of Jesus' question - Jesus simply used Peter to make his point of how He (not who) would build His church: that being by revelation from His Father in heaven.
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,082
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
When you (and the Catholic church) believe Christ singled out Peter, he was not even the subject of Jesus' question - Jesus simply used Peter to make his point of how He (not who) would build His church: that being by revelation from His Father in heaven.
ya, but good luck convincing people who have already accepted that it is ok to confess to some guy in a closet. We are simply comparing apples and oranges. Catholicism is not Christianity, and isn't about to be.
 

ScottA

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
13,101
6,208
113
www.FinishingTheMystery.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Joseph was governor of ALL Egypt and had complete and total Authority over EVERYTHING.
Was he Pharoah - or was he Pharoah's chief agent??

Eliakim was given full and complete power over the house of Israel. What he locked remained locked and what he opened remained open (Isa. 22). Sound familiar??

Jesus gave Peter the SAME power in the Kingdom of Heaven and gave his the keys so that WHATEVER he bound on earth would be bound in Heaven - and WHATEVER he loosed on earth would be loosed in Heaven.

Nobody's trying to have it "both ways".
YOU simply reject GOD'S way because of your flawed human understanding . . .
Why are you so keen to site God raising up leaders, but not to hear what he has [actually] said to Peter?

Peter was not even the subject of Christ's question to Peter - and you have completely missed His point.

As for the power to bind or loose, read further down in chapter 18. Jesus clarifies (what you have mistaken), addressing all his disciples, not just Peter, and not referring to who would be revered, but how the greatest would be like a little child.
 

ScottA

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
13,101
6,208
113
www.FinishingTheMystery.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi,

How can you say your not a believer? Wouldn't you have to "believe" in a God before you can "call out to him"?

What does that mean, "first hand"?

Did God give you the ability to determine which denominational teachings are in ERROR and which teachings are not in ERROR?

I agree with you. NOBODY is perfect. Since you are not perfect, could you be wrong when you call out BreadOfLife or me for being in ERROR? Or are you always right when you do that?

Curious Mary
No, I simply took a chance, even dared Him to answer.

"First hand" means, I was not taught and did not hear from others, but received directly from God.

Yes, if denominational teachings do not wash with what God has revealed to me, then the error is clear.

It is no longer I who lives, but Christ who lives in me - and it is He who is not wrong.