ScottA
Well-Known Member
- Feb 24, 2011
- 11,744
- 5,599
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Peter the Rock?
- Thread starter Marymog
- Start date
-
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!
- Status
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,424
- 1,681
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Translation: The Holy Spirit guides me in everything I say.
Which makes my statement true: ScottA believes he is divinely guided by the Holy Spirit.
ScottA
Well-Known Member
- Feb 24, 2011
- 11,744
- 5,599
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Translation: The Holy Spirit guides me in everything I say.
Which makes my statement true: ScottA believes he is divinely guided by the Holy Spirit.
The very thing that was promised--you mock. Very telling.
Peter spoke of this.
Last edited:
Mosheli
Active Member
Then why did Jesus' call Peter rock Mosheli?
He used the word YOU 6 times in those verses. But for some reason some YOU don't see that. YOU and others see ME ME ME ME ME ME...Jesus is talking about ME getting the keys to the kingdom.
Just because Jesus called Peter rock does not mean that Jesus can't also be the rock. Jesus said "I will give you" the keys to the kingdom. Jesus is the rock (of The Church) when he is alive. Peter becomes the rock (of The Church) after Jesus' crucifixion. Jesus has the keys when he is alive. Peter inherits the keys when He is crucified.
I find it fascinating that you and @Cassandra @marks @JohnDB and @L.A.M.B can't see that!
Mary
I asked a Messianic and below is what he said (underlinings mine) :
"First off, we need to clear up this idea of the”church” just supernaturally springing up after Yeshua’s ascension. The “church,” meaning the Catholic Church did not even begin to form until the mid 4th century. There was an idea of a catholic (universal) church, but that had been around for millennia. Constantine had a perverse form of that dream. He never believed in Yeshua, but he saw the “Yeshua movement” and the disparate churches (plural) as a vehicle by which to unify the equally disparate lands and peoples he had conquered. So he called the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. All one must do to absolutely quash the idea of a Catholic Church prior to this is study the history of that council. They all had their own ideas abut God, Yeshua, the Holy Spirit, and church order. Constantine had to step in and settle most of the disputes in an authoritarian and wholly arbitrary manner; and he worshiped not Yeshua, nor even God, but rather Sol Invictus. He worshiped the sun. So even if Peter had been in Rome (which you are correct, there is no evidence he ever was), he could not have been establishing the Catholic Church. It never existed in any form until the mid 4th cen. And even then it took a lot of time and many more ecumenical councils to form what we know as the “church” - then they split! Seems East and West still could not agree.
"Yeshua is the rock; but more than that FAITH in Yeshua is the rock upon which His assembly will be, and IS formed. Read in context:
Matthew 16:13-19 Now when Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah, or one of the other prophets.” He *said to them, “But who do you yourselves say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ [ha’moshiach, the Messiah], the Son of the living God.” And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter [petros, a stone], and upon this rock [petra, massive rock formation; bedrock] I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind [forbid] on earth shall have been bound in heaven [fut. pft. pass. tense], and whatever you loose [permit] on earth shall have been loosed in heaven [fut. pft. pass. tense].”
This is a key passage in the argument you are discussing; and one that is (usually intentionally) misinterpreted. The tenses in v. 19 and the different use of the terms “rock” and “bedrock,” as well as the terms “bind” and “loose” are significant. Peters name (as you said) means “rock.” But on bedrock God would build His assembly. That bedrock, I believe is Peters faith, or more accurately faith like Peters. Peter trusted what God had revealed to him- Yeshua, the man standing in front of him was Almighty God in human form, come as ha’moshiach; the long awaited Messiah, in whom Peter placed his trust. Peter was a man, and when that faith/trust would later be tested he would fail. But when his God/Messiah later reached out to him his overwhelming love, faith and trust became unshakable.
"What was happening here was Peter became the first apostle to receive his s’micha, or ordination. Binding and loosing referred to his now being able to make halacha, or rulings on the minutia of how we observe Torah- God’s instructions for holy (set apart) living. As a shaliach, or representative the apostles would be sent to different regions. God Himself realized no one set of instructions could be comprehensive, usable to all men in all times and places. So He (Yeshua/God) gave us His Torah, which is immutable; it cannot be changed. This fact is important when recognizing the false beliefs of the Catholic Church when they changed commandments like the 7th day Shabbat to the 1st day, Sunday; and the calendrical method of a day being sundown to sundown to the Gregorian method of midnight to midnight (witching hour to witching hour).
"Halacha are rulings made on how we keep Torah. My favorite example is someone today in a polar region where days and nights are a bit longer than in equatorial regions. It would be wholly impractical to say every 7th sundown begins the biblical Sabbath. So what might a shaliach do? He’d give the convert a clock and a calendar and have him keep Shabbat based on those, not on actual sundowns. Torah is not changed, but it is observed a bit differently at the poles and at the equator.
"Those keys were his s’micha; and represented his authority to set halacha. But when a shaliach sets halacha it must be in accordance with the Word, of which he must be extremely familiar and knowledgable. And it is done prayerfully and in accordance with God’s will. He must be very attuned to hearing God when He reveals something, and full of discernment to tell this is actually from God and not his own will, or worse a word from satanic sources. Peter displayed this quality there in front of “The Gates of Hell,” a literal pagan shrine where they were. This was not just an ordination, it was a slap in the face of the enemy; a challenge to that final duel between Yeshua/God and ha’satan, the enemy of our souls.
"I believe this is why Peters ordeal when Yeshua was crucified is referenced. He was a central figure in this challenge, so we are shown if you want to do anything that challenges ha’satan or his plans, expect a spiritual battle which may likely be experienced in the physical realm. Peter was in danger, had he been recognized as a coconspirator with Yeshua in challenging Roman authority/beliefs. So you may experience some kind of spiritual or physical (or both) problems when you challenge the beliefs of those who are arguing with you here. Just know Yeshua lives, and He is the absolute authority. And He still reaches out to us, saying “”follow Me, just as He did with Peter and all the rest of the disciples, soon to get their own s’micha making them apostles, ready to take on the world!"
"God is a God of order, and someone has always been in charge. Shaliachim (many shaliach tziburim) would be sent out to form, and become titular heads of the assemblies they formed. The term “shaliach tzibur” simply means “representative of the assembly.” The Greek term meaning the same is “apostolos.” In English, “apostle(s).”"
"The apostles were themselves representatives of the community, the sect of the Notsarim. James, brother of Yeshua was the head of this sect/community/assembly."
"This is a good place to clear up the term “church.” The church fathers translated the term differently in the LXX Old, and the several New Testament sources. In the OT it was an assembly, which is the proper way to read it. In the New, because they wanted to build a new religion they call it a “church.” This gives readers the idea of something new and different. But the only unified “church” was the Jewish sect of the Notsarim, or Nazarines- the sect most base the contemporary Messianic movement on (as much as possible).
Acts 24:5 For we have found this man a public menace and one who stirs up dissensions among all the Jews throughout the world [Lit the inhabited earth], and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.
So at least Tertulian thought at the time that Rav Shaul was head of the sect which actually had “apostolic succession”- unless the church wants to argue Paul was not an apostle (which I seriously doubt they would)."
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
Your Messianic friend is wrong.
- 136 years before the Council of Nicaea Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, and a disciple of Saint Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John, proclaimed that all churches must be in unity with the Church of Rome, which was established by Peter and Paul.
The Protestant idea that the papacy was a fifth century invention relies on a false understanding of the papacy itself. After the establishment of the church at Constantine’s conversion the church hierarchy did indeed become more influential in the kingdoms of this world, but that is not the essence of the papacy. The essence of the papacy lies in Jesus’ ordination of Peter as his royal steward, and his commission to assume the role of Good Shepherd in Christ’s absence. The idea, therefore, that Leo the Great was the first ‘pope’ is a red herring based on a misunderstanding of the pope’s true role.
The Early Church Today
From the Reformation onward, Protestant Christians have fallen into the trap of Restorationism. This is the idea that the existing church has become corrupt and departed from the true gospel and that a new church that is faithful to the New Testament can be created. These sincere Christians then attempt to ‘restore’ the church by creating a new church. The problem is, each new group of restorationists invariably create a church of their own liking determined by their contemporary cultural assumptions. They then imagine that the early church was like the one they have invented.
All of the historical documents show that, in essence, the closest thing we have today to the early church is actually the Catholic Church. In these main points the Catholic Church is today what she has always been. Her leadership is unapologetically monarchical and hierarchical. Her teaching authority is centralized and universal, and the pope is what he has always been, the universal pastor of Christ’s Church, the steward of Christ’s kingdom and the Rock on which Christ builds his Church.
Authority of the First Popes - Fr. Dwight Longenecker
The Early Church and the Development of the Papacy The Trail of Blood Some time ago an acquaintance from my days as a fundamentalist sent me an email.
www.patheos.com
Philip James
Well-Known Member
False.
The episcopal model of the Church is found in every community founded by an apostle.. feel free to demonstrate otherwise..
Pax et Bonum
Because there is a proverbial elephant in the room that you are not seeing. That Elephant is the location and anthropology of the Ancient Near East.Then why did Jesus' call Peter rock Mosheli?
He used the word YOU 6 times in those verses. But for some reason some YOU don't see that. YOU and others see ME ME ME ME ME ME...Jesus is talking about ME getting the keys to the kingdom.
Just because Jesus called Peter rock does not mean that Jesus can't also be the rock. Jesus said "I will give you" the keys to the kingdom. Jesus is the rock (of The Church) when he is alive. Peter becomes the rock (of The Church) after Jesus' crucifixion. Jesus has the keys when he is alive. Peter inherits the keys when He is crucified.
I find it fascinating that you and @Cassandra @marks @JohnDB and @L.A.M.B can't see that!
Mary
You refuse to even look at what I'm saying. I can't make you look...can't force you to learn. Most of those here in this thread refuse to look at the very common knowledge and instead retain a very myopic view focusing on just a few words taken out of context to form a theology upon.
Sola scriptura is a lousy hermeneutic principle and even Catholics know better than that. There isn't anyone who truly uses it because people can read and write so outside knowledge is Always used. And in this case the history and location is important to understanding what Jesus said and why he said what He said in the manner He said it in.
Jesus ALWAYS gave very visual pictures in the lessons He gave....from mustard seeds to farmers and women baking bread. Everything was a word picture. But here we don't? That's absurd and a deliberate eisogesis.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Bravo! It takes a lot of talent to come up with such a comedic list.
Catholics like to pretend corruption is in others. They deny their quest for power early on was the 1st corruption. Peter's lack of leadership is seen in his lack of Biblical writing. History shows that it was not until the 4th century that Catholics claimed Peter was the 1st Pope.
I still laugh at the biggest joke; that an all-powerful, all-knowing God would not rely on his own power and wisdom to build his church but that of a man. That's creative interpretation at its finest! I remind such folks the church is not called Peterians for a reason.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Mary,
The heart of liberty is acting on one's own conscious. I applaud @ScottA for acting per the dictates of his conscious, as all freedom loving people must.
Regarding the question of him being guided by the Holy Spirit; it's shocking that you slanderously imply that may not be the case. If what he says is true, we have no right to oppose him. If he is wrong, we have no authority to oppose him. Leaving you and your power hungry ilk as nothing but dust in the wind.
I pray you consider the role of freedom in God's plan for us.
Wrangler
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Hey Mary, you delightful detective of divine discussions! First off, kudos for recognizing the Calvinistic Comedy Hour – it's like theological stand-up with a celestial twist.
Now, the million-dollar question – am I Team Calvin or just poking fun? Well, picture this: I'm like the cosmic jester, donning theological hats for the giggles. As for disagreements with Calvin, oh, you bet! We might have a friendly celestial debate over coffee (or cocoa for those caffeine-averse angels).
I could be like, "John, buddy, predestination – that's a real brain teaser!" But hey, in the divine comedy club, we embrace the diversity of opinions, right?
Now, here's the cosmic twist – funny conversations aren't just for divine kicks; they're like magnets for more heavenly beings and advertisers. The more laughs, the merrier the forum! It's like turning this celestial spot into the hottest cosmic hangout. So, keep the questions rolling, Mary – we're making theological banter the talk of the celestial town! #DivineBanter #AdvertainmentMagic
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,424
- 1,681
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Thanks for your opinion, Wrangler.
As a freedom loving person I acted per the dictates of my conscious and I pointed out that ScottA sincerely believes the Holy Spirit is guiding HIM into the proper interpretation of Scripture. So far, I am within your guidelines of what us freedom loving people MUST do.
Regarding your opinion on opposing ScottA: He has opposed me and others multiple times on this forum. I have looked back for any post from you to ScottA telling him how shocked you are and how slanderous it is for HIM to do that. Did I miss that post from you to him?
But then I realize what this is really about. This is about your opposition to The Church, or what you call "power hungry ilk", and since I am a member of The Church you are going to come after me and try to put me and The Church in our place.
The men of The Church believe they are being guided by the Holy Spirit and they act per the dictates of their conscious. They meet YOUR criteria. Can you show me ONE post where you defended their right to do that just like you defended ScottA's right?
There is one thing that you said that is true: If what he (ScottA) says is true, we have no right to oppose him. You are right. When ScottA says something true, I don't oppose him! Duh! What if ScottA and I agreed on the same thing regarding an interpretation of a passage from Scripture and you disagree with us. You believe our interpretation is not true. Would you oppose us? According to your own criteria, you can't!!
I pray you, Wrongler and @ScottA ,consider what Scripture says. Scripture says that some men twist Scripture to their own destruction! It says that a time will come when Christians will not endure sound doctrine and they will turn their ears away from the truth. Scripture says that the overseers of The Church are to take care of the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made them overseers. Scripture says to obey the overseers and submit ourselves to them for they watch for our souls. Scripture warns about savage wolves that will come in among us, not sparing the flock and from among the flock men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples of Christ. So now I have to decide. Is ScottA an overseer of The Church or not? Well, all 3 of us know the answer to that!! I will adhere to the teachings of Scripture and not the teachings of some random guy who wrote a book and believes the Holy Spirit is giving him THE truth and everyone else that says the Holy Spirit gave them the truth is wrong....that is unless they agree with his truth, then they are right.
Scripture does not say that God gave each individual "freedom" to personally interpret Scripture and think we are right because we think we are being guided by the Holy Spirit. If that were true, then Scripture has no truth because there would be 5 different 'true' interpretations of one passage from Scripture.
Now, notice how I used Scripture to back up what I said, and you didn't? None the less...Thank you for your opinion.
Mary
Last edited:
Ah, Wrangler, you're rustling up some theological dust with your thoughts on the papal system – let's wrangle those cosmic cattle of criticism with a comedic lasso:Bravo! It takes a lot of talent to come up with such a comedic list.
Catholics like to pretend corruption is in others. They deny their quest for power early on was the 1st corruption. Peter's lack of leadership is seen in his lack of Biblical writing. History shows that it was not until the 4th century that Catholics claimed Peter was the 1st Pope.
I still laugh at the biggest joke; that an all-powerful, all-knowing God would not rely on his own power and wisdom to build his church but that of a man. That's creative interpretation at its finest! I remind such folks the church is not called Peterians for a reason.
First off, your observation about Catholics playing hide-and-seek with corruption is like saying, "We're just rearranging the celestial furniture; corruption's probably in the cosmic couch cushions." The early power quest? It's the original theological treasure hunt – who needs a map when you've got divine ambition?
And the jab at Peter's leadership skills, or lack thereof, based on his writing portfolio – it's like saying, "If you're not penning scrolls, you're not steering the divine ship!" Peter, the minimalist leader, letting his celestial deeds do the talking.
Now, the history lesson that Catholics didn't claim Peter as the first Pope until the 4th century – it's like a celestial plot twist in the grand drama of ecclesiastical evolution. A delayed cosmic coronation for Peter, with a touch of divine suspense.
And that punchline about an all-powerful God outsourcing church-building duties to a mere mortal – it's a divine sitcom script! God, the heavenly CEO, delegating to Peter, the cosmic project manager. Talk about divine collaboration – like a celestial reality show!
But your best zinger, reminding folks it's not called Peterians for a reason – it's like saying, "Let's keep it broad, people; no need for a brand overhaul when we've got the whole Gospel ensemble!" A celestial marketing strategy at its finest.
So, Wrangler, you've herded those papal critiques with a touch of comedic flair. Keep those cosmic jokes rolling – we're riding the theological range where every laugh is a stampede of wisdom! #CosmicCritiques #TheologicalWrangling
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,424
- 1,681
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Dear Scott,
Scripture does not promise that YOU or any other Christian can personally and properly interpret Scripture. I am not mocking you. I am telling you a FACT. You think you are being mocked because you think the Holy Spirit is guiding you personally into the proper interpretation of Scripture. If I had a dollar for every time I heard that, I would have several thousand dollars. You and all the men from the Reformation would each owe me a dollar. If you were alive during their time you would have opposing books on what the Holy Spirit told YOU....which would be different than what the Holy Spirit told them. HEY, that's a great idea. Write another book Scott. In your book reveal what the Holy Spirit told you and then do a side by side of the Reformers Holy Spirit revelations. Show everyone in the world how the Reformers were wrong and the Holy Spirit lied to them and how you are right.
Mary
Last edited:
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,424
- 1,681
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,424
- 1,681
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Oh goodness Mosheli. Someone lied to you and you didn't do any research to figure that out.
THE CHURCH did 'spring up' after Jesus ascension. The Church makes doctrinal decisions for all Christians. The Church decides what Christians are to believe/practice. Jesus made those decision when he was alive. After the ascension The Apostles made those decisions and acted as The Church at the Council of Jerusalem when they made a decision that was binding upon all Christians. We, members of The Church, are to go to The Church to settle our differences and if one of the members of The Church refuse to listen to The Church then The Church can kick them out of The Church (Matthew 18:17). The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). The Catholic Church, one led by bishops that are appointed via apostolic succession, is first mentioned in 110AD by a student of the Apostle John. Scripturally and historically, it is proven that your men lied to you when they told you that the Catholic Church didn't even begin to form until the mid 4th century.
Going on your theory (the theory you were taught by your men) that the Catholic Church didn't begin until the 4th century; Who were all those people that met at Constantine's request? Just a rag tag group of men in different parts of the world teaching their own version of Scripture with different "truths"? And then one day they all came together and just agreed on every Truth that the Catholic Church teaches today? Your theory makes no sense.....I mean, what your men have taught you makes no sense.
Mary
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,950
- 3,391
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
“Satan” simply means “adversary”. Peter’s advice to Jesus – although well-intentioned, we adversarial.
Showing that Peter was a flawed human being doesn’t “disqualify” Him from any leadership role that Jesus chose to bestow upon him.
I’m not sure who “You” is – but I’ve never claimed nor even hinted that I am my “own” Authority.
Let’s NOT add bearing false witness to your erroneous positions.
I realize that you couldn’t address ANY of my points with an actual Scriptural rebuttal – hence, the bad jokes.
Next time - just admit it so we can move on . . .
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,950
- 3,391
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Yes, I've dealt with him before - and all of his convoluted Scriptural theories.
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,424
- 1,681
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
To the best of my knowledge we have covered this already sooooo there is no "elephant in the room".
Mary
- Status
Similar threads
