Peter the Rock?

The Learner · Jan 31, 2024

29. What is the lighting of the Hanukkah lamps?

In the time of the second temple there was a period, when a heathen kind, by the name of Antiochus of Syria, had nearly abolished the observance of our religion, by the great cruelties he committed in Palestine, over which he had dominion. At length the Jews, led on by the valiant Judas Maccabaeus, drove the Syrian army out of the land; and when the people again consecrated the temple they instituted a festival, called Hanukkah, or the Consecration, and ordered that for all future periods lamps should be lighted in our synagogues and dwellings, commencing from the evening of the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, or Kislev, as an everlasting memorial of the mercy of the Lord, displayed in delivering his people and his religion from the power of the oppressor.

30. What is the festival of Purim?

We shall celebrate a festival on the fourteenth and fifteenth of the twelfth month, Adar, in memory of the great deliverance which God gave us from the evil designs of Haman, who, with concurrence of the kind of Persia, has resolved to destroy all the Jews residing in that kingdom, which in fact included nearly, if not all, the descendants of Israel. We therefore keep a fast on the thirteenth, and a festival on the next two days; and to commemorate the event, we read the Book of Esther which contains the history thereof; in order that we may be always reminded how good our heavenly Father has ever been to us; and that thereby we may be animated with a sincere desire to deserve in future his love and mercy, by a devotion to his will and a strict adherence to his law.

"The Jews ordained, and took upon themselves, and upon their seed, and upon all such as joined themselves unto them, so that it should not fail, that they would keep these two days according to their writing, and according to their appointed time every year. And that these days should be remembered and kept throughout every generation, every family, every province, and every city; and that these days of Purim should not fail from among the Jews, nor the memorial of them perish from their seed." Esther ix. 27, 28.

31. By what is this festival distinguished?

We should give liberal presents to the poor and needy, so that they also might rejoice "on the days when the Jews rested from their enemies, and the month which was turned unto them from sorrow to joy, and from mourning into a good day; that they should make them days of feasting and joy, and of sending portions one to another, and gifts to the poor." Ibid. 22.

Catechism For Jewish Children: The Ceremonial Law

Jewish-American History on the Web is an online archive of original documents, journals, books and literature on the subject of Jews in the Civil War.

www.jewish-history.com

The Learner · Jan 31, 2024

Both of the following texts has to do with meat offerred to idols.

1 Corinthians 8

New International Version

Concerning Food Sacrificed to Idols

8 Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. 2 Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. 3 But whoever loves God is known by God.[a]
4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
7 But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.

Romans 14

New International Version

14 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.
5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.
10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister[a]? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11 It is written:
“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will acknowledge God.’”
12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.
13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. 14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. 15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.
19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.
22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.[c]

Footnotes

Romans 14:10 The Greek word for brother or sister (adelphos) refers here to a believer, whether man or woman, as part of God’s family; also in verses 13, 15 and 21.
Romans 14:11 Isaiah 45:23
Romans 14:23 Some manuscripts place 16:

Truthnightmare · Jan 31, 2024

Marymog said:
you are Peter, and on this rock

Deny Jesus words all you want. It was written 2,000 years ago for you to read today and it will still be there 2,000 years from now for your ancestors to read.

Hello….

This was addressed by many…..

Matt 16:16-18
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. KJV

The specific words that are key to understanding this are "Peter" and "rock," for they are both derivatives of the same word meaning rock. But the word translated to "Peter" in the verse above (and below) is petros, and the word translated to "rock" is petra. Also, the word "rock" below has the definite article in the Greek (although it is not seen in the English language translation), whereas the word "Peter" (although capitalized in the English translation) does not have the definite article. (Illustration to follow.)

But simply stated, a petros is a small rock; while petra is a large rock, even a solid foundation of stone.

Matt 16:18
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. KJV

Peter: Greek word #4074 Petros (pet'-ros); apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than NT:3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle: KJV - Peter, rock. Compare NT:2786.

rock: Greek word #4073 petra (pet'-ra); feminine of the same as NT:4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): KJV - rock.

(The definite article): Greek word #3588 ho (ho); including the feminine he (hay); and the neuter to (to); in all their inflections; the def. article; the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom): KJV - the, this, that, one, he, she, it, etc..

Click to expand...

Below is a copy of the original Greek words of the key part of the verse. Notice the definite article (tee-Grk. word #3588) preceding "rock":

Also, the word "and" (between "Peter" and "upon") in the above illustration is kai in the Greek and can also be translated to the word "but" in the English. This of course changes the way that this verse is commonly understood. Observe:

and: Greek word #2532 kai (kahee); apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force; and, also, even, so then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words: KJV - and, also, both, but, even, for, if, or, so, that, then, therefore, when, yet.

But to give you a sense of the meaning of the word petra ("rock"), there is a city carved out of the side of a mountain, located in modern day Jordan, which is called Petra. "Peter" (petros) was a movable stone, a smaller piece; petra(translated "rock") was a solid foundation; and incidentally, that Rock was Christ:

1 Cor 10:4
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock [petra] that followed them: and that Rock [petra] was Christ. KJV

Rock: Greek word #4073 petra (pet'-ra); feminine of the same as NT:4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): KJV - rock.

Click to expand...

Truthnightmare · Jan 31, 2024

Augustin56 said:
Good question. What DOES the Bible say? If you have 100 people read the Bible through their own light, you get 100 different answers for some passages. Where does the buck stop? Is there a way to know, with certitude, that the interpretation of the Bible that you have is 100% correct?

The Bible I have tells it’s readers they are not 100% correct, and much must be left to the reader to determine for themselves.

However there are safeguards to aid one in the accuracy of what’s written. For example.

Al the oldest and best manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible contain on every page, beside the Text (which is arranged in two or more columns), a varying number of lines of smaller writing, distributed between the upper and lower margins. This smaller writing is called the Massorah Magna or Great Massorah, while that in the side margins between the columns is called the Massorah Parva or Small Massorah.
The illustration given on p. 32 is a reduced facsimile of a Hebrew MS. (16 1/4 inches x 12 3/8), written in a German hand, about the year A.D. 1120. The small writing in the margins in this particular MS. is seen to occupy seven lines in the lower margin, and four lines in the upper; while in the outer margins and between the three columns is the Massorah Parva.

The word Massorah is from the root masar, to deliver something into the hand of another, so as to commit it to his trust. Hence the name is given to the small writing referred to, because it contains information necessary to those who trust the Sacred Text was committed, so that they might transcribe it, and hand it down correctly.

The Text itself had been fixed before the Massorites were put in charge of it. This had been the work of the Sopherim (from saphar, to count, or number). Their work, under Ezra and Nehemiah, was to set the Text in order after the return from Babylon; and we read of it in Neh. 8:8 (*1)(cp. Ezra 7:6, 11). The men of "the Great Synagogue" completed the work. This work lasted about 110 years, from Nehemiah to Simon the first, 410 - 300 B.C.

The Sopherim were the authorized revisers of the Sacred Text; and, their work being completed, the Massorites were the authorized custodians of it. Their work was to preserve it. The Massorah is called "A Fence to the Scriptures," because it locked all words and letters in their places. It does not contain notes or comments as such, but facts and phenomena. It records the number of times the several letters occur in the various books of the Bible; the number of words, and the middle word; the number of verses, and the middle verse; the number of expressions and combinations of words, &c. All this, not from a perverted ingenuity, but for the set purpose of safeguarding the Sacred Text, and preventing the loss of misplacement of a single letter or word.

This Massorah is not contained in the margins of any one MS. No MS. contains the whole, or even the same part. It is spread over many MSS., and Dr. C. D. Ginsburg has been the first and only scholar who has set himself to collect and collate the whole, copying it from every available MS. in the libraries of many countries. He has published it in three large folio volumes, and only a small number of copies has been printed. These are obtainable only by the original subscribers.

When the Hebrew Text was printed, only the large type in the columns was regarded, and the small type of the Massorah was left, unheeded, in the MSS. from which the Text was taken. When translators came to the printed Hebrew Text, they were necessarily destitute of the information contained in the Massorah; so that the Revisers as well as the Translators of the Authorized Version carried out their work without any idea of the treasures contained in the Massorah; and therefore, without giving a hint of it to their readers.

This is the first time that an edition of the A.V. has been given containing any of these treasures of the Massorah, that affect so seriously the understanding of the Text. A vast number of the Massoretic notes concern only the orthography, and matters that pertain to the Concordance. But many of those which affect the sense, or throw any additional light on the Sacred Text, are noted in the margin of The Companion Bible.

Some of the important lists of words which are contained in the Massorah are also given, viz. those that have the "extraordinary points" (Ap. 31); the "eighteen emendations" of the Sopherim (see Ap. 33); the 134 passages where they substituted Adonai for Jehovah (see Ap. 32); and the Various Readings called Severin (see Ap. 34). These are given in separate Appendixes; but other words of any importance are preserved in our marginal notes.

Readers of The Companion Bible are put in possession of information denied to former generations of translators, commentators, critics, and general Bible students. For further information on the Massorahsee Dr. Ginsburg's Introduction the the Hebrew Bible, of which only a limited edition was printed; also a small pamphlet on The Massorahpublished by the King's Printers. E.W. Bullinger

Augustin56 · Jan 31, 2024

Truthnightmare said:
The Bible I have tells it’s readers they are not 100% correct, and much must be left to the reader to determine for themselves.

However there are safeguards to aid one in the accuracy of what’s written. For example.

Al the oldest and best manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible contain on every page, beside the Text (which is arranged in two or more columns), a varying number of lines of smaller writing, distributed between the upper and lower margins. This smaller writing is called the Massorah Magna or Great Massorah, while that in the side margins between the columns is called the Massorah Parva or Small Massorah.
The illustration given on p. 32 is a reduced facsimile of a Hebrew MS. (16 1/4 inches x 12 3/8), written in a German hand, about the year A.D. 1120. The small writing in the margins in this particular MS. is seen to occupy seven lines in the lower margin, and four lines in the upper; while in the outer margins and between the three columns is the Massorah Parva.

The word Massorah is from the root masar, to deliver something into the hand of another, so as to commit it to his trust. Hence the name is given to the small writing referred to, because it contains information necessary to those who trust the Sacred Text was committed, so that they might transcribe it, and hand it down correctly.

The Text itself had been fixed before the Massorites were put in charge of it. This had been the work of the Sopherim (from saphar, to count, or number). Their work, under Ezra and Nehemiah, was to set the Text in order after the return from Babylon; and we read of it in Neh. 8:8 (*1)(cp. Ezra 7:6, 11). The men of "the Great Synagogue" completed the work. This work lasted about 110 years, from Nehemiah to Simon the first, 410 - 300 B.C.

The Sopherim were the authorized revisers of the Sacred Text; and, their work being completed, the Massorites were the authorized custodians of it. Their work was to preserve it. The Massorah is called "A Fence to the Scriptures," because it locked all words and letters in their places. It does not contain notes or comments as such, but facts and phenomena. It records the number of times the several letters occur in the various books of the Bible; the number of words, and the middle word; the number of verses, and the middle verse; the number of expressions and combinations of words, &c. All this, not from a perverted ingenuity, but for the set purpose of safeguarding the Sacred Text, and preventing the loss of misplacement of a single letter or word.

This Massorah is not contained in the margins of any one MS. No MS. contains the whole, or even the same part. It is spread over many MSS., and Dr. C. D. Ginsburg has been the first and only scholar who has set himself to collect and collate the whole, copying it from every available MS. in the libraries of many countries. He has published it in three large folio volumes, and only a small number of copies has been printed. These are obtainable only by the original subscribers.

When the Hebrew Text was printed, only the large type in the columns was regarded, and the small type of the Massorah was left, unheeded, in the MSS. from which the Text was taken. When translators came to the printed Hebrew Text, they were necessarily destitute of the information contained in the Massorah; so that the Revisers as well as the Translators of the Authorized Version carried out their work without any idea of the treasures contained in the Massorah; and therefore, without giving a hint of it to their readers.

This is the first time that an edition of the A.V. has been given containing any of these treasures of the Massorah, that affect so seriously the understanding of the Text. A vast number of the Massoretic notes concern only the orthography, and matters that pertain to the Concordance. But many of those which affect the sense, or throw any additional light on the Sacred Text, are noted in the margin of The Companion Bible.

Some of the important lists of words which are contained in the Massorah are also given, viz. those that have the "extraordinary points" (Ap. 31); the "eighteen emendations" of the Sopherim (see Ap. 33); the 134 passages where they substituted Adonai for Jehovah (see Ap. 32); and the Various Readings called Severin (see Ap. 34). These are given in separate Appendixes; but other words of any importance are preserved in our marginal notes.

Readers of The Companion Bible are put in possession of information denied to former generations of translators, commentators, critics, and general Bible students. For further information on the Massorahsee Dr. Ginsburg's Introduction the the Hebrew Bible, of which only a limited edition was printed; also a small pamphlet on The Massorahpublished by the King's Printers. E.W. Bullinger

Interesting post, Truthnightmare. So, if what you say is true, there is no way to know, for sure, what Christ's message is. It's basically a crapshoot, left to each individual to find for him/herself. That means Christ left us no sure way to know what His message was for humanity. Truth is as good as untruth. Contraditions don't matter. Tens of thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting denominations are fine. All we have is a translation of a book, into whatever language we speak. And this book was hand-copied for many centuries before the printing press was invented. Errors occurred by those copying. It wasn't like Jesus handed someone a complete Bible before He rose to heaven. The Bible comes from the oral teachings of Christ that He gave to the Apostles, who did likewise to their successors, the bishops. This makes sense since the vast, vast majority of humanity was illiterate for about the first 1900 years of Christianity.

An alternative to that is that Christ did leave us a sure way to know the fullness of Divine Revelation. And He gave us a guarantee that He would protect His message from being corrupted. He founded a Church to do so, giving it His authority to teach, preach, and sanctify, while guaranteeing that this Church would never formally teach doctrinal error. (That's not to say some rogue member of the hierachy, like Martin Luther, wouldn't stray from the message on his own, contradicting the teachings of Christ for his own desires.)

History and logic tells us which of these two approaches is correct.

Truthnightmare · Jan 31, 2024

Augustin56 said:
.

It's basically a crapshoot, left to each individual to find for him/herself.

No… A crapshoot by its very nature is uncertain , but there is no uncertainty with God. All things
will come to pass as God said they would. The uncertainty is within man.

Yes… it’s left up to each individual. As it is written.

Philippians 2:12
Therefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

That means Christ left us no sure way to know what His message was for humanity.

Not at all…

Mark 13:23
But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.
Does one believe the things that were told?

He founded a Church to do so, giving it His authority to teach, preach, and sanctify, while guaranteeing that this Church would never formally teach doctrinal error.

No sir,

12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;

13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

In this church, they were taught things that not ought be, how then can one say the church would never teach doctrinal error?

BreadOfLife · Jan 31, 2024

Zao is life said:
The churches in Jesus Christ are catholic, being gathered from all peoples, nations, tribes and tongues. Collectively we are called "The Church", since "There is one body and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in you all." (Ephesians 4:5).

In your case, however, not only do you not "endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." (Ephesians 4:5), but your boastful false claims regarding your cult which you call "the church" is not made "with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love" (Ephesians 4:2).

The Church is one collective catholic church in Jesus Christ made up of all the churches in Christ, and like all teachers of false doctrine, in the day you will be standing before God being required to give an answer for the false doctrines and false religion you follow and teach,

Mary will not be able to mediate for you, because "there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim.2:5), and "It is Christ who has died, but rather also who is raised, who is also at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us" (Romans 8:34), who alone "is able also to save to the uttermost those who come unto God by Him, since He ever lives to make intercession for them." (Hebrews 7:25), and He taught us to pray to God the Father in His name, saying that wherever two or three are gathered together in His name, He is there in the midst of them. He did not teach anyone to pray to the spirits of dead people who have died in the flesh.

And your cult that you call "the church" and have blasphemously equated with Christ's salvation will not save you, "because He has appointed a day in which He is going to judge the world in righteousness by a Man whom He appointed, having given proof to all by raising Him from the dead." (Acts 17:31) and you have not placed your faith in Jesus Christ alone for your salvation, who alone is "the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die." (John 6:50).

Instead, you have placed your faith for your salvation also in your cult, which you have blasphemously equated with the salvation of God alongside Christ, and falsely called your cult "the church".

It's because of this that God's one and only true gospel and the entire New Testament has become a parable to you which "seeing you see not, and hearing you hear not; nor do you understand, and in you is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which said, "By hearing you shall hear and shall not understand; and seeing you shall see and shall not perceive".

Because your gospel - the gospel taught by the cult which you call "the church" that you follow and teach, is of the flesh, and from beneath, and "that which is born of the flesh is flesh".

But only "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6), and as Jesus said, "Unless a man is born anew of the Spirit of God, he cannot see (perceive) the kingdom of God" (John 3:3).

You see but do not see and hear but do not hear because you have replaced faith in Christ alone for your salvation with the religious doctrines and practices of that cult, which you falsely call "the church" that you follow and teach.

So in the day you will be standing before God giving answer for the false doctrines and false religion you follow and teach, Mary will not be able to mediate for you, nor will your cult which you call "the church" and have blasphemously equated with Christ's salvation, save you, because His grace will no longer be available to you once the One and Only Mediator between God and man has become your judge, since "it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27).

Your good works will not save you. All your religion will not save you, and your cult's false doctrines in this regard cannot save you either.

I will not speak to you about this anymore in this thread because of what my Savior and Lord says in Matthew 7:6 to me and to all those who place their faith and trust in Him alone for their salvation.

Another asinine load of ignorant drivel from yet another clueless anti-Catholic fool.
This post is so stupid and so full of lies and fabrications that it’s difficult to now just where to begin – but here goes . . .

For starters, there is ONE Church (Matt. 16:18, John 17:21-23) – not tens of thousands of perpetually-splintering factions that ALL each different doctrines.

Not ONE of your “denominations” can trace its origins back ANY further than the SIXTEENTH century..
I’ve already proven to you that the ONE Catholic Church has been here since the Apostles in the FIRST century.

The Hierarchy (Bishops, Priests, Deacons), the Eucharist – and even the TITLE of the “Catholic” Church have ALL been in use and practice since then, as I amply educated you in the Letter to the Smyrnaeans by Ignatius of Antioch.

Your moronic charge that Catholic believe that we are saved by our works is quite possibly THE most stupid part of your post.
I OPENLY-CHALLENGE you to find this teaching in the Catechism.

And, as to your idiocy with regard to “false” doctrines – you failed to mention even a SINGLE one.
Gee – I wonder why . . .

Finally, the Catholic Church is the ONE who taught the WORLD that Jesus s our only mediator – 1500 years BEFORE your Protestant Fathers ever read the Bible As a matter of fact – if it weren’t for the Catholic Church with its Popes and Councils - YOU wouldn’t even HAVE a Bible, som.

YOUR problem is that your Biblical ignorance prohibits you from actually understanding the Bible. We are ALL called to be intercessors (James 5:16, 1 John 5:16). {aul explicitly expresses that HE mediates for the Church:

Col. 1:24
rejoice in what I AM SUFFERING FOR YOU, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, FOR THE SAKE OF HIS BODY, WHICH IS THE CHURCH.

Jesis is our only Mediator in that, only HIS sacrifice can bring peace between us and the Father.
But that does NOT mean that we are NOT called to intercede and mediate for one another through prayer and in JOINING our sufferings with those of Christ.

Don’t just quote the Bible.
LEARN what it means . . .

Truthnightmare · Jan 31, 2024

BreadOfLife said:
Another asinine load of ignorant drivel from yet another clueless anti-Catholic fool.
This post is so stupid and so full of lies and fabrications that it’s difficult to now just where to begin – but here goes . . .

For starters, there is ONE Church (Matt. 16:18, John 17:21-23) – not tens of thousands of perpetually-splintering factions that ALL each different doctrines.

Not ONE of your “denominations” can trace its origins back ANY further than the SIXTEENTH century..
I’ve already proven to you that the ONE Catholic Church has been here since the Apostles in the FIRST century.

The Hierarchy (Bishops, Priests, Deacons), the Eucharist – and even the TITLE of the “Catholic” Church have ALL been in use and practice since then, as I amply educated you in the Letter to the Smyrnaeans by Ignatius of Antioch.

Your moronic charge that Catholic believe that we are saved by our works is quite possibly THE most stupid part of your post.
I OPENLY-CHALLENGE you to find this teaching in the Catechism.

And, as to your idiocy with regard to “false” doctrines – you failed to mention even a SINGLE one.
Gee – I wonder why . . .

Finally, the Catholic Church is the ONE who taught the WORLD that Jesus s our only mediator – 1500 years BEFORE your Protestant Fathers ever read the Bible As a matter of fact – if it weren’t for the Catholic Church with its Popes and Councils - YOU wouldn’t even HAVE a Bible, som.

YOUR problem is that your Biblical ignorance prohibits you from actually understanding the Bible. We are ALL called to be intercessors (James 5:16, 1 John 5:16). {aul explicitly expresses that HE mediates for the Church:

Col. 1:24
rejoice in what I AM SUFFERING FOR YOU, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, FOR THE SAKE OF HIS BODY, WHICH IS THE CHURCH.

Jesis is our only Mediator in that, only HIS sacrifice can bring peace between us and the Father.
But that does NOT mean that we are NOT called to intercede and mediate for one another through prayer and in JOINING our sufferings with those of Christ.

Don’t just quote the Bible.
LEARN what it means . . .

It’s not about being anti-Catholic, I’m surely not.

But when the Catholic Church contradicts the Bible, then one must make a choice.

Example:

world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death." [Byzantine Liturgy, Troparion, Feast of the Dormition, August 15th.]

I don’t believe Mary’s prayers can deliver my soul. That doesn’t make me anti-Catholic.

Zao is life · Jan 31, 2024

Truthnightmare said:
Hello….

This was addressed by many…..

The specific words that are key to understanding this are "Peter" and "rock," for they are both derivatives of the same word meaning rock. But the word translated to "Peter" in the verse above (and below) is petros, and the word translated to "rock" is petra. Also, the word "rock" below has the definite article in the Greek (although it is not seen in the English language translation), whereas the word "Peter" (although capitalized in the English translation) does not have the definite article. (Illustration to follow.)

But simply stated, a petros is a small rock; while petra is a large rock, even a solid foundation of stone.

Below is a copy of the original Greek words of the key part of the verse. Notice the definite article (tee-Grk. word #3588) preceding "rock":

Also, the word "and" (between "Peter" and "upon") in the above illustration is kai in the Greek and can also be translated to the word "but" in the English. This of course changes the way that this verse is commonly understood. Observe:

But to give you a sense of the meaning of the word petra ("rock"), there is a city carved out of the side of a mountain, located in modern day Jordan, which is called Petra. "Peter" (petros) was a movable stone, a smaller piece; petra(translated "rock") was a solid foundation; and incidentally, that Rock was Christ:

Your posts are VERY informative, and when you have the time, you take the time to back them up with facts, as above.

Jesus also did not tell Peter that Peter would build His church. He said "I will build my church".

The context was the faith Peter had just expressed that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, which had been revealed to Peter by God the Father. Faith in Jesus Christ and how it comes to a man is what Jesus repeatedly spoke about:

John 3
3 Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

5 Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Do not marvel that I said to you, You must be born again.
8 The Spirit breathes where He desires, and you hear His voice, but you do not know from where He comes, and where He goes; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.

That's the rock upon which Christ builds His church. There's never been any other rock except Jesus.

Truthnightmare · Feb 1, 2024

Zao is life said:
Your posts are VERY informative, and when you have the time, you take the time to back them up with facts, as above.

Jesus also did not tell Peter that Peter would build His church. He said "I will build my church".

The context was the faith Peter had just expressed that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, which had been revealed to Peter by God the Father. Faith in Jesus Christ and how it comes to a man is what Jesus repeatedly spoke about:

John 3
3 Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

5 Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Do not marvel that I said to you, You must be born again.
8 The Spirit breathes where He desires, and you hear His voice, but you do not know from where He comes, and where He goes; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.

That's the rock upon which Christ builds His church. There's never been any other rock except Jesus.

It may be different for some… But I’ve been through a lot… nothing every changed until I gave all my burdens to Christ. So the idea of building anything upon something or someone that is not Him is foreign to me.

You noticed… “I will build”

Peace to you…

RedFan · Feb 1, 2024

Augustin56 said:
An alternative to that is that Christ did leave us a sure way to know the fullness of Divine Revelation. And He gave us a guarantee that He would protect His message from being corrupted. He founded a Church to do so, giving it His authority to teach, preach, and sanctify, while guaranteeing that this Church would never formally teach doctrinal error. (That's not to say some rogue member of the hierachy, like Martin Luther, wouldn't stray from the message on his own, contradicting the teachings of Christ for his own desires.)

History and logic tells us which of these two approaches is correct.

My friend, you are never going to convince the Catholic bashers on this thread that the Church was ever the guardian of doctrinal purity, or that history and logic matter. Only Scripture matters to them. 1 Tim. 3:15 may refer to "the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth" -- but Luther tells them that the only pillar and foundation of truth is Scripture itself, and they believe Luther over Paul. (Yup, the circularity is blatant here, but as I said, logic doesn't matter to them.)

Wrangler · Feb 1, 2024

Marymog said:
No, it is not "clear that Jesus' use of the word "this" is not referring to the person of Peter but his Confession."

It most certainly is clear! And this goes back to your refusal to answer questions about the full context of Scripture.

Wrangler said:
I’m OK with that! God did not give me a reasoning mind to forgo its use.

It’s so funny how much power and authority you ascribe to a denotation founded in the 12th century.

Perverters of the Scripture
Part 1
Was Peter the first Pope?

if Peter was the rock, why did the apostle Paul call Christ the ROCK (1 Corinthians 10:4), the only FOUNDATION (1 Corinthians 3: 11), and Peter himself called Christ the CHIEF CORNER STONE (1 Peter 2:6)?

if Peter was the rock, why did the apostle Paul call Christ the ROCK (1 Corinthians 10:4), the only FOUNDATION (1 Corinthians 3: 11), and Peter himself called Christ the CHIEF CORNER STONE (1 Peter 2:6)?

This is but 1 of at least 9 provocative questions in the link I provided.

From a linguistic perspective, your Appeal to Ignorance is to pretend "this" refers to Peter. Language is not used this way. What type of word is "this?" It is a pronoun. This is your sign Jesus was NOT talking about Peter.

Anyone with more than a 3rd grade education who has not been indoctinated into gender confusion knows that we have special pronounts when referring to human beings, e.g., he/she or him/her.

Matthew 16:18 Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means ‘rock’), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it.

If Jesus was referring to Peter, he'd use the pronoun 'you are Peter and he is the rock I will build my church.' But this is not the case one little bit. Catholics desperate attempt to rationalize power is so anti-Christ! So, I look forward to your answer; if Peter was the rock, why did the apostle Paul call Christ the ROCK (1 Corinthians 10:4), the only FOUNDATION (1 Corinthians 3: 11), and Peter himself called Christ the CHIEF CORNER STONE (1 Peter 2:6)?

RedFan · Feb 1, 2024

Wrangler said:
I look forward to your answer; if Peter was the rock, why did the apostle Paul call Christ the ROCK (1 Corinthians 10:4), the only FOUNDATION (1 Corinthians 3: 11), and Peter himself called Christ the CHIEF CORNER STONE (1 Peter 2:6)?

I certainly don't want to preempt @Marymog's answer, but I have one of my own of you want to hear it.

Truthnightmare · Feb 1, 2024

For their rock is not like our Rock, Even our enemies themselves being judges

Wrangler · Feb 1, 2024

RedFan said:
I certainly don't want to preempt @Marymog's answer, but I have one of my own of you want to hear it.

If you don't mind, please go to the link I provided and formulate answers to the other 8 questions. Lets give Mary a shot at this one first. It will be fun to compare answers.

WAS PETER THE TRUE ROCK?

1. If so, why didn't Jesus Christ say it more than once, or clarify it better? (Matt 18:16, II Corinthians 13:1)
This subject is still debated by Catholic and Protestant writers alike. One has to admit, that if Christ was making Peter the first Pope, he didn't exactly say so.

2. If so, why did Jesus address Peter as Satan merely four verses later in the same chanter? (Look at verse 23)

"But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."

Even if we concede that Jesus was addressing the Devil, who was using Simon Peter, it is still not a very encouraging way to speak to the man you've just put in charge of your Church.

3. If so, why did no other person in the New Testament acknowledge Peter as the Pope?We should reasonably expect at least one other person in the Bible to have known about it. Yet, there is not one word said about it by any Christian anywhere. Not even by the other apostles!

4. If so, why did Peter seem to be unaware of his own new promotion, instead of worrying about John getting ahead?(John 21:20-23)
Peter was clearly wondering if Christ intended to give a special blessing to John but not to anyone else. The Lord Jesus told Peter in effect, "Follow thou me," and to mind his own business.

5. If so, why did Peter have to be publicly rebuked by Paul for false teaching (Galatians 2:12-14), and not the other way around?It would certainly not serve the purpose of establishing an authoritative chain of command to have a traveling evangelist correcting the Prince of Apostles and then make a point of writing to others about it.

6. If so, why did Peter only write two modest epistles, yet Paul wrote fourteen?

Peter	Paul
I Peter II Peter	Romans I Corinthians II Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians I Thessalonians II Thessalonians I Timothy II Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews

In fact, Peter tells his readers that Paul's letters were scripture, written "according to the wisdom given unto him" by the Lord (II Peter 3:15-16). By far, the undisputed teacher of the New Testament church was the Apostle Paul, not Simon Peter.

7. If so, why did Christ say that his church would not be patterned after worldly hierarchies (Matt 20:25-28), which the Catholic Church clearly is?The fact that the Vatican is the smallest actual country in the world, receiving and sending foreign ambassadors, operating its own public works systems; electricity, water, power, library, coinage, police; and meddling in the governmental affairs, laws, and elections of other nations shows that it is a political monster foreign to the New Testament. The Pope, as the visible head of the Catholic Church, controls more wealth than any ten billionaires in the world combined! Peter confessed, "Silver and gold have I none" (Acts 3:6)

8. If so, why did Peter get replaced by Paul as the most prominent Christian in the New Testament?
Peter preached a powerful sermon on the Day of Pentecost resulting in the conversion of 3000 Jews in one day. Yet, by the end of the Book of Acts, it's surprising that people weren't asking "Peter who?"
(Acts 2, Peter------------------------Paul, Acts 28)
Jerusalem Rome and beyond

RedFan · Feb 1, 2024

I haven't read all of this yet (gotta go to work now), and I doubt I will have cogent answers for all of the questions. As I have said before, I haven't yet made up my mind on the ultimate issue, and so I am neither in @Marymog's camp nor yours on this (see Post #642 for why).

Augustin56 · Feb 1, 2024

RedFan said:
My friend, you are never going to convince the Catholic bashers on this thread that the Church was ever the guardian of doctrinal purity, or that history and logic matter. Only Scripture matters to them. 1 Tim. 3:15 may refer to "the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth" -- but Luther tells them that the only pillar and foundation of truth is Scripture itself, and they believe Luther over Paul. (Yup, the circularity is blatant here, but as I said, logic doesn't matter to them.)

You're probably right. But I recall what St. John Paul II said regarding these matters. He said that if we tell people God's truth, His grace accompanies that truth. And when the soul is going to need that truth, it will be there for them. We're just working in God's garden of souls, planting seeds, weeding, watering, etc. The harvest is His. We may not see the fruits of our labor until we reach eternity. And that's fine with me.

Wrangler · Feb 1, 2024

RedFan said:
As I have said before, I haven't yet made up my mind on the ultimate issue, and so I am neither in @Marymog's camp nor yours on this (see Post #642 for why).

RedFan said:
Because I find Matthew 16:18 ambiguous.

I have found some of the most passionately held doctrines rely on ambiguous verses (while ignoring verses that are explicit).

For instance, verses that explicitly say that God is not a man ought to take precedance over verses that could be taken to imply in an ambiguous way that God is a man. The same with if Peter was the rock, why did the apostle Paul call Christ the ROCK (1 Corinthians 10:4), the only FOUNDATION (1 Corinthians 3: 11), and Peter himself called Christ the CHIEF CORNER STONE (1 Peter 2:6)?

Then there is the linguistic piece.

Wrangler said:
From a linguistic perspective, your Appeal to Ignorance is to pretend "this" refers to Peter. Language is not used this way. What type of word is "this?" It is a pronoun. This is your sign Jesus was NOT talking about Peter.

Anyone with more than a 3rd grade education who has not been indoctinated into gender confusion knows that we have special pronounts when referring to human beings, e.g., he/she or him/her.

Matthew 16:18 Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means ‘rock’), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it.

If Jesus was referring to Peter, he'd use the pronoun 'you are Peter and he is the rock I will build my church.' But this is not the case one little bit. Catholics desperate attempt to rationalize power is so anti-Christ!

If Christ meant Peter, he'd use the masculine pronoun he/him. Using a pronoun that refers to inanimate objects "this" book, this cart, this confession suggests otherwise. Of course, proponents stretch the argument that "this" can be used in referrng to a man or woman. But again, he merely used the word "this."

I submit ambiguity is NOT an acceptable foundation for a conclusion. Therefore, logic dictates rejecting the claim.
H0. Peter is the rock.
Ha. Peter is Not the rock.

There are multiple other verses that explictly state that Jesus is the rock. This, plus common sense should put an end to the argument - for those who do not have a doctrinal axe to grind.

Augustin56 · Feb 1, 2024

Wrangler said:
I have found some of the most passionately held doctrines rely on ambiguous verses (while ignoring verses that are explicit).

For instance, verses that explicitly say that God is not a man ought to take precedance over verses that could be taken to imply in an ambiguous way that God is a man. The same with if Peter was the rock, why did the apostle Paul call Christ the ROCK (1 Corinthians 10:4), the only FOUNDATION (1 Corinthians 3: 11), and Peter himself called Christ the CHIEF CORNER STONE (1 Peter 2:6)?

Then there is the linguistic piece.

If Christ meant Peter, he'd use the masculine pronoun he/him. Using a pronoun that refers to inanimate objects "this" book, this cart, this confession suggests otherwise. Of course, proponents stretch the argument that "this" can be used in referrng to a man or woman. But again, he merely used the word "this."

I submit ambiguity is NOT an acceptable foundation for a conclusion. Therefore, logic dictates rejecting the claim.
H0. Peter is the rock.
Ha. Peter is Not the rock.

There are multiple other verses that explictly state that Jesus is the rock. This, plus common sense should put an end to the argument - for those who do not have a doctrinal axe to grind.

First, just because the pronoun “this” is used rather than the personal pronoun it doesn’t follow that it must be referring to something other than the person who was being addressed in the preceding statement. To use an example from apologist David Palm, a prime minister might speak of a famous humanitarian saying, “You are a Beacon of Hope, and to this beacon all Europe will look as a source of comfort in these dark days.”

When we hear this solemn pronouncement, we don’t think “this” refers to some separate thing besides the person who is addressed. To suggest otherwise would be to undermine both the plain meaning of the statement and its rhetorical force.

We see elsewhere in Scripture where “this” is used in reference to a person. For example, in Matthew 21:44, Jesus says, “And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.” What does “this stone” refer to? The answer is Jesus, who is “the very stone which the builders rejected” and “has become the head of the corner” (v.42).

Notice Jesus doesn’t say, “And he who falls on me, the stone, will be broken to pieces”? According to the logic of the objection, this is what he’d say if he intended “this stone” to refer to himself. But he doesn’t.

Must we conclude, therefore, that the demonstrative “this” in verse forty-four can’t refer to the person of Jesus? Of course not!

Since “this” can be used to refer to the person who is addressed in the preceding phrase, the argument that says Jesus can’t be referring to Peter as the rock because he uses “this” fails.

A second response is that Peter’s declaration of faith is two verses removed from the pronoun “this.” So, when we read “this rock,” it’s natural to think the pronoun refers to Peter because he is the nearest thing for the pronoun to refer to.

In his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, reformed theologian J. Knox Chamblin argues along the same lines:

The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v.18) than to the more remote confession (v.16).

The idea that “this” refers to Peter becomes even clearer when we consider that Peter’s name literally means rock. This serves as a third response.

If we translate Peter’s name (Petros) literally in Matthew 16:18 it reads, “You are rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.” This makes Peter a prime candidate for being that to which “this” refers to.

Once again, in Matthew 21:42-44 Jesus says, The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner . . .And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but when it falls on any one, it will crush him.

I would suggest that no Protestant would argue that “this stone” in verse forty-four doesn’t refer to the stone spoken of in verse forty-two. If Jesus speaks of a stone in verse forty-two, and then speaks of “this stone” in verse forty-four, it’s natural to conclude that “this stone” in verse forty-four refers to the stone in verse forty-two.

The same line of reasoning applies to Peter and the rock in Matthew 16:18. If Jesus speaks of a rock in the first part of the sentence in this verse, and then speaks of “this rock” in the second part of that same sentence, then it’s reasonable to conclude that “this rock” in the second part of the sentence refers to the rock spoken of in the first part of the sentence, namely, Peter.

If we look at the context in which verse eighteen is embedded, we notice a structure of three essential declarations that Jesus makes concerning Peter, each of which is followed by a longer explanation that unpacks the declaration made:

1. Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona (v.15)

1a. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you (v.17a)

1b. By my Father who is in heaven (v.17b).

2. And I tell you, you are Peter (v.18a)

2a. And on this rock I will build my Church (v.18b)

2b. And the gates of hades shall not prevail against it (v.18c).

3. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven (v.19a)

3a. And whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven (v.19b)

3b. And whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (v.19c).

Given this structure, it becomes clear that the phrase “and on this rock” must refer to Peter. Why would every other statement that Jesus makes explain his main declarations to Peter except that one? To suggest that it doesn’t is to introduce something into the context that doesn’t fit, which is not good exegesis.

Wrangler · Feb 1, 2024

Augustin56 said:
First, just because the pronoun “this” is used rather than the personal pronoun it doesn’t follow that it must be referring to something other than the person who was being addressed in the preceding statement.

Yes, it does necessarily mean that.

Augustin56 said:
To use an example from apologist David Palm, a prime minister might speak of a famous humanitarian saying, “You are a Beacon of Hope, and to this beacon all Europe will look as a source of comfort in these dark days.”

In this case, “this” is referring to hope, not the man who advocates for it, even when metaphorically calling this man a beacon. What does all Europe look to as a source of comfort in these dark days? Hope, not the beacon.

Although your example does not twice write <“beacon of hope”> but merely “beacon” one must understand short hand. In other words, it is the same beacon of hope, not another beacon. It is not the transmitter but what is transmitted that is important.

Worse, you changed the reference of ‘this’ in your (borrowed. sic) analogy: from an indefinite article to a definite article. ‘’A” man to “the” man, beacon or rock; which one are you talking about?

As I wrote, ambiguous statements cannot supercede explicit statements. And there are other explicit verses that state Christ is THE rock. And it is in this context that we can know at the first that ‘this’ does not refer to he.

Peter the Rock?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

1 Corinthians 8 New International Version ​

Concerning Food Sacrificed to Idols​

Romans 14 New International Version ​

​

Footnotes​

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

1 Corinthians 8

New International Version

Concerning Food Sacrificed to Idols

Romans 14

New International Version

Footnotes