Peter the Rock?

[The Learner]

“I will Build My Church”: The Role of ἐκκλησία (16:18b cont.)​

οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. Οἰκοδομέω occurs 40 times in the New Testament, and 8 times in the Gospel of Matthew.133 Οἰκοδομήσω is in the future tense, so Jesus is looking forward to building a community on the rock of Peter. 134 The theme of “building” a people springs from the Old Testament (Ruth 4:11; 2 Sam 7:13-14; 1 Chr 17: 12-13: Jer 1:10, 24:6, 31:4, 33:7; Amos 9:11).135 The metaphorical use of “build” here is appropriate for a community conceived of as a spiritual “house” or “temple” (note the description of the church as God’s building in 1 Cor 3:9; Eph 2:19-21).136

The word ἐκκλησία is used 114 times in the New Testament but only twice in the gospels. Both occurrences are in Matthew (16:18; 18:17). According to Walter Bauer, the term can be use to mean the following: 1) “assembly” such as a regularly summoned political body (cf. Josephus, Ant., 12, 164; Acts 19:39); 2) “assemblage, gathering, meeting” (1 Macc 3:13; Acts 19:32); 3) the congregation of the Israelites, especially when gathered for religious purposes (Deut 31:30; Judg 20:2; Josephus, Ant., 4, 309); 4) of the Christian church or community.137 With regard to definition #4, the term ἐκκλησία may be categorized even further; Bauer asserts that in this verse, ἐκκλησία is best understood as “the universal church to which all believers belong.”138 The word ἐκκλησία often appears in the LXX, usually as the translation of קָהָל.139 The possessive pronoun μου essentially functions as an adjective and identifies the owner of the church, namely Jesus himself. Peter may be the “rock,” but the church does not belong to Peter, his successors, or to any other church leader; she belongs to Jesus, exclusively and entirely.140

“The Gates of Hell”: The Strength of the Church in the Face of πύλαι ᾅδου (16:18c)​

καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς. Πύλη means “gate or door”141and occurs 10 times in the New Testament, with four of those occurrences in Matthew (7:13, 7:14, and 16:18).142 Here, ᾅδης refers to the “nether world, the place of the dead”143; the word appears 10 times in the New Testament, with two occurrences in Matthew (11:23 and 16:18).144 The phrase πύλαι ᾅδου occurs only here in the New Testament, withᾅδου functioning as an attributive genitive to<ι> <ͅι>πύλαι .145 The phrase “gates of Hades” is a common Semitic expression for the threshold of the realm of death (11:23; Rev 1:18).146 The phrase can be found in the both the Old Testament and apocryphal writings (Job 38:17; Isa 38:10; Wis 16:13; 3 Macc 5:51), and in later Jewish literature (1QH 6.24).147 Here, though, the interpretation is a bit more dubious. Gundry argues that given the prominence of persecution in the gospel, Matthew is probably using the phrase to represent death by martyrdom.148 Even in the face of the apostles’ bloody deaths, then, the church will still remain victorious. Other commentators, such as Jeremias, lean towards the πύλαι ᾅδου serving as the forces of the underworld.149 Given the usual understanding of the phrase, it is probably best taken as meaning “the power of death” or simply “death.”150

The word κατισχύσουσιν occurs only three times in the New Testament (Matt 16:18; Luke 21:36, 23:23),151 and it is derived from κατισχύω, which means “to win a victory over.”152 In other words, the power of death will not win a victory over the church. It makes sense that the antecedent for αὐτῆς refers to ἐκκλησία rather than πέτρα since “church” is closer in proximity.153 Therefore, the church, as an eschatological community, will never die or come to an end.154 As Keener states: “The church will endure until Jesus’ return, and no opposition, even the widespread martyrdom of Christians … can prevent the ultimate triumph of God’s purposes in history.155

1. The Exegetical Examination of Matthew 16:18 | Bible.org

This chapter will focus solely upon the exegesis of the verse.37 Of course, the primary exegetical problem of the verse is the identity of the πέτρα. Is Jesus referring to himself as the rock, or is he referring to Peter? Could the rock be Peter’s confession of faith? And what are the...

bible.org

 

[The Learner]

2. The Petrine School of Interpretation​

One of his more significant works is the piece Against Praxeas; the work decries modalism, and some believe that Tertullian actually wrote the treatise for Callistus (see below), with Praxeus serving as a false name.164

In many of his writings, Tertullian affirms that Peter is the “rock” of Matt 16:18. For example, Tertullian writes the following in his Prescription Against Heretics: “Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the church should be built’ … ?”165 Tertullian wrote the Prescription c. A.D. 199, during the orthodox period of his life.166 Here, he clearly equates the “rock” in question to the Apostle Peter. In another treatise, On Monogamy, Tertullian writes: “Peter alone do I find married, and through mention of his mother-in-law. I presume he was a monogamist; for the church, built upon him, would for the future appoint to every degree of orders none but monogamists. As for the rest, since I do not find them married, I must presume that they were eunuchs or continent.”167 Interestingly, this text was written c. A.D. 208, shortly after Tertullian converted to Montanism.168 Even though he remains associated with a heretical sect, Tertullian still affirms a Petrine interpretation of Matt 16:18. Like many of the other patristic writers, Tertullian believed in both apostolic succession169

 

[The Learner]

Like the other theologians examined thus far, Jerome has a Petrine understanding of Matt 16:18. Other than the popes themselves, he is the first church father to readily grant the pope full Petrine authority from Matt 16:18. In a letter to Pope Damasus, Jerome states the following:

I think it is my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ … Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!205
He frequently links the “rock” of Matt 16:18 with both Peter and those who occupy “his chair.”

POPE LEO I, ALSO KNOWN AS LEO THE GREAT, A.D. 440-461208​

2. The Petrine School of Interpretation | Bible.org

Having completed an exegesis of Matt 16:18, the focus of attention now turns to the writings of the patristic fathers. This chapter will survey the writings of the fathers who hold to a Petrine interpretation of Matt 16:18. As stated in the introduction, the goal of this thesis is to examine the...

bible.org

 

[The Learner]

3. The Christological School of Interpretation​

EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA, ALSO KNOWN AS EUSEBIUS PAMPHILI, C. A.D. 260-340219​

Again, in his work Preparation of the Gospel, Eusebius writes:

For instance, when He prophesied that His doctrine should be preached throughout the whole world inhabited by man for a testimony to all nations, and by divine foreknowledge declared that the Church, which was afterwards gathered by His own power out of all nations, though not yet seen nor established in the times when He was living as man among men, should be invincible and undismayed, and should never be conquered by death, but stands and abides unshaken, settled, and rooted upon His own power as upon a rock that cannot be shaken or broken …”230

CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, C. A.D. 315 – MARCH 18, 386232​

Like Eusebius, Cyril also understood Jesus to be the “rock” of Matt 16:18. In his Catechetical Lectures, he writes: “Of old the Psalmist sang, Bless ye God in the congregations, even the Lord, (ye that are) from the fountains of Israel. But after the Jews for the plots which they made against the Saviour were cast away from His grace, the Saviour built out of the Gentiles a second Holy Church, the Church of us Christians, concerning which he said to Peter, ‘And upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’”237

AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO, A.D. 354-430241​

Augustine writes:

For if the lineal succession of bishops is taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: - Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiads, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found.252

In The Retractations, he states the following:

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’… But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received the ‘keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For ‘Thou art Peter’ and ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is more probable. 253

Augustine’s Tractate on the Gospel of John. There, he writes:

And this Church, symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. … For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, 'On this rock will I build my Church,' because Peter had said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus.254

Summary
For Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Augustine the rock of Matt 16:18 was neither Peter nor his confession, but Jesus himself. It appears that the Pauline epistles, particularly 1 Corinthians, greatly influenced the writings of these fathers. The rock metaphor of Matt 16:18 stressed the strength of the Church’s foundation, but the foundation image itself was seen in 1 Corinthians 3, and that foundation is Jesus.257 Thus Jesus builds the church upon the firm rock, himself.258 Augustine, Cyril, and Eusebius all held a very high view of Peter, but they interpret the rock of Matt 16 to be Jesus, not the apostle.

3. The Christological School of Interpretation | Bible.org

The examination will now focus upon the patristic writers who have a Christological interpretation of Matt 16:18. Unlike the writers in the previous chapter, these church fathers believe that the “rock” in question refers to Jesus. These fathers would not use Matt 16:18 to affirm a permanent...

bible.org

 

[The Learner]

Now my wife is kicking me off, here is the rest of the parts.

4. The PETRA = Fide School of Interpretation | Bible.org

This chapter will examine the fathers who asserted that the “rock” in question was neither Peter nor Christ, but Peter’s confession of faith. For these writers, the Church rests upon the firm belief that Jesus is the Christ.

bible.org

5. The Nature of the Apostolic Office | Bible.org

“Just as the office which the Lord confided to Peter alone, as first of the apostles, destined to be transmitted to his successors, is a permanent one, so also endures the office, which the apostles received, of shepherding the Church, a charge destined to be exercised without interruption by...

bible.org

6. Additional Considerations on the Exegesis of Matt 16:18 | Bible.org

(Appendix A)

bible.org

7. More Writings from the Fathers of the Petrine School | Bible.org

Appendix B Cyprian, d. A.D. 258451 Cyprian personally dominated the African church during the short period that he was a Christian, from 249 until 258.452 His full name was Thascius Caecilianus Cyprianus.453 Cyprian probably converted to Christianity c.

bible.org

8. More Writings from the "PETRA" = Fide School | Bible.org

Appendix C

bible.org

Bibliography for an Exegetical and Patristic Examination of Matthew 16:18 | Bible.org

Commentaries Albright, W. F., and C. S. Mann. Matthew. Anchor Bible, ed. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman, vol. 26. Garden City: Doubleday, 1971. Bauckham, Richard. Jude, 2 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce A. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, and Glenn Barker, vol. 50. Waco...

bible.org

index: "Upon This Rock": an Exegetical and Patristic Examination of Matthew 16:18 | Bible.org

 

[BreadOfLife]

Forgot the source… We can listen to the Pope speak, you know, straight from the horses mouth.

Left leaning? I have the Pope saying we should take in migrants and refugees… isnt that a left leaning position?

Is Fox News left leaning?

Once again – READ the document instead of listening to the secular take on it,
A Pope doesn’t even have the power to declare a sin as something “sacred”

Is Fox News left-leaning?
Where have YOU been for the last 3 years?? Ever since Rupert Murdoch retired and left the network to his Leftist sons – Fox HAS become left-leaning.

It began with the premature calling of Arizona for Biden in the 2020 Election and it’s been downhill ever since.
LGBTQ+++ issues, DEI, woke policies, etc., are the order of the day over at Fox.

Stop wallowing in ignorance and do your homework . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Listen… I don’t have to say a word, all I must do is post what

You are triggered from your own writtings.

The 'Queen of Heaven': Pope Pius XII (1939-58), a Pope many today still remember, described Mary as 'Queen of Heaven'. It was he, on November 1st 1950, who proclaimed ex-Cathedra 'from the seat' (infallibly) that Mary's body was raised from the grave shortly after she died, and she was taken up and enthroned as 'Queen of Heaven.' At St. Peter Square on Easter Day 1988, Pope John Paul II's message included a prayer "to the Queen of Heaven for protection and peace in the world." The only references to be found in Scripture of the 'Queen of Heaven' relate to the Canaanite pagan goddess to whom the Israelites burned incense, made cakes and poured out drink offerings, and who was detestable and wicked in the eyes of the Lord:

PICTURE: Pope John Paul II offering incense from an incense burner to a graven image of the Mother Mary (top right of picture), the Catholic 'Queen of Heaven', in direct violation of Almighty God's Word in the book of Jeremiah (see Scriptures below). Photo taken on May 13th 1991, as the Pope was thanking 'Our Lady of Fatima' (Mother Mary) for saving his life on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the assassination attempt upon him.

​

PICTURE: A Catholic Cardinal offers incense from an Incense Burner to a statue (image) of a Saint. But God's Word forbids any such activity.
Deut 4:16
16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female (KJV)
Hosea 11:2
2 As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images. (KJV)

At the heart of the dilemma for any Christian (whether Catholic or not) is the First (I) and Second (II) Commandments of God as found in [Exodus 20:1-6]:

---

The Veneration of Mary:
Back to list of subsections at top of page

While the veneration with which Mary, the Mother of Christ, is regarded by the Catholic church is indicated in various indirect ways, for example by the large nimbus (Halo), such as may be seen in the pictures of the Crucifixion in the Rabulas manuscript of A.D. 586. As early as A.D. 540 we find a mosaic in which she sits enthroned as Queen of Heaven in the center of the apex of the cathedral of Parenzo in Austria, which was constructed at that date by Bishop Euphrasius. Let's look at one of the Catechisms (teachings) of the Catholic church:

This is a PERFECT example of the depths of your ignorance . . .

The difference between an image for Catholic and an image for a pagan is that pagans worshipped them as gods. Catholics see them as reminders of the person depicted. We don’t pray TO the statues, as the pagans did.

The entire purpose for paintings and statues in the Catholic Church stemmed from the fact that MOST people were illiterate - just as YOU are historically and Biblically illiterate. Images were used to educate the people about Biblical truths.

Finally – the Commandment against images is the WORSHIP of them – NOT the mere creation of them. God commanded Moses to create Two Golden cherubim to place on top of the Ark. He also commaded him to create a Bronze Serpent and place it on a pole so the people would be healed by gazing upon it.

If creating images was sinful – then YOU would be Hell-bound for all of the pictures you take with your cell phone camera or the driver’s license in your wallet.

Use your head . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

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

To the church!!!

Not to one perisher… the church is more than a perisher.

The whole church was told to repent

Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Them is not singular… But your rebuttals have become just silly at this point. So good luck on your path.

Are you so dense that you don't understand that a Parish is a community of people ans not just ONE person??
That warning was to the entire Parish -"... the Church at Pergamum".

Good grief - this is like talking to a wall . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I don’t have the say anything… here is your own writings….


In the Catholic Catechism, Mary is placed on par with Jesus Christ:


The Catholic dogma even claims that the Commandment prohibiting the use of the lord's name in vain is extended to the name of Mary:

Let me know when you’re ready to stop LYING.

As to not using the name of the Lord in vain – that is a Commandment.
Using the names of Mary and the Saints in Heaven is NOT. It is an admonishment to respect those who went before us to the glory of God.
As a supposed follower of christ, YOU should know better than to mock them.
Matt. 5:22
And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

NONE of the above texts from the Catechism place Mary as being “on par” with Jesus.
The idea that she cooperated with Jesus in His salvific work is something we ALL do as followers of Christ.

Paul states this emphatically:
Col. 1:24
Now I 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.

He joins HIS sufferings with those of Christ for the benefit of the Church.

Of the Body of Christ, he writes:
1 Cor. 12:26
If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

Do your homework and STUDY your Bible . . .

 

[amigo de christo]

Amigo for president 2024
making biblical correction great again .

 

[amigo de christo]

Time to clean house .

 

[Illuminator]

Let me know when you’re ready to stop LYING.

Suppressed anger is common with this particular type of anti-Catholic; there are many types. Trying to talk to them is like giving a pill to a cat, or hand-feeding a hungry crocodile.

Do your homework and STUDY your Bible . . .

I suggest we heap burning coals upon their heads.

Proverbs 25: 18 A man who bears false witness against his neighbor
Is like a club, a sword, and a sharp arrow.
19 Confidence in an unfaithful man in time of trouble
Is like a bad tooth and a foot out of joint.
20 Like one who takes away a garment in cold weather,
And like vinegar on soda,
Is one who sings songs to a heavy heart.
21 If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat;
And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink;
22 For so you will heap coals of fire on his head,
And the Lord will reward you.

Romans 12:18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.
19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] says the Lord.
20 On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[e]
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

But this forum is more of an asylum than a discussion board. The process in the making of this type of anti-Catholic is the same dynamic in the making of an atheist. They have much in common and a large percentage of them come from dysfunctional families and/or traumatic childhoods.

Posting one inflammatory lie after another to be as offensive as possible is a form of sadism, a mental illness. We have to let the fiery darts bounce off.

A biographical survey of influential atheists of the past four centuries shows that this "defective father hypothesis" provides a consistent explanation of the "intense atheism" of these thinkers. A survey of the leading defenders of Christianity over the same period confirms the hypothesis, finding few defective fathers. Vitz concludes with an intriguing comparison of male and female atheists and a consideration of other psychological factors that can contribute to atheism.

Professor Vitz does not argue that atheism is psychologically determined. Each man, whatever his experiences, ultimately chooses to accept God or reject him. Yet the cavalier attribution of religious faith to irrational, psychological needs is so prevalent that an exposition of the psychological factors predisposing one to anti-Catholicism is necessary.

An intriguing comparison and a consideration of other psychological factors that can contribute to anti-Catholicism requires a lot of heavy reading. Deep down, the Catholic Church, symbolized by false caricatures and/or a bad parent, must be put down by any means. So they drink the Kool-Aid from the likes of Matt Slick and legions of other anti-Catholics in order to meet sick needs. Exposing lies is good for the readers, but the anti-Catholic of this type just runs and finds more lies. That's why replies contain more lies than the one that gets refuted. It IS like talking to a wall.

Amazon.com

 

[Marvelloustime]

Amigo for president 2024
making biblical correction great again .

Supported by marvellous time and an orange and white baying dog.

 

[Marymog]

Strong ain't the only scholar out there. Besides, the Bible tells you upon what the church is built (Jesus, the foundation and the corner stone) so comparing Scripture with Scripture points us to "little stone vs. giant rock of immense proportion".

Too often, catholicism attempts to build a doctrine on one verse, but "out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, a thing is established".

Thanks for your time Phoneman.

It appears you have zero evidence to back up your "petros" doesn't mean "rock" - it means something like "rolling pebble" statement. I don't know why you can't just admit that.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Aside: Jesus has the keys

Revelation 1:18
and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.

Revelation 3:7

To the Church in Philadelphia​

“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 will shut, who shuts and no one opens.

Note: the timeline context of these texts.

Hmmmm....so are you saying that Jesus broke his promise and never gave Peter the keys?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

I have been to many churches, but I don’t hold to names. I believe the church is a body of believers not restrained by names.

In Revelation 7 churches were addressed. Are these 7 churches of the true church? Are these 7 churches Catholic?

These 7 churches had different doctrines, how could a person follow them all, while not contradicting another?

Let me ask you, do you believe these people are all Catholics?

Revelation 7:9
After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

Thanks.

THE Church is NOT a body of believers. The body of believers (the flock) are members of The Church, but they are not THE Church. The elders/overseers are THE Church. They oversee the flock and we are to Obey our leaders and submit to them—for they keep watch over your souls, and we are to go to The Church (elders/overseers) to fulfil Matthew 18:17 when we have a disagreement in or between the "body of believers".

You make the definitive statement that the 7 churches had different doctrines but provide no evidence.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Yea, right! You almost always avoid answering.

 

[Truthnightmare]

Thanks.

THE Church is NOT a body of believers. The body of believers (the flock) are members of The Church, but they are not THE Church. The elders/overseers are THE Church. They oversee the flock and we are to Obey our leaders and submit to them—for they keep watch over your souls, and we are to go to The Church (elders/overseers) to fulfil Matthew 18:17 when we have a disagreement in or between the "body of believers".

You make the definitive statement that the 7 churches had different doctrines but provide no evidence.

Mary

The evidence is before you. 5 churches were in danger, and we’re warned, 2 churches were given promises of good things that would come.

If they all taught the same, their instructions would have been the same also.

Yes, there are elders… but consider…

Matthew 20
25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

26 But it shall not be so among you:

Peace

 

[Truthnightmare]

This is a PERFECT example of the depths of your ignorance . . .

The difference between an image for Catholic and an image for a pagan is that pagans worshipped them as gods. Catholics see them as reminders of the person depicted. We don’t pray TO the statues, as the pagans did.

The entire purpose for paintings and statues in the Catholic Church stemmed from the fact that MOST people were illiterate - just as YOU are historically and Biblically illiterate. Images were used to educate the people about Biblical truths.

Finally – the Commandment against images is the WORSHIP of them – NOT the mere creation of them. God commanded Moses to create Two Golden cherubim to place on top of the Ark. He also commaded him to create a Bronze Serpent and place it on a pole so the people would be healed by gazing upon it.

If creating images was sinful – then YOU would be Hell-bound for all of the pictures you take with your cell phone camera or the driver’s license in your wallet.

Use your head . . .

Say what you will… I’m simply posting Catholic writings. Your fight is not with me….

CC 2162. "The SECOND COMMANDMENT forbids every improper use of God's name. Blasphemy is the use of the name of God, of Jesus Christ, of the Virgin Mary, and of the saints in an offensive way. "

The THIRD Commandment from the Bible:

Exod 20:7
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. (KJV)

To still have a total of Ten Commandments, the Catholic Church divides the Tenth Commandment into two separate Commandments (illustrated below).

The Ninth and Tenth Commandment according to the Catholic Church; from the CC:

CC 2514. "St. John distinguishes three kinds of covetousness or concupiscence: lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life.[Cf. 1Jn 2:16 .] In the Catholic catechetical tradition, theNINTH COMMANDMENT forbids carnal concupiscence; theTENTH forbids coveting another's goods."

The TRUE Ninth Commandment from the Bible:

Exod 20:16
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. (KJV)

The TRUE Tenth Commandment from the Bible:

Exod 20:17
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. (KJV)

By reading the true tenth commandment above [Ex 20:17] it is quite clear that the Catholic Church separates it into two separate commandments without any authority to do so; it is clearly one thought, one statement, and one commandment, there is no room to separate the sentence into two different subjects. The Catholic Church does this to camouflage the joining of the first commandment onto the second. After all, they did need to add up to ten.

An even clearer testament to their corruption of the ten commandments is that they put the "carnal concupiscence" before the "coveting another's goods", when in the Scriptures, the portion of the sentence containing "coveting another's goods" ie: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house" comes first.

If we wish to delve even further, we see that the Catholic Catechism claims that their Ninth Commandment is against having sexual intercourse; when in reality, it is speaking about adultery, which is having sex with another man's wife. ie: "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife," it didn't say the girl next door, or your girlfriend, or your own wife even. We are not saying that it is OK to go sleeping around with everybody, for it is not, but what we are simply saying it is not in the Ten Commandments. And there is never any 'good reason' to misrepresent the Word of the Lord! If the Catholic Church wanted to teach that it is God's will that we don't go sleeping around with people we aren't married to, then they should let the Word of God do the teaching, and not corrupt and misrepresent the Ten Commandments:

1 Cor 7:2
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. (KJV)

And there is quite a difference between two single people having sex, as opposed to a married man or woman sleeping with someone other than their spouse. The Catholic Church distorts this to support their Priest's chastity rules which are not Biblical in origin and have led to the most perverse of misconduct. Although, one could say that the mere lack of sexual fulfillment or the state of being in desire for sexual gratification would not normally lead a grown man to sexually abuse young altar boys. The Priest that does such a thing is inherently pure evil. Below is the definition of the words carnal and concupiscence, there is no allusion whatsoever to the party involved being married to someone other than the person they are engaging in sex with:

WEBSTER'S DEFINITION:
CARNAL, a.
1. Pertaining to flesh; fleshly; sensual; opposed to spiritual; as carnal pleasure.
2. Being in the natural state; unregenerate.
The carnal mind is enmity against God. Rom. 8.
3. Pertaining to the ceremonial law; as carnal ordinances. Heb. 9:10.
4. Lecherous; lustful; libidinous; given to sensual indulgence.
Carnal-knowledge, sexual intercourse.

CONCUPISCENCE, n. [L., to covet or lust after, to desire or covet.] Lust; unlawful or irregular desire of sexual pleasure.

To all of this this they add that since Mary and the Saints aren't called 'gods', the church is free to elevate them to the position that they do. But the First Commandment warns us not to have any false gods. A god is anyone or anything that you worship, whether it be Buddha, Allah, Mother Mary, a Totem Pole, Saints, Demons, Stars, the Elements, the Sun, Mythical Creatures, Riches.... And the Second Commandment warns us not to make statues or figures of people or things to bow down to.

The TRUE First Commandment from the Bible:

Exod 20:3
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (KJV)

The TRUE Second Commandment from the Bible:

Exod 20:4-6
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. (KJV)

The Roman Catholic Church also further blurs the lines of reality by stating that they 'venerate' Mary and the Saints, not 'worship' them. This is merely semantics. There is an old saying: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quakes like a duck - guess what? - It's a duck! I don't care how much they have 'spin-doctored' what they do, if they do things that constitute worship - then they are worshiping!

In other words, if you bow down to, kneel down before, clasp your hands together as you pray before, light candles to, burn incense to, Pray to (with or without a Rosary) anything or anyone other than the Lord; guess what? You are praying and worshiping something other than God. And do not think that God finds it is cute!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Say what you will… I’m simply posting Catholic writings. Your fight is not with me….

Posting them is ONE thing.

Misrepresenting them is what YOU do.

To still have a total of Ten Commandments, the Catholic Church divides the Tenth Commandment into two separate Commandments (illustrated below).

By reading the true tenth commandment above [Ex 20:17] it is quite clear that the Catholic Church separates it into two separate commandments without any authority to do so; it is clearly one thought, one statement, and one commandment, there is no room to separate the sentence into two different subjects. The Catholic Church does this to camouflage the joining of the first commandment onto the second. After all, they did need to add up to ten.

An even clearer testament to their corruption of the ten commandments is that they put the "carnal concupiscence" before the "coveting another's goods", when in the Scriptures, the portion of the sentence containing "coveting another's goods" ie: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house" comes first.

If we wish to delve even further, we see that the Catholic Catechism claims that their Ninth Commandment is against having sexual intercourse; when in reality, it is speaking about adultery, which is having sex with another man's wife. ie: "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife," it didn't say the girl next door, or your girlfriend, or your own wife even. We are not saying that it is OK to go sleeping around with everybody, for it is not, but what we are simply saying it is not in the Ten Commandments. And there is never any 'good reason' to misrepresent the Word of the Lord! If the Catholic Church wanted to teach that it is God's will that we don't go sleeping around with people we aren't married to, then they should let the Word of God do the teaching, and not corrupt and misrepresent the Ten Commandments:

This is ALL based on your abject ignorance of the text of Scripture.
Time for a Bible Lesson . . .

Coveting a man’s wife and a man’s property are TWO separate issues.
The first thing YOU need to know is that there are TWO versions of the listing of the Commandments in the Old Testament. To put them in their proper context, we need to examine BOTH listings.

In Deuteronomy 5, we see another version of the list. Here, we see a clear distinction between a man’s wife and his property. A different word for the desire of a man’s property is used than that of the desire for his wife.

Chamad (תחמד), is used to describe the coveting a man’s wife as opposed to 'Avah (תתאוה), which is used to describe the desire for a man’s property. Chamad has a connotation of sexual desire and lust, whereas, ‘Avah means to crave or to be greedy for something material.

There are two different Commandments here and NOT one jumbled, all-inclusive commandment. In Gen. 2:24, God declared that, in the union between a husband and wife, the two become ONE flesh. Jesus reiterates this fact in Mark 10:8.

There ends the lesson for the day . . .

And there is quite a difference between two single people having sex, as opposed to a married man or woman sleeping with someone other than their spouse. The Catholic Church distorts this to support their Priest's chastity rules which are not Biblical in origin and have led to the most perverse of misconduct. Although, one could say that the mere lack of sexual fulfillment or the state of being in desire for sexual gratification would not normally lead a grown man to sexually abuse young altar boys. The Priest that does such a thing is inherently pure evil. Below is the definition of the words carnal and concupiscence, there is no allusion whatsoever to the party involved being married to someone other than the person they are engaging in sex with:

Soooo, what’s the excuse for your Protestant ministers??

They’re mostly married – and yet sexual misconduct and the molestation of children happens MORE among the Protestant sects than in the Catholic Church.

This fact is WELL-documented in the book, Pedophiles and Priests by Protestant author, Philip Jenkins. He lists the official statistics from Police, FBI and Insurance cases.

Here is a partial example of the headlines . . .

How Protestant Churches Hid Sexual Abuse ...​

A History of Sex Abuse in the Protestant Imagination

FAQ: Sexual Abuse by Protestant Clergy - The Doan Law Firm​

1 in 10 Young Protestants Have Left a Church Over Abuse

Evangelicals ‘worse’ than Catholics on sexual abuse

Evangelical Sex Abuse Record ‘Worse’ Than Catholic, Says Billy Graham’s Grandson

Protestants can no longer dismiss abuse as a ‘Catholic problem’

Child Sex Abuse More Prevalent Among Protestants Than Among Catholics

There Is More Sexual Abuse In The Protestant Churches Than Catholic

Catholic priests no guiltier of sex abuse than other clergy

Data Shed Light on Child Sexual Abuse by Protestant Clergy

Blogger Who Exposed Protestant Sex Abuse Cover Up Sued By Her Pastor

Denial About Sexual Abuse In Evangelical Churches

Southern Baptists Apologize For Sex Abuse Coverups

U.S. Protestants’ Views Mixed about Extent of Clergy Sexual Abuse