Upon THIS Rock I will build my Church

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,936
3,387
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Of course Eve believed she was. See (Gen. 4:1).
Yes, Abraham did believe he was. See. (Heb. 11:17-19)
You admit that Peter never acknowledged such a claim.

Stranger
Gen 4:1
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

NOWHERE
in this verse does Eve ever acknowledge that she is the mother of ALL the living.


Heb. 11:17-19
By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.


NOWHERE
in these verses does Abraham claim that he is the Father of a multitude of nations.

Soooooo, why do you hold Peter to a standard that you don't apply to anybody else??
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,936
3,387
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Matt 16:15-18

You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
After the Apostle Peter had borne this witness that our Lord was the Messiah,

Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter [petros--a stone, a rock] and on this rock [petra--a mass of rock--the great fundamental rock of truth, which you have just expressed] I will build my church.”

The Lord himself is the builder, as he himself also is declared to be the foundation, "Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid--Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 3:11) He is the great Rock, and Peter's confession of him as such was, therefore, a rock testimonial--a declaration of the foundation principles underlying the divine plan. The Apostle Peter so understood this matter and so expressed his understanding. (1 Pet. 2:5, 6) He declared all truly consecrated believers to be "living stones" who come to the great Rock of the divine plan, Christ Jesus--to be built up as a holy temple of God through union with him--the foundation.

Peter, therefore, disowned any pretension to being the foundation-stone himself and properly classed himself in with all the other "living stones" (Greek lithos) of the Church-- though petros, rock, signifies a larger stone than lithos, and all the apostles as "foundation" stones would in the divine plan and order have a larger importance than their brethren. Rev. 21:14

Thus it is quite evident what Jesus meant when he said “upon this rock (this truth) I will build my church,” was the statement Peter made, “Thou art the Christ the son of the living God.”

Christ was the foundation rock upon whom the church would be built, not Peter nor any other.
Good grief - did you just come onto this thread without reading ANY of the posts??
This argument was already obliterated back in post #31. Here it is again for your edification . . .

FIRST of all - Jesus and the Apostles spoke ARAMAIC to one another - not Greek - so your entire linguistic argument goes right out the window.
What Jesus actually said to Simon was: "You are KEPHA and on this KEPHA I will build my Church."

The Aramaic word, "Kepha" means "ROCK" - period. Not "small rock" or "pebble" - just ROCK.
This is why Paul refers to Peter - NOT as "Petros" in his letters - but as "CEPHAS", which is a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha. The vast majority of your own Protestant scholarship agrees with the CATHOLIC position that the "Rock" is Peter - and NOT his confession of faith NOR the revelation of who Jesus was . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
And because the Catholic Church makes Peter the Rock, it not only blasphemes Christ (God) the Rock but it creates a false doctrine.

Here is a quote from "Catholic Answers":
The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, as the following passages show...

However, according to Scripture, that is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE. Peter was a fallible apostle, and could never be the Rock on which the Church (the Body of Christ, not the CC) was built. The fallibility of Peter is seen several times:

1. Peter denied Christ three times, and then was restored.
2. Peter had to be shown the sheet from Heaven three times before he was willing to go to Cornelius and the Gentiles.
3. Peter had to be rebuked by Paul for failing to be a consistent Christian.

None of this detracts from Peter being a leading apostle in the church at Jerusalem. But it certainly shows that he could not possible be the Rock.

I believe I will post the numerous Scriptures which establish that God (Christ) is the Rock and no one else. This is will be for the Catholic naysayers who persist in their errors even after they see the Scriptures.
If that's true, then Jesus didn't change Simon bar Jonah's name, and Cephas wasn't Peter's name throughout the New Testament. His real name was ROCKHEAD. It's all a Jesuit conspiracy.

Changing the meaning of "fallible" and "infallible" to force fit it into your agenda is dishonest. OR you haven't a clue what it means so you fill in the blanks. In a nut shell, infallibility means "teaching without error". Impeccability means "living without sinning". You have the two terms confused. No one denies that Peter was a bumbling idiot in the first phases of his formation. Do you deny the infallibility of 1st and 2nd Peter???

I agree it is not up to us, it is up to God. I disagree that Jesus chose Peter as the rock on which He would build His Church.
Stranger
But you don't disagree that the Father revealed to Simon bar Jona who Jesus was. Can you at least agree that Jesus does the building?

You always want to blame the reformers for the many divisions within the catholic Church. (When I say 'catholic' I mean the universal Church of Christ consisting of all born-again believers everywhere, both Romanist and Protestant.)
So the reformers divided from the historic Church, divided from each other astronomically, continue today to divide from its roots even further than before, and seek to divide Protestants even further from each other as well. Then you pat me on the back with saying the CC has born again believers in it, then insult us with the divisive "Romanist" term. A mutual working definition of "division" is in order.

Do you ever think the Church is in need of reform?
The Church is in a state of perpetual renewal. That's why she has councils.
Did you ever think the need of reform was the cause of the Reformation?
History shows that both sides were to blame.

And the Reformation was not the first division within the catholic Church. Correct?
A schism is not a division. Different rites are not divisions either. When the CC teaches that other churches are a means of salvation, sources of grace and truth, CCC 817- 820, the Holy Dividers accuse her of conspiring a one world religion.
How could you blatantly MISINTERPRET Scripture in order to designate Abraham as "the Rock"? Let's take a look at this passage and see that in order to support one false interpretation, you have resorted to another.

THE ROCK IS THE LORD
1 Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the Rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged.

As I have already posted dozens of verses (above), "the Rock" in the OT is consistently God. Hence I have capitalized it. Believing Israel ("ye that follow after righteousness") is "hewn out of" or created by God, and only God can dig sinners out of the pit of Hell.

ABRAHAM IS THE EXAMPLE OF THOSE WHO BELIEVE ON THE LORD
2 Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.

Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness. Israel must look at Abraham as the example of those who are justified by grace through faith (and therefore blessed).

The Rock is Christ, who is God, and is repeated called the Rock in the Bible. Therefore Peter cannot be be Rock on which the true Church is built.
For the second time

ܐܴܦ݂ ܐܷܢܳܐ ܐܴܡܰܪ ܐ̱ܢܳܐ ܠܴܟ݂ ܂ ܕܱ݁ܐܢ̄ܬ݁ ܗ̄ܽܘ ܟܻ݁ܐܦ݂ܳܐ ܂ ܘܥܰܠ ܗܳܕ݂ܶܐ ܟܻ݁ܐܦ݂ܳܐ ܐܷܒ݂ܢܶܝܗ ܠܥܺܕ̱݁ܬ݁ܝ܂ ܘܬ݂ܱܪ̈ܥܶܐ ܕܱ݁ܫܝܽܘܠ ܠܴܐ ܢܶܚܣܢܽܘܢܳܗ܂
“Again I say to you that you are the Rock (Kepha), and upon this Rock (Kepha) I will build my Church, and the gates of Sheol will not subdue it.”

In both places we see the same word, ܟܺܐܦܳܐ (Kepha or Kepho depending on pronunciation),...the disparity in gender between Peter’s name and the “this rock” upon which Jesus promised to build His Church is based on the demands of Greek noun inflection. It may also explain the frequency of references to Peter as Cephas in Paul’s letters. The Greek transliteration of the Aramaic/Syriac word ܟܺܐܦܳܐ is κῆφα. Our word “Cephas” is the Latin transliteration of the Greek word.

Paul refers to Peter by name ten times. Of those 10 times, he calls him Cephas eight times.

Again, for the second time,

Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.
Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church.
Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church.
Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church

What part of this don't you understand???

This is proof that "bible Christian" anti-Catholic hate (like Charles Chiquinay) rots the mind.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gen 4:1
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

NOWHERE
in this verse does Eve ever acknowledge that she is the mother of ALL the living.


Heb. 11:17-19
By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.


NOWHERE
in these verses does Abraham claim that he is the Father of a multitude of nations.

Soooooo, why do you hold Peter to a standard that you don't apply to anybody else??

Eve was recognizing the promise of (Gen. 3:15)

Abraham was recognizing the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant given to him. He knew if He had killed Isaac, God would raise him up from the dead.

I don't hold Peter to a standard at all. I disagree that he is the rock upon which the Church is built.

Stranger
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
epostle

Yes, the Father revealed to Peter who Christ was. Yes, Jesus Christ is the builder of His Church.

The Reformers sought reform within the Church. An understanding of what is 'catholic' is what is in order. 'Catholic' speaks to all born-again believers everywhere. Thus all believers are part of the Holy Catholic Church. The Holy Universal Church of Christ. The Church at Rome wants primacy over the Catholic Church. What you see today as the Roman Catholic Church is really the Roman Church.

Therefore all believers in Christ are Catholics. But not all believers are part of the Roman Church. Those who are part of the Roman Church are Romanists. Just like those part of the Baptist Church are Baptists. If you are insulted by that, then it is because you want to see Rome with primacy over the Catholic Church.

My you hate that word 'reform'. Hate to admit that reform is needed in the Church. That which is in need of reform, never reforms itself. That is proven by the Reformation. And the need for reform was the cause of the Reformation. And Rome rejected it.

Rome caused the division (schism) between the East long before the Reformation. And that division (schism) exists to this day. So, you need to quit blaming everyone else for the many Protestant divisions that exist. The root cause of all of them is Rome.

Stranger
 

Harvest 1874

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2018
1,100
573
113
62
Tampa
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Good grief - did you just come onto this thread without reading ANY of the posts??
This argument was already obliterated back in post #31. Here it is again for your edification . . .

FIRST of all - Jesus and the Apostles spoke ARAMAIC to one another - not Greek - so your entire linguistic argument goes right out the window.
What Jesus actually said to Simon was: "You are KEPHA and on this KEPHA I will build my Church."

The Aramaic word, "Kepha" means "ROCK" - period. Not "small rock" or "pebble" - just ROCK.
This is why Paul refers to Peter - NOT as "Petros" in his letters - but as "CEPHAS", which is a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha. The vast majority of your own Protestant scholarship agrees with the CATHOLIC position that the "Rock" is Peter - and NOT his confession of faith NOR the revelation of who Jesus was . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We prefer the truth on the subject, not the vain babblings of men, specifically yours whereby you attempt to wrestle with the scriptures to justify your position, a position proven erroneous over and over again, but alas your eyes are closed, you are blinded by your church creed, which you obviously hold in higher esteem than the Word of God.
 

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
You only live twice. Once when you are born, and once when you look death in the face. Ian Fleming
epostle

Yes, the Father revealed to Peter who Christ was. Yes, Jesus Christ is the builder of His Church.

The Reformers sought reform within the Church. An understanding of what is 'catholic' is what is in order. 'Catholic' speaks to all born-again believers everywhere. Thus all believers are part of the Holy Catholic Church. The Holy Universal Church of Christ. The Church at Rome wants primacy over the Catholic Church. What you see today as the Roman Catholic Church is really the Roman Church.
You assert this misnomer repeatedly because you know it aggravates Catholics.

Therefore all believers in Christ are Catholics. But not all believers are part of the Roman Church. Those who are part of the Roman Church are Romanists. Just like those part of the Baptist Church are Baptists. If you are insulted by that, then it is because you want to see Rome with primacy over the Catholic Church.
No, I am insulted by your stubborn denials that have been explained to you 100 times. "Baptist Church" was launched in 1606 in Amsterdam, so why don't you call them "Amsterdamists"???
The history of the insulting term "Romanist" has been explained to you so many times you should have it memorized by now. But you can't.

My you hate that word 'reform'. Hate to admit that reform is needed in the Church. That which is in need of reform, never reforms itself. That is proven by the Reformation. And the need for reform was the cause of the Reformation. And Rome rejected it.
The Church is in a perpetual state of renewal. That's why she has councils. That's why we have encyclicals.

The break between Catholics and Protestants was either a tragic necessity or it was tragic because unnecessary.

Rome caused the division (schism) between the East long before the Reformation. And that division (schism) exists to this day. So, you need to quit blaming everyone else for the many Protestant divisions that exist. The root cause of all of them is Rome.
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.
271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1- pG 13,732.

I am beginning to think division, separation, and wall building is a spirit.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You only live twice. Once when you are born, and once when you look death in the face. Ian Fleming
You assert this misnomer repeatedly because you know it aggravates Catholics.


No, I am insulted by your stubborn denials that have been explained to you 100 times. "Baptist Church" was launched in 1606 in Amsterdam, so why don't you call them "Amsterdamists"???
The history of the insulting term "Romanist" has been explained to you so many times you should have it memorized by now. But you can't.

The Church is in a perpetual state of renewal. That's why she has councils. That's why we have encyclicals.

The break between Catholics and Protestants was either a tragic necessity or it was tragic because unnecessary.


Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.
271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1- pG 13,732.

I am beginning to think division, separation, and wall building is a spirit.

I assert it because it is true. If it aggravates you, you should investigate why.

The Roman church rejects reform. They have made that clear, as you do.

Stranger
 

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
I assert it because it is true. If it aggravates you, you should investigate why.

The Roman church rejects reform. They have made that clear, as you do.

Stranger
How about you write down your demands that the CC needs for your opinion of "reform", and we can send it to the Pope. By "reform", you want the CC to adopt the very things that has fragmented Protestantism.

You are arguing the same boring rhetoric that has been refuted 10000 times in the last 500 years. Why don't you pull your head out of the 16th century and comment on something that has been written recently?
  • Humanae Vitae (On the Regulation of Human Births)
    Pope Paul VI, July 25, 1968
  • Sicut Dudum (Against the Enslaving of Black Natives from the Canary Islands)
    Pope Eugene IV, January 13, 1435
  • Casti Connubii (On Christian Marriage)
    Pope Pius XI, December 31, 1930
that's reform!
Wow! The Church teaches in tongues!!!

th

Pope Francis / Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople
(Orthodox)

This one example is unthinkable
to dividers, separators and wall builders.




 
Last edited:

Nancy

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2018
16,806
25,450
113
Buffalo, Ny
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Of course the Rock is the proper Foundation. Remember Jesus spoke of it here:

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was
the fall of it" Matt 7:25-27


The Foundation or Rock is most certainly Jesus:

"And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also." Num 20:11

What did Moses do that was so wrong? Why was it by striking the Rock instead of speaking to it was it that he was denied entrance into the Promised Land?

"Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands,
Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?" Matt 26:67-68


Then again see the Foundation:

"For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." I Cor 3:9-11
Your last line Amadeus, should settle this simple matter IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amadeus

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
How about you write down your demands that the CC needs for your opinion of "reform", and we can send it to the Pope.You are arguing the same boring rhetoric that has been refuted 10000 times in the last 500 years. Why don't you pull your head out of the 16th century and comment on something that has been written recently

Rome had the chance to reform with Luther. They rejected it. And yall reject it still. Now you like to use the word 'renewal'. So, as soon as you recognize that 'reform' was necessary in the Roman Church during the days of Luther, creating the Reformation, why should I expect the Roman church to reform at any other time. I shouldn't. And you haven't.

Stranger



 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,936
3,387
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
We prefer the truth on the subject, not the vain babblings of men, specifically yours whereby you attempt to wrestle with the scriptures to justify your position, a position proven erroneous over and over again, but alas your eyes are closed, you are blinded by your church creed, which you obviously hold in higher esteem than the Word of God.
Then, instead of simply posting snarky comments - why don't you try DEBUNKING my position - and the comments of the Protestant scholars I posted.

Your job is to refute what I posted - not to whine about it . . .
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,936
3,387
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Eve was recognizing the promise of (Gen. 3:15)

Abraham was recognizing the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant given to him. He knew if He had killed Isaac, God would raise him up from the dead.

I don't hold Peter to a standard at all. I disagree that he is the rock upon which the Church is built.

Stranger
YOU erroneously stated that Eve claimed to be the Mother of ALL the living, as Scripture calls her.
She did NOT.

You ALSO erroneously stated that Abraham claimed that he was the Father of a multitude of nations, as Scripture calls him.
He did NOT.

In the same dishonest breath - you demand that I show a verse where Peter claimed to be the "Rock" as Scripture calls him.
He doesn't HAVE to because Scripture already does.

Paul
even refers to Him as the "Rock" (Cephas) in his letters (Gal. 2:7-14, I Cor. 1:11-13, I Cor. 3:21, I Cor. 9:5 and I Cor. 15:5) . . .
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
YOU erroneously stated that Eve claimed to be the Mother of ALL the living, as Scripture calls her.
She did NOT.

You ALSO erroneously stated that Abraham claimed that he was the Father of a multitude of nations, as Scripture calls him.
He did NOT.

In the same dishonest breath - you demand that I show a verse where Peter claimed to be the "Rock" as Scripture calls him.
He doesn't HAVE to because Scripture already does.

Paul
even refers to Him as the "Rock" (Cephas) in his letters (Gal. 2:7-14, I Cor. 1:11-13, I Cor. 3:21, I Cor. 9:5 and I Cor. 15:5) . . .

Eve recognized herself as mother of all living when she attributed the birth of her first born from the LORD. (4:1) Adam had already named her Eve and saying she is the mother of all living. Abraham recognized that he would be a father of many nations as God promised him in (Gen. 12:1-3), (Gen. 17:4) He believed that which is why, as I already said, he was willing to kill Isaac. (Heb. 11:17-19)

Just because people called Peter by his name doesn't mean they recognized that he is the rock on which Jesus is building His Church. Paul doesn't recognize anything special in Peter other than the gospel to the circumcision was committed to him. (Gal. 2:7) And Paul is clear that Peter, James, and John 'seemed' to be pillars in the church. (Ga. 2:9) "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars..."

Yet when Peter speaks of Paul he says he has written things 'hard to be understood'. (2 Peter 3:15-16) The revelation from Christ concerning the Church went to Paul. Not Peter. Peter opened the door to it in (Acts 10). But it would be to Paul that it was given.

No one is attributing to Peter the place that the Roman Church wants to give him. Peter is not claiming any such authority.

Stranger
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,936
3,387
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Eve recognized herself as mother of all living when she attributed the birth of her first born from the LORD. (4:1) Adam had already named her Eve and saying she is the mother of all living. Abraham recognized that he would be a father of many nations as God promised him in (Gen. 12:1-3), (Gen. 17:4) He believed that which is why, as I already said, he was willing to kill Isaac. (Heb. 11:17-19)

Just because people called Peter by his name doesn't mean they recognized that he is the rock on which Jesus is building His Church. Paul doesn't recognize anything special in Peter other than the gospel to the circumcision was committed to him. (Gal. 2:7) And Paul is clear that Peter, James, and John 'seemed' to be pillars in the church. (Ga. 2:9) "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars..."

Yet when Peter speaks of Paul he says he has written things 'hard to be understood'. (2 Peter 3:15-16) The revelation from Christ concerning the Church went to Paul. Not Peter. Peter opened the door to it in (Acts 10). But it would be to Paul that it was given.

No one is attributing to Peter the place that the Roman Church wants to give him. Peter is not claiming any such authority.

Stranger
WRONG again – but your dishonesty knows NO bounds, especially when you are losing an argument.
Your original charge was that Peter never claimed to be the “Rock” – so therefore, he wasn’t the Rock.

Eve never claimed to be the “Mother of ALL the living” – and you can’t produce a single verse that substantiates it. Whether she secretly believed it is another story.

Abraham never claimed to be the “Father of a multitude of nations” – and you can’t produce a singleverse that substantiates it. . Whether he secretly believed it is another story.

HOWEVER, you’re holding Peter to a standard that you’re NOT willing to hold ANYBODY else to, which is not only bad hermeneutics – it’s childish and desperate.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
WRONG again – but your dishonesty knows NO bounds, especially when you are losing an argument.
Your original charge was that Peter never claimed to be the “Rock” – so therefore, he wasn’t the Rock.

Eve never claimed to be the “Mother of ALL the living” – and you can’t produce a single verse that substantiates it. Whether she secretly believed it is another story.

Abraham never claimed to be the “Father of a multitude of nations” – and you can’t produce a singleverse that substantiates it. . Whether he secretly believed it is another story.

HOWEVER, you’re holding Peter to a standard that you’re NOT willing to hold ANYBODY else to, which is not only bad hermeneutics – it’s childish and desperate.


I don't hold Peter to any standard. Scripture is clear that he did not ever claim any such authority as the Roman Church wants to give him. And none of his actions ever proved any such authority.

Stranger
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheHolyBookEnds

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,936
3,387
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I don't hold Peter to any standard. Scripture is clear that he did not ever claim any such authority as the Roman Church wants to give him. And none of his actions ever proved any such authority.

Stranger
And there you go again with your dishonesty.

Sure – you claim that you don’t hold Peter to any standard. HOWEVER, you originally stated that Eve and Abraham supposedly “claimed” those things that were written about them – even though there isn’t one SHRED of Scriptural evidence to support your phony claims.
Two LIES that I have completely destroyed - and, now you’re back-pedaling . . .

Smooth move . . .





Smooth move . . .
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
And there you go again with your dishonesty.

Sure – you claim that you don’t hold Peter to any standard. HOWEVER, you originally stated that Eve and Abraham supposedly “claimed” those things that were written about them – even though there isn’t one SHRED of Scriptural evidence to support your phony claims.
Two LIES that I have completely destroyed - and, now you’re back-pedaling . . .

Smooth move . . .





Smooth move . . .

You have considerable issues involving mental health. You are so narcissitic. I am not being dishonest except in your mind. You haven't destroyed any thing I have said except in your mind. I am not back pedaling, except in your mind. There was no 'smooth move' except in your mind.

Your whole presentation is to build a facade. You work on the facade because it covers or hides the reality.

Stranger