[quote]forbes wrote:
Brother Chris:
I see that you are quoting a lot of extra-biblical texts.
With this I realize something.
You do not believe scripture alone is sufficient. I do.
This is the very thing that separates us. [/quote]
Well…that begs the question.
And if all you use is the Bible, then you don’t follow all of it. The Bible is not a catechism for non-Christians. It is a group of books for Christians. It is not an all exclusive book. Never was intended that way, and never has been.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I couldn’t read all that (I am in traffic and was stopped), >>>[/quote]Will you knock it off while driving. Good God man, you’re gonna get in an accident over some forum posts. We’ll wait. You need to get married Chris. You got waaaay too much time on your hands.
[/quote]
What if I don’t want to get married?[/quote]You do
[/quote]
That ultimately doesn’t matter, as if God wanted me to be married, he would have married me. [/quote]Aw now come on Chris. I AM NOT picking on you for not being married for Pete’s sake.
[/quote]
Didn’t think you were.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
OK, then I’ll shut up directly about the RCC in these forums for at least one week and let you guys do all the talkin. We’ll see what’s dreamed up and I’ll still be your very best friend. Starting riiiiiight now. 7 pm Sunday the 9th.[/quote]
Oh please don’t. We want the real you… Show us what a real Christian is…
[quote]forbes wrote:
A lot to cover, but I will address what I feel is the most important:
B.C quoted Revelation 5:8 and 8: 3-4
These verses talk about the prayers of the saints, their OWN prayers. Not prayers from others that they are making intercession for. If it was so, it would have said.
The problem I have is that basically, the RC church believes that we require intercessors (the saints) for our intercessor (Jesus) to make intersession to God the Father. Am I wrong in this? If I’m not, then why would this even be necessary.
Thus far no scripture has proven that we should pray to the saints for intercession.
Jesus is our only intercessor and the scriptures would indicate if it was otherwise.
To Pat, Jesus can be a mediator to God even though he himself is God because it is referring to God the Son interceding to God the Father, who are different individuals of the same being. So yes, God can intercede for God when God is comprised of different persons.
B.C, you make it sound like after we are forgiven of sins, we are still filthy from its effects, correct? If so, then that makes no sense. One, sin doesn’t make us filthy in a literal sense. There is nothing to clean up with a swiffer mop. Scripture is utterly clear on this concept:
Man sinned, and the consequence for sin is death (physical and spiritual). God’s perfect holiness requires atonement. It’s either us or something else that must taste the FULL wrath of God for it to be complete. Fortunately God loves us, and did not want to see us suffer. So he sent Jesus to pay the price in FULL.
Jesus was the one and only sacrifice that was needed. His blood purifies us. The fires of purgatory basically say “Jesus, your sacrifice was pretty good, but not good enough. I still have the stink of sin on me”.
In my opinion this is the worst doctrine of the RCC faith.
I will admit you guys got me there in some respects. I will require further reading on this part.[/quote]
It does not require (intercession) any such thing. It is a way to pray and have prayers said for your behalf. It’s another option. You can always pray yourself to the almighty yourself. Only good can come from prayers, be it from living folks or those living in the light of God.
I did provide scripture passages, if you do not look at them then I can do no more. There is no requirement for intercession. No such inference was made. It is a tool for prayer.
God is one. If Jesus wills it, it is. Only when God humbled himself to be a person did he require help for the human person is not capable of full divinity with out the grace of the spirit.
The scripture passages you referred to were referring to his sacrifice and what God did for us as man. How Jesus the person brought us closer to himself through his own sacrifice.
God forgives us from our sins, but we choose to be continued to be bound by them. Folks in the OT used to sacrifice animals and stuff for atonement. Until we choose to be free of our sins, we are not in full communion with God. Now, you cannot tell me that you have done wrong, been sorry for it and done it again, can you? Did God forgive you, sure, were you free from such sin? No. It’s a life long struggle and sometimes we take our personal demons with us.
It’s not important that you believe it, you asked for scriptural reference, and I provided.
Priests prior to Jesus were in charge of sacrifice and worship in B.C. Referring to Christ is priest profit and king is correct for he was the ultimate sacrifice.
The Holy Sacrifice of the mass is what they are in charge of hence, they are priests. It’s a name taken from the olden days. They are just ministers.
[quote]forbes wrote:
Brother Chris:
I see that you are quoting a lot of extra-biblical texts.
With this I realize something.
You do not believe scripture alone is sufficient. I do.
This is the very thing that separates us. [/quote]
You do realize that the canonized Bible, even the one that the Protestants selectively borrowed from the Catholic Church they hated so (look up all the books Martin Luther decided weren’t important), wasn’t in its complete form until after many of the doctrines cited by Brother Chris. So to believe your logic we have to believe that the Church fathers that made the statements above accidently adopted Biblical text that contradicted, or atleast didn’t support, their beliefs? Why would you try and extend your power by contradicting yourself.
Follow that up with the Catholic Church preserving the Bible in face of persecution. A lot of work for something that didn’t support its cause.
Additionally, the Bible is sufficient. But we don’t have a true version of the Bible. We have translations that have been interpreted many times over. Look at how many translations were once “valid” later to be declared wrong. Why should we not look to early Biblical and theological discussions to ascertain what the original text of the Bible meant. Instead you are willing to look at what someone in the 1700s who never knew Jesus thought.
I am sorry, I have to retract my previous statements about Joseph having children from another marriage. The idea of Joseph having children from another marriage is okay, but it is a minority belief within the Catholic Faith, and came from the extra-biblical book. The actual belief is my second explanation and is found in paragraph 500 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus.157 The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus”, are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary”.158 They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.
If you do not believe that Jesus is your personal Lord and Savior you go to Hell?
John 4:16 says, “Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.” We’ll add for a moment, as our Evangelical Protestant brothers say, “So if you don’t accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior, you are going to Hell, automatically.”
Now, as Catholics, we believe that we have to believe in Jesus to go to Heaven; however, if you go to the next chapter, 15:22 Jesus says (concerning the Jews to which he is speaking), “If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.”
So, what is Jesus saying? If Jesus had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty. You are not responsible for what you do not know. Jesus says something similar in John 9:41, He says, “Jesus said to them: If you were blind, you should not have sin: but now you say: We see. Your sin remaineth.”
The idea of Invincible Ignorance, the Catholic Church has taught for centuries, in fact Justin Martyr in the second century talked about the ancient Greeks who were searching after the lagas, to which all things comes and everything goes, they are searching for Jesus, they just don’t know it. They are Christians, they just don’t know it. There are people through no fault of their own where they are whether they are Jews, Hindus, Baptist, Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinist Protestants, or whom ever if they seek God, the best way they can there is a POSSIBILITY, doesn’t mean they can, and doesn’t mean we don’t need to evangelize them, because we do, because the closer we get to the truth the fuller you are in the truth, the more grace you have.
I’ll throw out a few more verses, because I like them.
Acts of Apostles 10:34-35…this is referring to Cornelius, who was not a believer in Christ, who prays to God and he’s offering sacrifices in 10:1-4, and God sends an angel to him to say that Cornelius your prayers and sacrifices have been heard by God and accepted by God…how can that happen he’s not even a Christian, he doesn’t know who Jesus is, and he reveals to St. Peter that he needs to go preach Jesus to Cornelius, now when St. Peter encounters Cornelius in verses 34-35 and Peter says, " And Peter opening his mouth, said: In very deed I perceive, that God is not a respecter of persons. But in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him" That is whether you are a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, if you are honestly seeking God, you are acceptable to Him. WE ARE NOT THE JUDGE OF WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE AND WHO THEY AREN’T, WE DO NOT KNOW. WE ARE NOT THE JUDGE. We do not know who is the invincibly ignorant person or not, Muslim or Jew who is honestly seeking God, and the Holy Ghost is with them.
So, you know what we do, we evangelize everyone.
Goodnight.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I’ll throw out a few more verses, because I like them.
Acts of Apostles 10:34-35…this is referring to Cornelius, who was not a believer in Christ, who prays to God and he’s offering sacrifices in 10:1-4, and God sends an angel to him to say that Cornelius your prayers and sacrifices have been heard by God and accepted by God…how can that happen he’s not even a Christian, he doesn’t know who Jesus is, and he reveals to St. Peter that he needs to go preach Jesus to Cornelius, now when St. Peter encounters Cornelius in verses 34-35 and Peter says, " And Peter opening his mouth, said: In very deed I perceive, that God is not a respecter of persons. But in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him" That is whether you are a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, if you are honestly seeking God, you are acceptable to Him. WE ARE NOT THE JUDGE OF WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE AND WHO THEY AREN’T, WE DO NOT KNOW. WE ARE NOT THE JUDGE. We do not know who is the invincibly ignorant person or not, Muslim or Jew who is honestly seeking God, and the Holy Ghost is with them. [/quote]
Bingo. Brother Chris, this is one of the most decent and tolerant posts I’ve ever seen you write 
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I’ll throw out a few more verses, because I like them.
Acts of Apostles 10:34-35…this is referring to Cornelius, who was not a believer in Christ, who prays to God and he’s offering sacrifices in 10:1-4, and God sends an angel to him to say that Cornelius your prayers and sacrifices have been heard by God and accepted by God…how can that happen he’s not even a Christian, he doesn’t know who Jesus is, and he reveals to St. Peter that he needs to go preach Jesus to Cornelius, now when St. Peter encounters Cornelius in verses 34-35 and Peter says, " And Peter opening his mouth, said: In very deed I perceive, that God is not a respecter of persons. But in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him" That is whether you are a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, if you are honestly seeking God, you are acceptable to Him. WE ARE NOT THE JUDGE OF WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE AND WHO THEY AREN’T, WE DO NOT KNOW. WE ARE NOT THE JUDGE. We do not know who is the invincibly ignorant person or not, Muslim or Jew who is honestly seeking God, and the Holy Ghost is with them. [/quote]
Bingo. Brother Chris, this is one of the most decent and tolerant posts I’ve ever seen you write [/quote]
Well, this next statement will make me sound like an intolerant pig. All religions (now this is a hyperbole, because obviously Judaism and Catholicism, which is a sect of Judaism, is not included in this statement) are man made, and anything man made cannot be the full truth and faith of Jesus Christ. Now…all the Buddhist, Hindus, Protestants, Orthodox, Jews, and Pagans would do good to accept the one true and full faith that is the truth of Jesus, that is Catholicism, in order to place them into the fullness of grace that is Jesus.
I hope that through Christ that I can bring and convert and save my earthly brothers to be my heavenly brothers.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
<<< OK, now I think I know where you are coming from now. That last statement that you made is a little funny though. “If Rome is Christ’s church then He is the devil.” I think the truth of that statement to you should be more like this, if Rome is Christ’s church then I want no part of it. Because the reality is Christ is God and you should be as you have stated following Him. I just find that last statement a bit ironic basically saying that if the Catholic Church is Christ’s then you hate Him. Kind of make’s you the devil doesn’t it Christ being who He is and all? Gotta poke the angry lion a bit…[/quote]Praise the glorious name of JESUS!!! We have a sighting boys n girls!!! A consistent Catholic!!! HALLELUJAH!!! I’ll sleep good tonight knowing you guys still exist. I have done everything I could possibly pray up, FOR MONTHS, to get somebody to finally declare me an evil satanic sinner and here you do it on your first try. Well done guvner.
They wouldn’t call me even presently lost because I kept saying that salvation is not found in the RCC gospel and they knew that if they said the same about me and mine it would destroy their all important testimony of universally tolerant grooviness. So to avoid that they simply kept telling me that I would probably go to heaven despite my unleashed vitriol against “the one true most holy apostolic church”. Well not just me in heaven, but practicing open homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and generally Christ denying God hating atheistic pagans as well. (I’m reeling that one in slow Chris. Don’t let me down buddy. That’s a good one there)
What you have just demonstrated is that there can be no spiritual concord between people who believe what I believe and people who believe what you believe. I sincerely congratulate you for recognizing it. This was once common knowledge in a time when protestantism knew what it was and the vatican still had a pair. Now that neither is true, the devil (the beguiler in chief) rejoices in convincing truly regenerate believers that Rome, while still being very much in error mind you, is their friend and full of fellow Christians who’s only problem is some funny practices.
I repeat. The protestant orthodox and RCC gospels are not the same. They just aren’t and as soon as some of my well meaning neo ecumenical brethren here learn enough about Rome (and, not to sound the wrong way, maybe even their own faith as well) they will see that too. Actually I would grant that the true gospel of Christ may still be submerged somewhere 20,000 leagues under the unholy see (hey, not bad huh? =] ) It’s just crusted over with such a thick armor of satanic barnacles that it is an even greater than usual work of God’s unfathomable grace if anybody actually finds it there.
Angry? You don’t know me at all friend. I’ll confess to a spell of aggravation here and there when dealing with the subject of false religion, but if you could be secretly listening in my private prayer time you would KNOW that I am angry with NOBODY here and just the very opposite is true. You don’t understand that because your legalistic man made religion keeps that sort of thing hidden from you while you make logically consistent but wholly erroneous posts like the one above. I’ve got another new Catholic on my prayer list =] You guys are gonna get your own time soon and I’m not even kidding.
What is my goal in all this? I want as many people to be certain as I have anything to do with that knowledgeable adherents of Roman Catholicism and protestant orthodoxy cannot both consistently have the same salvation. I would have stopped right from the beginning if the Catholics here would have just said that. Instead we get the bloated waddling pontification about how we are saved only because the RCC exists. Just keep lookin brothers. Mary and the saints and relics and the mass and transubstantiation and scredotal ceremonialism are all just symptoms.
[/quote]
Hahahahaha, I only referred to you as an angry lion because of your avatar. I really didn’t think you were an angry person.
[quote]forbes wrote:
Brother Chris:
I see that you are quoting a lot of extra-biblical texts.
With this I realize something.
You do not believe scripture alone is sufficient. I do.
This is the very thing that separates us. [/quote]
When you say the ‘scripture alone is sufficient’ what do you mean exactly?
Scripture is not a history book, science book, math book or any other kind of book. When looking through history and looking at historical facts of biblical times, the Bible is not sufficient for such things. It simply doesn’t tell you everything…It couldn’t it would waaay to big…That’s what I am asking what you mean about Bible only sufficiency.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
<<< OK, now I think I know where you are coming from now. That last statement that you made is a little funny though. “If Rome is Christ’s church then He is the devil.” I think the truth of that statement to you should be more like this, if Rome is Christ’s church then I want no part of it. Because the reality is Christ is God and you should be as you have stated following Him. I just find that last statement a bit ironic basically saying that if the Catholic Church is Christ’s then you hate Him. Kind of make’s you the devil doesn’t it Christ being who He is and all? Gotta poke the angry lion a bit…[/quote]Praise the glorious name of JESUS!!! We have a sighting boys n girls!!! A consistent Catholic!!! HALLELUJAH!!! I’ll sleep good tonight knowing you guys still exist. I have done everything I could possibly pray up, FOR MONTHS, to get somebody to finally declare me an evil satanic sinner and here you do it on your first try. Well done guvner.
They wouldn’t call me even presently lost because I kept saying that salvation is not found in the RCC gospel and they knew that if they said the same about me and mine it would destroy their all important testimony of universally tolerant grooviness. So to avoid that they simply kept telling me that I would probably go to heaven despite my unleashed vitriol against “the one true most holy apostolic church”. Well not just me in heaven, but practicing open homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and generally Christ denying God hating atheistic pagans as well. (I’m reeling that one in slow Chris. Don’t let me down buddy. That’s a good one there)
What you have just demonstrated is that there can be no spiritual concord between people who believe what I believe and people who believe what you believe. I sincerely congratulate you for recognizing it. This was once common knowledge in a time when protestantism knew what it was and the vatican still had a pair. Now that neither is true, the devil (the beguiler in chief) rejoices in convincing truly regenerate believers that Rome, while still being very much in error mind you, is their friend and full of fellow Christians who’s only problem is some funny practices.
I repeat. The protestant orthodox and RCC gospels are not the same. They just aren’t and as soon as some of my well meaning neo ecumenical brethren here learn enough about Rome (and, not to sound the wrong way, maybe even their own faith as well) they will see that too. Actually I would grant that the true gospel of Christ may still be submerged somewhere 20,000 leagues under the unholy see (hey, not bad huh? =] ) It’s just crusted over with such a thick armor of satanic barnacles that it is an even greater than usual work of God’s unfathomable grace if anybody actually finds it there.
Angry? You don’t know me at all friend. I’ll confess to a spell of aggravation here and there when dealing with the subject of false religion, but if you could be secretly listening in my private prayer time you would KNOW that I am angry with NOBODY here and just the very opposite is true. You don’t understand that because your legalistic man made religion keeps that sort of thing hidden from you while you make logically consistent but wholly erroneous posts like the one above. I’ve got another new Catholic on my prayer list =] You guys are gonna get your own time soon and I’m not even kidding.
What is my goal in all this? I want as many people to be certain as I have anything to do with that knowledgeable adherents of Roman Catholicism and protestant orthodoxy cannot both consistently have the same salvation. I would have stopped right from the beginning if the Catholics here would have just said that. Instead we get the bloated waddling pontification about how we are saved only because the RCC exists. Just keep lookin brothers. Mary and the saints and relics and the mass and transubstantiation and scredotal ceremonialism are all just symptoms.
[/quote]
Sorry, Tirib I am not going to condemn someone when speaking on theology. However, I have always held you are lost. I now see that you are uncharitable and ignorant. Your sarcasm is not welcome.
P.S. The reason you think Catholics are not consistent is because you expect us to form to your ignorance, you don’t hate the Catholic Church, you and James White hate what you guys dreamed up as the Catholic Church.[/quote]
And this diatribe is an example of why Tirib has made himself irrelevant in these discussions. Forbes has real questions and beefs with things that actually exist. Tirib simply makes them up out of thin air. I have heard these exact same falsehoods and tenets espoused by the glorious bigotry and hatred of the Westboro baptist Church. I can only assume some affinity to that terrorist style fundamentalism. In short I think he is a kook and should be ignored.
You will never get anywhere arguing with pure ignorance. RCC gospel?? You can accuse the church of many things, deliberately rewriting scripture ain’t one of them, especially since most legit translations are allowed by the church…All you will get here is angry hate filled vomit devoid of fact, poor in truth, but rich in pure bigotry.
Yes, Tirib. You are a full blown bigot…If you define bigotry of hatred of a group of people based on falsehoods, lies, and propaganda.
You see you asked questions only to cease on out of context phrases that do not reflect the original post.
Personally, I think you are afraid that somehow if Catholicism was in anyway right, that you’d be wrong. It is you own foolishness and weakness.
If these blogs are truly reflective of your faith, then your knowledge is poor and your faith is weak. I would recommend educating yourself to the truth. It’s out there, you just have to open your very hard head.
If you close your mind to the truth, because you think you already have the truth, it’s a clear indication that you don’t have it and refuse to get it.
[quote]forbes wrote:
Brother Chris, what about my interpretation of sin and redemption do you not agree with?
As for the "building of the Church on Peter:
"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it," (Matt. 16:18).
The Roman Catholic Church Puts a great deal of emphasis on Peter and claims that Jesus said he would build his church on him.
The scripture reference to which the Roman Catholic Church attempts to substantiate its position is found in Matt. 16:18. Here it is in context.
"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15 He *said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ," (Matt. 16:13-20).
There are problems with the Roman Catholic position. First of all, when we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18 we see something that is not obvious in the English. “…you are Peter (Ã??Ã?ÂÃ??Ã??Ã?¿Ã??, petros) and upon this rock (Ã??Ã?ÂÃ??Ã??Ã?±, petra) I will build My church…” In Greek nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word “petros” is masculine; “petra” is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros. But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine “petros” but the feminine “petra.” Let me illustrate by using the words “actor” and “actress:” “You are the actor and with this actress I will make my movie.” Do see that the gender influences how a sentence is understood? Jesus was not saying that the church will be built upon Peter, but upon something else. What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to?
The feminine “petra” occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:
* Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."
* Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."
* 1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
* 1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."
We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular; “petras” in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular) we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8). Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn’t we?
In addition, Greek dictionaries and lexicons give us further insight into the two Greek words under discussion:
A stone is movable, unstable and this is exactly what we see with Peter, who doubted when he walked on water, who denied Jesus, and who was rebuked by Paul at Antioch.
* Matt. 14:29-30, "And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But seeing the wind, he became afraid, and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, "Lord, save me!"
* Luke 22:57-58, "But he denied it, saying, "Woman, I do not know Him." 58 And a little later, another saw him and said, "You are one of them too!" But Peter said, "Man, I am not!"
* Gal. 2:11,14 "But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned...14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable and unstable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built. Rather, it would be built upon Jesus and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed what he said to Jesus, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” (Matt. 16:16). This is consistent with scripture elsewhere where the term rock is sometimes used in reference of God, but never of a man.
* Deut. 32:4, "The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice."
* 2 Sam. 22:2-3, "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; 3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge."
* Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
* Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
* Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."
It should be obvious from the Word of God that the rock Jesus was referring to was not Peter, but himself.
The Aramaic Kepha
In contrast to this, in paragraph #2 at the beginning of this article, the Roman Catholic Church says that the rock cannot refer to Jesus, “but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for ‘Peter’ and ‘rock’.” The problem is that the text is not in Aramaic, but Greek. Since we do not have the Aramaic text, it is not proper to refer to it as proof of the Roman Catholic position. We have to ask ourselves why the Roman Catholic Church would resort to using something that we don’t have: the aramaic text. Is it because their argument is not supported by the Greek and so they must infer something from a text we don’t possess?
Furthermore, in John 1:42 it says, “He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas,” (which is translated Peter).” The word “Peter” here is petros, not petra. It is used to elucidate the Aramaic kephas which is not a name in Aramaic.
"Except in Jn. 1:42, where it is used to elucidate Aramaic k�?ph�¡s, P�©tros is used in the NT only as a name for Simon Peter....The translation supports the view that K�?ph�¡s is not a proper name, since one does not usually translate proper names."1
Jesus is the rock on which the church is built
The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and that we, as his redeemed, need to keep our eyes on him. We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope on which the church is built. The Church is built upon Jesus, not Peter.
"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 3:11).
I have read this alternate interpretation before, but realistically it is not so. Peter = Rock, for Jesus to name Simon, Peter than call him the rock and upon this rock he will build his church is pretty damn clear. And if it were not enough, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. He doesn’t give that to just anyone, not even the other apostles. The fact that Peter was so flawed is consistent with Heaven belonging to the ‘least of his people’.
I think the issue really is that evangelicals feel that if this is true, that they are somehow invalid which is not true. Evangelical faith was born of the Catholic faith you are part of us. If you hold fast that this is untrue, then the first 1500 years of Christianity would have been based on lies. Care to take a bet on how long something based on lies would last?
Do you believe that the first 1500 years of Christianity was false, or untrue? Because if Peter wasn’t the first pope as ordained by Christ himself than there was no Christianity until the 16th century.
You are offspring of the Church we are therefore and should be brothers in Christ perhaps divided in methodology, but we should be united in faith, not divided by ideology.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
Brother Chris:
I see that you are quoting a lot of extra-biblical texts.
With this I realize something.
You do not believe scripture alone is sufficient. I do.
This is the very thing that separates us. [/quote]
When you say the ‘scripture alone is sufficient’ what do you mean exactly?
Scripture is not a history book, science book, math book or any other kind of book. When looking through history and looking at historical facts of biblical times, the Bible is not sufficient for such things. It simply doesn’t tell you everything…It couldn’t it would waaay to big…That’s what I am asking what you mean about Bible only sufficiency.[/quote]
Oh no I don’t think scripture is sufficient for every piece of information that mna can possible know, and if that is what has been the RCC belief of the Protestants all along no wonder there’s a misunderstanding 
By sufficient, I mean it contains everything we need to know about God, his commands, and our salvation.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
Brother Chris, what about my interpretation of sin and redemption do you not agree with?
As for the "building of the Church on Peter:
"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it," (Matt. 16:18).
The Roman Catholic Church Puts a great deal of emphasis on Peter and claims that Jesus said he would build his church on him.
The scripture reference to which the Roman Catholic Church attempts to substantiate its position is found in Matt. 16:18. Here it is in context.
"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15 He *said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ," (Matt. 16:13-20).
There are problems with the Roman Catholic position. First of all, when we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18 we see something that is not obvious in the English. “…you are Peter (Ã???Ã??Ã?ÂÃ???Ã???Ã??Ã?¿Ã???, petros) and upon this rock (Ã???Ã??Ã?ÂÃ???Ã???Ã??Ã?±, petra) I will build My church…” In Greek nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word “petros” is masculine; “petra” is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros. But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine “petros” but the feminine “petra.” Let me illustrate by using the words “actor” and “actress:” “You are the actor and with this actress I will make my movie.” Do see that the gender influences how a sentence is understood? Jesus was not saying that the church will be built upon Peter, but upon something else. What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to?
The feminine “petra” occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:
* Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."
* Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."
* 1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
* 1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."
We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular; “petras” in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular) we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8). Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn’t we?
In addition, Greek dictionaries and lexicons give us further insight into the two Greek words under discussion:
A stone is movable, unstable and this is exactly what we see with Peter, who doubted when he walked on water, who denied Jesus, and who was rebuked by Paul at Antioch.
* Matt. 14:29-30, "And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But seeing the wind, he became afraid, and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, "Lord, save me!"
* Luke 22:57-58, "But he denied it, saying, "Woman, I do not know Him." 58 And a little later, another saw him and said, "You are one of them too!" But Peter said, "Man, I am not!"
* Gal. 2:11,14 "But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned...14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable and unstable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built. Rather, it would be built upon Jesus and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed what he said to Jesus, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” (Matt. 16:16). This is consistent with scripture elsewhere where the term rock is sometimes used in reference of God, but never of a man.
* Deut. 32:4, "The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice."
* 2 Sam. 22:2-3, "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; 3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge."
* Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
* Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
* Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."
It should be obvious from the Word of God that the rock Jesus was referring to was not Peter, but himself.
The Aramaic Kepha
In contrast to this, in paragraph #2 at the beginning of this article, the Roman Catholic Church says that the rock cannot refer to Jesus, “but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for ‘Peter’ and ‘rock’.” The problem is that the text is not in Aramaic, but Greek. Since we do not have the Aramaic text, it is not proper to refer to it as proof of the Roman Catholic position. We have to ask ourselves why the Roman Catholic Church would resort to using something that we don’t have: the aramaic text. Is it because their argument is not supported by the Greek and so they must infer something from a text we don’t possess?
Furthermore, in John 1:42 it says, “He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas,” (which is translated Peter).” The word “Peter” here is petros, not petra. It is used to elucidate the Aramaic kephas which is not a name in Aramaic.
"Except in Jn. 1:42, where it is used to elucidate Aramaic k�??ph�?�¡s, P�?�©tros is used in the NT only as a name for Simon Peter....The translation supports the view that K�??ph�?�¡s is not a proper name, since one does not usually translate proper names."1
Jesus is the rock on which the church is built
The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and that we, as his redeemed, need to keep our eyes on him. We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope on which the church is built. The Church is built upon Jesus, not Peter.
"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 3:11).
I have read this alternate interpretation before, but realistically it is not so. Peter = Rock, for Jesus to name Simon, Peter than call him the rock and upon this rock he will build his church is pretty damn clear. And if it were not enough, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. He doesn’t give that to just anyone, not even the other apostles. The fact that Peter was so flawed is consistent with Heaven belonging to the ‘least of his people’.
I think the issue really is that evangelicals feel that if this is true, that they are somehow invalid which is not true. Evangelical faith was born of the Catholic faith you are part of us. If you hold fast that this is untrue, then the first 1500 years of Christianity would have been based on lies. Care to take a bet on how long something based on lies would last?
Do you believe that the first 1500 years of Christianity was false, or untrue? Because if Peter wasn’t the first pope as ordained by Christ himself than there was no Christianity until the 16th century.
You are offspring of the Church we are therefore and should be brothers in Christ perhaps divided in methodology, but we should be united in faith, not divided by ideology.[/quote]
I agree, and after a long debate that will never technically end until Christ’s second coming, I think we should come to terms with this. There are things we disagree on but as long as the essentials are there then it doesn’t matter. In fact, scripture warn against getting caught up in incidentals like this.
Question for the Catholics:
Do you believe that I, as a protestant (though I do not like being denominational), am saved?
If no, why?
If yes, why?
“There are things we disagree on but as long as the essentials are there then it doesn’t matter. In fact, scripture warn[sic] against getting caught up in incidentals like this.” -forbes
This can be dangerous when twisted. I am not sure I remember the exact context, but wasn’t this about diet ie vegetarians vs eating meat. What are the essentials? I think this is what the discussion is truly about here, not the incidentals as you have portrayed them. It’s good that we agree on some things, but it truly is important (essential) that Christ established a church in a certain way and that it would teach His truth and condemn error. Getting caught up in incidentals would be things more like all christians must put on their left shoes before their right shoes (things of this sort can be found in all christian groups and should be condemned), but other things should be spoken about most earnestly and not trivialized.
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
Brother Chris, what about my interpretation of sin and redemption do you not agree with?
As for the "building of the Church on Peter:
"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it," (Matt. 16:18).
The Roman Catholic Church Puts a great deal of emphasis on Peter and claims that Jesus said he would build his church on him.
The scripture reference to which the Roman Catholic Church attempts to substantiate its position is found in Matt. 16:18. Here it is in context.
"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15 He *said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ," (Matt. 16:13-20).
There are problems with the Roman Catholic position. First of all, when we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18 we see something that is not obvious in the English. “…you are Peter (Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?ÂÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¿Ã???, petros) and upon this rock (Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?ÂÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?±, petra) I will build My church…” In Greek nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word “petros” is masculine; “petra” is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros. But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine “petros” but the feminine “petra.” Let me illustrate by using the words “actor” and “actress:” “You are the actor and with this actress I will make my movie.” Do see that the gender influences how a sentence is understood? Jesus was not saying that the church will be built upon Peter, but upon something else. What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to?
The feminine “petra” occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:
* Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."
* Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."
* 1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
* 1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."
We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular; “petras” in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular) we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8). Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn’t we?
In addition, Greek dictionaries and lexicons give us further insight into the two Greek words under discussion:
A stone is movable, unstable and this is exactly what we see with Peter, who doubted when he walked on water, who denied Jesus, and who was rebuked by Paul at Antioch.
* Matt. 14:29-30, "And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But seeing the wind, he became afraid, and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, "Lord, save me!"
* Luke 22:57-58, "But he denied it, saying, "Woman, I do not know Him." 58 And a little later, another saw him and said, "You are one of them too!" But Peter said, "Man, I am not!"
* Gal. 2:11,14 "But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned...14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable and unstable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built. Rather, it would be built upon Jesus and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed what he said to Jesus, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” (Matt. 16:16). This is consistent with scripture elsewhere where the term rock is sometimes used in reference of God, but never of a man.
* Deut. 32:4, "The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice."
* 2 Sam. 22:2-3, "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; 3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge."
* Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
* Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
* Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."
It should be obvious from the Word of God that the rock Jesus was referring to was not Peter, but himself.
The Aramaic Kepha
In contrast to this, in paragraph #2 at the beginning of this article, the Roman Catholic Church says that the rock cannot refer to Jesus, “but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for ‘Peter’ and ‘rock’.” The problem is that the text is not in Aramaic, but Greek. Since we do not have the Aramaic text, it is not proper to refer to it as proof of the Roman Catholic position. We have to ask ourselves why the Roman Catholic Church would resort to using something that we don’t have: the aramaic text. Is it because their argument is not supported by the Greek and so they must infer something from a text we don’t possess?
Furthermore, in John 1:42 it says, “He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas,” (which is translated Peter).” The word “Peter” here is petros, not petra. It is used to elucidate the Aramaic kephas which is not a name in Aramaic.
"Except in Jn. 1:42, where it is used to elucidate Aramaic k�???ph�??�?�¡s, P�??�?�©tros is used in the NT only as a name for Simon Peter....The translation supports the view that K�???ph�??�?�¡s is not a proper name, since one does not usually translate proper names."1
Jesus is the rock on which the church is built
The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and that we, as his redeemed, need to keep our eyes on him. We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope on which the church is built. The Church is built upon Jesus, not Peter.
"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 3:11).
I have read this alternate interpretation before, but realistically it is not so. Peter = Rock, for Jesus to name Simon, Peter than call him the rock and upon this rock he will build his church is pretty damn clear. And if it were not enough, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. He doesn’t give that to just anyone, not even the other apostles. The fact that Peter was so flawed is consistent with Heaven belonging to the ‘least of his people’.
I think the issue really is that evangelicals feel that if this is true, that they are somehow invalid which is not true. Evangelical faith was born of the Catholic faith you are part of us. If you hold fast that this is untrue, then the first 1500 years of Christianity would have been based on lies. Care to take a bet on how long something based on lies would last?
Do you believe that the first 1500 years of Christianity was false, or untrue? Because if Peter wasn’t the first pope as ordained by Christ himself than there was no Christianity until the 16th century.
You are offspring of the Church we are therefore and should be brothers in Christ perhaps divided in methodology, but we should be united in faith, not divided by ideology.[/quote]
I agree, and after a long debate that will never technically end until Christ’s second coming, I think we should come to terms with this. There are things we disagree on but as long as the essentials are there then it doesn’t matter. In fact, scripture warn against getting caught up in incidentals like this.
Question for the Catholics:
Do you believe that I, as a protestant (though I do not like being denominational), am saved?
If no, why?
If yes, why?
[/quote]
Somewhat a loaded questions. Do I know if I’m saved as a Catholic; No. I hope I am. I work hard every day to “bear fruit” and live my life as Christ would call. But at the end of the day, I realize all men fall short and only through the Grace of God are we saved. I hope on judgment day my soul is pure enough to win favor with the Lord. As the Bible says, many will claim to have known Jesus and will call his name, but Jesus will tell them that he does not know them.
As a protestant, are you saved? See above; I don’t know. But know this, as a protestant, you will have to also answer to the Lord for why you didn’t follow the Catholic Church’s teachings.
A good illustration about Catholic views on salvation goes like this. A missionary goes to serve a small community at the the top of a mountain. This community has never known of Jesus. The missionary stops at the town at the base of a mountain and has a drink. This drink turns into many and the missionary passes out. While the missionary is unconscious, a horrible disaster happens at the top of the mountain and destroys the community. Are the souls of the individuals in the community going to hell because of the missionary’s sins? A Catholic would say that the Grace of God can save all even the non-believers. Thus, the community may be saved.
If God can save this community of non-believers why could he not save the fallen protestants?
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
“There are things we disagree on but as long as the essentials are there then it doesn’t matter. In fact, scripture warn[sic] against getting caught up in incidentals like this.” -forbes
This can be dangerous when twisted. I am not sure I remember the exact context, but wasn’t this about diet ie vegetarians vs eating meat. What are the essentials? I think this is what the discussion is truly about here, not the incidentals as you have portrayed them. It’s good that we agree on some things, but it truly is important (essential) that Christ established a church in a certain way and that it would teach His truth and condemn error. Getting caught up in incidentals would be things more like all christians must put on their left shoes before their right shoes (things of this sort can be found in all christian groups and should be condemned), but other things should be spoken about most earnestly and not trivialized.
[/quote]
I agree. Nothing in the Cathecism is non-essential.
As for the left shoe, right shoe thing. Didn’t Vatican II say that you had to spend an extra day in purgatory or make three more prayers to your patron saint if you failed to put the left shoe on first? I seem to recall a protestant telling me this.
[quote]McG78 wrote:
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
“There are things we disagree on but as long as the essentials are there then it doesn’t matter. In fact, scripture warn[sic] against getting caught up in incidentals like this.” -forbes
This can be dangerous when twisted. I am not sure I remember the exact context, but wasn’t this about diet ie vegetarians vs eating meat. What are the essentials? I think this is what the discussion is truly about here, not the incidentals as you have portrayed them. It’s good that we agree on some things, but it truly is important (essential) that Christ established a church in a certain way and that it would teach His truth and condemn error. Getting caught up in incidentals would be things more like all christians must put on their left shoes before their right shoes (things of this sort can be found in all christian groups and should be condemned), but other things should be spoken about most earnestly and not trivialized.
[/quote]
I agree. Nothing in the Cathecism is non-essential.
As for the left shoe, right shoe thing. Didn’t Vatican II say that you had to spend an extra day in purgatory or make three more prays to your patron saint if you failed to put the left shoe on first? I seem to recall a protestant telling me this.[/quote]
Thanks, I got a good chuckle from that one.
[quote]forbes wrote:
Do you believe that I, as a protestant (though I do not like being denominational), am saved?
If no, why?
If yes, why?
[/quote]
No. Because you’re not in Heaven.