Peter the Rock???
Pastor Dave
Peter the Rock???
This is not an invitation for a discussion, nor for
an attack. This is simply a study of this issue.
If you do respond, I would suggest that you
read it all first, since you will probably end up
looking foolish, since your objection is probably
covered later in the text. And no, skimming it
is not the same as studying it! The question is,
what is your motivation? To learn? Or to place
your doctrine above all else, even truth? That
is for you to decide, but here it is...
Many today believe that Jesus called Peter the Rock
that He was going to build His church on. But is this
really the case? Let's examine the issue and see
what we can learn from the Bible.
"And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus
looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son
of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas (which is
translated, "A STONE")." - John 1:42
Just so you know, "Cephas" means, "a piece of rock"
and not "a mass of rock", as the word translated as
"rock" means in Matthew 16:18.
One of the two main arguments that people make,
is that Jesus called Peter the rock, giving him this
new name. The problem with this argument, is
that it does not tell us what the actual meaning is,
from the original Koine Greek. You see, there are
actually two different Greek words used there,
one of which is translated to "Peter" and the other,
which is translated to "rock". And in reality, the word
that is translated into Peter is "petros", which means,
"a piece of rock" (a stone, not a huge mass of rock)
and the word translated into "rock" is "petra" and
means, "a mass of rock".
Therefore, Jesus actually renamed Peter to a piece
of rock, that would be part of the massive rock that
He was building His church on. This alone should
be enough to convince us that Jesus was not
referring to Peter as the rock He was going to build
His church on. But of course, people are stubborn
when it comes to their doctrines and frankly, hardly
any of them care about what the Bible says and
take their own word, or some religion's word over
the Bible! This may sound mean, but this is the way
it is and if that were not true, then this type of debate
would not still be around after many centuries!
And so, those who want to believe that Peter is
the rock that Jesus was referring to, will always,
always, next say; "But in Hebrew, it is "Kephas",
which does mean a large rock!".
Now let's say that is true (I believe that is correct).
What difference does that make? None at all!
None whatsoever! And I will prove this to you,
if you're willing to believe the Bible over men.
But for now, we will temporarily put this portion
of the debate to rest until later in this chapter.
Now since most of the people that believe that
Peter himself is the Rock are Roman Catholic,
since they base their whole supposedly Biblical
authority for having a Pope on this one thing,
since without it, their whole argument would
crumble, we really need to take a look at the
Roman Catholic view and apply some common
sense (reason).
Now while many will say (because they don't like
what they're seeing) that; "We go by God's word!
Common sense is man's logic and to base your
view on that is the Devil's work!", I will respond
by quoting the Bible to them, since to apply
common sense to a situation, is simply to reason
it out, but for Christians, it is to do it in a Biblical
fashion. But to say that common sense itself is
the Devil's work, is to say that God, who gave us
this reasoning ability, intentionally created man
for the purpose of doing the Devil's work, since
God created man with this ability to reason!
Think about it. Without common sense, we
couldn't even function! Try driving a car without
any common sense and see if anyone wants to
ride with you as a passenger. I think you see
what I mean. So anyway, what does the Bible
have to say about common sense/reason (those
two terms are interchangeable here)?
"Come now, and let us reason together,
says the Lord. Though your sins are
like scarlet, they shall be as white as
snow; Though they are red like crimson,
they shall be as wool." - Isaiah 1:18
Now note that we are told by the Lord to come
and reason with Him. And not only that, but
He goes on to say that it is through reasoning
it out that our sins become white as snow!
You see, this is saying that the Gospel message
itself is common sense! You have sin! You
need a Savior!
And let us not stick our noses up in the air!
There are those who acknowledge that the Bible
was written for the common man to be able to
read and understand and in fact, for example,
the Greek that New Testament was written in,
was Koine Greek, which was the common man's
"street Greek". Something you would write
a grocery list with. And this is all fine, except
when those same people who acknowledge this
see something that proves something that they
believe to be in error, then, all of the sudden,
"That's just your interpretation and who says
you're qualified to interpret it anyway?!".
Of course, the problem with this argument, is that
it has a boomerang effect. Furthermore, at that
point, they are being hypocrites. And the truth is,
while there are indeed parts of the Bible that do
require spiritual discernment, is that were true
throughout it, then no one who just started reading
it could understand any of it! And the passages in
question here, simply do not take some great spiritual
wisdom to understand! They are quite plain and
simple, with the possible exception of Mat 16:19!
But as I said, the Roman Catholic view needs to be
addressed and so, let us take a moment or two to
look at their view and as I said, apply some common
sense and see if it holds water, before getting into
the more technical arguments. This is a very important
thing that we must do, since if they are correct, then
we should all become Roman Catholics and believe in
the office of the Pope, or we will be headed for Hell,
since if Jesus did name Peter as the rock that He would
build His church on, then we would have to convert!
The Roman Catholics will claim that the torch is
passed on through the line of Popes. But what
are the common sense arguments against this
concept? Here are seven of them:
1) If Christ was saying that the Rock was Peter,
then where do we find Christ saying... "You
are Peter and upon YOU I will build My church!
Oh and by the way, Peter when you die, you
must pass the torch on to the next guy, okay?".
2) To say that Peter is the Rock, would be to have
Jesus referring to Peter as an object and not as
a person. In other words, Jesus says, "upon
THIS rocků.", instead of, "upon YOU as the rocků".
But Peter is not a"this", which is how one refers
to an object, or a statement and not a person.
Therefore, Jesus must have been speaking of
either an object He was holding or pointing to,
which is not supported by the text, or He was
referring to Peter's confession of Him (Jesus)
as the Christ.
Note that Jesus said, "YOU are Peter and upon
THIS rock I will build My church.". If He was
referring to Peter as the rock, then He would have
used proper language skills and said, "You are
Peter and upon YOU I will build My church.".
Unless we wish to claim that Jesus didn't know how
to speak and that we are smarter today than He was,
which is the same as saying that we are smarter than
Jesus? We would be saying that we need to make up
for Jesus' lack of speaking skills and His bad use of
language.
Now of course, this also means that what Christ
was referring to could not have just been Himself
either, since He also is not an object, but a Person
and therefore, it must be the confession of Him as
the Christ that He was referring to, which of course,
would indeed include Him as Lord, but as I said,
He, even while on Earth, was a Person and not
an object ("this")!
Some might argue; "But He was on Earth and so
He didn't know everything!".
a) Those people are truly desperate to hang onto
their doctrine and don't much care what they
say about Jesus!
b) The only thing that Jesus actually said that
He didn't know, was exactly what hour of which
exact day He would return.
c) This is till the same, "I'm smarter than Jesus was!"
argument. Think about it. These people would
still be saying that Jesus couldn't speak properly
and that Jesus, God walking Earth, got it wrong,
but they got it right today?! And if Jesus did not
speak properly when He made the statement,
then guess what people? That means that the
Bible has errors!
Is that the position you wish to be in, if indeed
you do believe that Jesus was calling Peter the
Rock? One of saying that the Bible that you
normally claim to be inerrant, actually has errors
and/or that Jesus couldn't speak properly and/or
that you are smarter than He was, because you
can't stand it that your doctrine is not holding
water? You'd better think about that carefully!
3) Where does Peter teach that he (Peter) is the Pope
and the head of the church?
4) Where is there any instruction whatsoever about
there being a Pope and what his office entails
and about passing the torch on to the next guy?
Where does it say that there would be a next guy?
I mean, are we really to believe that the central
office in the entire church is not even discussed
once in the entire NT?! Not even to pass on the
torch?! Please! This strains credulity and it surely
insults the intelligence to know this and still believe
that we should have Popes!
Oh, but wait, don't worry! Those same people
that invented the office of Pope will tell you that
they also get to set the rules and will claim that
these rules were passed down from the Apostles
and throughout the history of the church! And
where is this proved? Nowhere! And the reality
is, that Jesus didn't say;
"And the guys who come after you will also have
this authority, because they will take their turn
being the Rock that I am continuing to build
My church on."
After all, that's what would have to happen! Yet,
even if Jesus was talking about Peter, the reality is,
that it would mean that once Peter died, the church
would have to cease to exist, because the person
that Jesus supposedly built His church on is dead
and there isn't one word about passing on the torch!
And contrary to the process by Cardinals voting that
the Roman Catholic Church goes through, it would
had to have been Peter who passed it on! But again,
that isn't mentioned by Jesus, nor by any Apostle and
so, as I said, once Peter died, if he was "the rock",
that would have been the end of the church!
5) Why is it that all of the Apostles are not found
checking with Peter to see if what they have
his permission to do something?
6) They claim that Peter eventually ended up
in Rome and while that probably is true,
if he was the Pope and Rome is the place to
be, then why didn't he go there right away?
And why don't we see any writings about
Rome being the central church that all churches
must bow to? Do you read anywhere in Paul's
letters, for example, where Paul says this? No!
But we do see Paul blasting Peter!:
"Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood
him to his face, because he was to be blamed."
- Galatians 2:11
Is this how we see subordinates treating the Pope;
the leader of Christ's church? I think not!
7) There have been Popes that were later called,
"Anti-Popes" and their so called "infallible decrees"
were wiped away and so, holes were left in the
time line without these Popes, which could only
mean (if we hold them to their doctrine) that
the church didn't actually exist during those times!
Now what? Hello???
It is these seven points that alone should cause people
to reject the idea of a Pope and Peter being the Rock
that Christ said that He would build His church on!
But I know that most will not find it to be enough and
so, let's move on and address the other parts of this
issue and I hope that you will find this information
a blessing and edifying to you! But first, let us quote
the relevant Scripture:
Matthew 16:13-19
13) When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi,
He asked His disciples, saying, Who do men say that I,
the Son of Man, am?
14) So they said, Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah,
and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.
15) He said to them, But who do you say that I am?
16) Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ,
the Son of the living God.
17) Jesus answered and said to him, Blessed are you,
Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed
this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
18) And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this
rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades
shall not prevail against it.
19) And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of
Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be
bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth
will be loosed in Heaven.
Now before we begin, as a side note, I would like to
note that the proper word here is "Hades", not "Hell".
Hades is defined as "the place or state of the dead",
or sometimes can mean "the grave", or simply "death".
There were two parts of Hades. One was "Hades
Paradise" and the other was "Hades Tartarus".
This is seen in Luke 16:19-31, which most people think
is speaking of Heaven and Hell, but it isn't. You do
not see Heaven from Hell folks. Remember that the
resurrection had not happened yet and so, this is
about Hades, which was "the state of the dead".
This would not even be the definition of Hades,
if everyone was simply out and had no clue what
was going on.
So the point is, that the rich man was in Hades Tartarus,
which was a state of torment and the beggar Lazarus
was in Hades Paradise, which is also where Abraham
was (again, remember, the resurrection had not
happened yet).
As to Jesus' point, He was saying that just like death
would not be able to hold Himů
"(Jesus) whom God raised up, having loosed the pains
of death, because it was not possible that He should
be held by it." - Acts 2:24
ůneither would death be able to hold those who died
in the faith!
We must understand what a great message of hope
this was, that Jesus was giving here! He was telling
them that even death would not be able to hold them,
through their faith in Him, which they displayed by
their confession of Him as the Christ! And when we
remember that in the '60's A.D., people went to their
death if they refused to reject Him as the Christ and
that before that, it was the Jews up until at least the
'50's A.D. that persecuted the church and had Christians
crucified (this is historical fact), then we can see what
a great message of hope it was that Jesus was giving
them here!
"Have no fear! Even if they kill you, death will
not be able to hold you!"
"And do not fear those who kill the body but
cannot kill the soul." - Matthew 10:28a
And this also should tell us that it was not Peter
that Christ was talking about as being the Rock
that He would build His church on, since they
died by confessing Christ in many cases and
why else would Jesus tie this in here, knowing
what He knew was coming for them, that He
did indeed tell them was coming upon them?
The truth is, that this ties in perfectly with the
idea that Christ was talking about Himself and
the confession of Him as the Christ, being
"the Rock" that He would build His church on!
And now, to get on with the subject at hand, I ask
that you please forget about anything you know
and read it without any bias whatsoever, regardless
of how it *seems* to read to you and I thank you
for doing that!
And remember as you read it in context, that Jesus
asked *all* of them who He was, not just Peter.
Now Peter is the one who responded, but to say
that Jesus was saying that He would build His church
on Peter, is to say that He would build His infallible
church on a fallible man and it is also to say that the
others would never have confessed Jesus as the Christ.
I mean, otherwise, it wouldn't make sense that He
would say that to Peter and not the others, unless that
is being implied! But we know that didn't turn out to
be the case, since they did believe! So really, that theory
would have Jesus saying...
"Well, Peter said it first, so he gets the golden ticket
and the rest of you guys are just out of luck! Now
Peter gets to be the boss of every single person in
the church, people! You should've spoken up guys!
Oh well, sucks to be you!"
And the disciples respond with...
"Awww, man!!! I never get nothin' 'cause I'm never
quick enough to call it first!"
Is this really what we wish to portray about
the discussion they had?
So no offense, but basically what this doctrine of
Peter being the Rock says, is that whoever calls it
first, gets the whole ball of wax and it just plain
sucks for everyone else! Do you really believe that
Jesus said His church would be built on something
that we used to do as little whiny brats ("Hey, I called
it first!")? And remember that they are not saying
that Peter was "A" rock, but that he was "THE" rock
that the whole church was built on!
Huh?!? The whole church built on one disciple???
I'm sorry, but that just makes no sense at all! (:
Look at it through the eyes of the original Greek
and you will see that it basically reads as follows,
when you remember (Very important!) that Peter
just confessed Jesus as the Christ and it is in that
context that Jesus RESPONDS TO that very
CONFESSION! And I have replaced the words in
v18 with their actual definitions, to show you how it
actually reads in the original Koine Greek language):
Matthew 16:15-18
15) He said to THEM, But who do you say that I am?
16) Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ,
the Son of the living God.
17) Jesus answered and said to him, Blessed are you,
Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not
revealed this to you, but My Father who is in
Heaven.
18) And I also say to you that you are A PIECE OF ROCK
and on this MASS OF ROCK I will build My church,
and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
And so the question is not about Peter's name, since
it does not mean "a mass of rock" and I'm not even
going to entertain the idea that you're right anyway,
which would mean that Jesus didn't know how to say
what He wanted to say and just made a mistake, or
they wrote it down wrong, or in Hebrew it would mean
this and so on.
1) The Bible is without error.
2) The NT was written in Koine Greek,
not Hebrew and see #1 above.
3) I question YOU, *not* the Bible.
And so the question is not "WHO", but rather, "WHAT".
I.e, "WHAT mass of rock is Jesus referring to?"
It cannot be Peter, because according to Jesus,
he is a "a piece of rock" and not a "mass of rock".
And we must also remember that the church is
about Jesus, not Peter! It is all through the Bible
that we see this! Everywhere we look, especially
in the New Testament, we see that "Christ is the
Chief Cornerstone", for example and when the
Apostles taught about this in the New Testament,
they were actually referring to prophecies from
the Old Testament. What people don't seem to
get, is that the New Testament is not some brand
new doctrine. Rather, it is expounding of the
Old Testament to the church. And both Jesus
and the Apostles taught from what we now call
the Old Testament.
And ask yourselfů What is a building built upon?
Don't say a cement platform, because that doesn't
determine what the building itself is and we are
talking about the building, not the cement under it.
One can pick up a house with equipment and move
that building and the cement platform would stay
right where it is!
So again, what is a building built upon? Simple!
It is built upon the chief cornerstone, which simply
means the starting corner. That is how a building
made of stones is started. And as I said, in the Bible,
we see that Christ is "the Chief Cornerstone", which
as I said, means the starting corner and also the
main and larger stone.
And even Jesus Himself said about Himself that
He is the Chief Cornerstone, but when He said it,
He asked those that He was telling a parable to;
"HAVE YOU NEVER READ....". So this is about
things that were prophesied about long before
and that is what Jesus was asking them if they
had read and this particular prophecy is found
in a Psalm.
"The stone which the builders rejected has
become the Chief Cornerstone." - Psalm 118:22
AND NOTE THE WORDING OF THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY!!!
"Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious;
but to those who are disobedient; The stone
which the builders rejected has become the
Chief Cornerstone... A ROCK OF OFFENSE..."
- 1 Peter 2:7-8
And yes, the Greek word there is also "a mass of rock"
and is the same word that Jesus used to describe what
He would build His church on, which as we can now see,
is He Himself and our confession of Him as the Christ!
And to carry on further what Peter was saying there,
we need only to back up a little bit in that chapter
and read the following:
"You also, as living STONES, are being built up
a spiritual HOUSE..." - 1 Peter 2:5
So here we have PETER HIMSELF saying that what
the church is built on, is Christ as the Chief Cornerstone
and that people are added to the building as living stones
and yes, the Greek word behind that word "stones"
is the very SAME word that Jesus renamed Peter to!
Peter was also one of the "lively stones"!
A stone; a piece of rock and not the huge boulder/mass
of rock that the church is built on! And yes, the Chief
Cornerstone in a building is bigger than the rest of
the stones of the building. This is seen in older stone
buildings and it's the one with the date stamped or
chiseled into it.
So Peter himself DENIES the idea that he himself
is what the church is built on! He said right there,
that it is Christ that the church is built on, not him!
He talks about "the builders". Well, what do builders do?
They build! And what are they building, when they have
a chief cornerstone and other stones? Why, a building,
obviously!
And what is Peter using this "chief cornerstone"
metaphor that is found in the Psalm and the
"lively stones" metaphor for? What type of
"building" is he talking about that is being built?
THE CHURCH, OF COURSE!!!
Therefore, YES, indeed, Peter ABSOLUTELY DOES state
that the "Chief Cornerstone", the "rock of offense" (mass
of rock) is Christ and our confession of Him as such and
is what the "lively stones" (us) are being built up upon,
which also without question means that to be a part of
this building, we have confessed Jesus as the Christ!
And so, is it just coincidence that when Jesus said
what He said to Peter, that Peter had just finished
confessing Him as the Christ? I think not!
And so here we have another proof that Peter is not
the Rock that Christ was going to build His church on!
So everyone can just forget about their interpretations
of what Matthew 16:18 says! People are spending all
of this time arguing over this passage and they forget
that when they get to 1 Peter 2, we have Peter himself
teaching the opposite of what they are claiming about
Peter being the Rock that Jesus built his church on!
Was Peter just still mixed up then? Gee, what a crummy
first Pope then, huh?!
I mean think about it. If Jesus built his church on Peter,
then that means that once Peter is dead, there's no more
church! How can we go to Peter, if he's not here and
we can't pray to dead humans!
And besides this, it is sacrilege to claim it is Peter that
the church is built on, because in essence, it replaces
Christ with Peter, as the Roman Catholics do, claiming
that the Pope is "Christ on Earth"!
Does the Bible teach this about the building of the
church and the NT is actually in contradiction to what
Jesus taught, since according to them, Jesus said that
it was built upon Peter and not Him (Jesus)?!
No, it doesn't teach that and it is not in contradiction to
what Jesus said and so, it is upon Christ Himself and our
confession of Christ, that the church is built on!
So the only thing left, that Jesus could possibly be saying
to Peter is, "Blessed are you.... and upon this confession
of who I am that you just made, I will build My church!".
Now the Roman Catholics make a big deal out of the next
passage in Matthew 16, which says:
"And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,
and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven,
and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven."
- Matthew 16:19
ůand they assume that this proves that it is talking about
Peter being the Rock that Jesus would build His church
on and the first Pope. However to claim that, is to ignore
everything else that was just said!
Furthermore, these same words are said to ALL of the
twelve disciples and not just Peter in Matthew 18 and
therefore, it applies to all who also confess Jesus as
the Christ!
Matthew 18:18-19
18) Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on
earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever
you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven.
19) Again I say to you that if two of you agree on
earth concerning anything that they ask, it will
be done for them by My Father in Heaven.
So no, no special power just for Peter here! People
simply get these ideas in their heads about what those
two passages mean and then they figure it has to be
some special, magical power for just Peter. But like
I said, Christ said to all of the twelve. Peter simply
was told this first, because he confessed Jesus as the
Christ first and later, it was extended to the rest also.
So is it limited to just the twelve then? How can it be?
What about Paul? He wasn't an Apostle yet!
Furthermore, Judas later betrayed Jesus! So obviously
it no longer applied to him!
So you see folks, when we use our reasoning abilities,
which is simply our God given common sense, we can
quite easily see that this is not some special thing
reserved for only Peter, nor for only the twelve!
The problem here is that people think that because of
their interpretation of what the "binding and loosing"
meant, that it means that Peter could have sent an
order up to Heaven and made laws up there. Huh?
Do you really believe that God is going to let Peter,
or even the twelve, make law in Heaven, trumping
the authority of God Himself?! C'mon folks! It obviously
cannot mean that!
But it doesn't matter what it means. In the context of
this issue, the only thing important here, is that it was
not exclusive to Peter. One cannot claim exclusivity to
Peter based on this and nothing you say about this verse
will nullify all of the facts already presented here.
I hope this has been both edifying and a blessing to you!
In Jesus' name; Amen!
--
All we can do every day is the next right thing.
Pastor Dave
Peter the Rock???
Matthew 16:13-19
Matthew 16:15-18
THE CHURCH, OF COURSE!!!
Matthew 18:18-19
--
When you get tangled up in your problems, be still.
God wants us to be still, so he can untangle the knot.
Pastor Dave
Peter the Rock???
Matthew 16:13-19
Matthew 16:15-18
THE CHURCH, OF COURSE!!!
Matthew 18:18-19
--
The most important things in your home are the people.
Menno van Barneveld
"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in item
news:l2co24dq1k24c4jsr...@4ax.com...
>
> "(Jesus) whom God raised up, having loosed the pains
> of death, because it was not possible that He should
> be held by it." - Acts 2:24
>
LiamToo
By: Catholic Answers, San Diego, California
There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in
authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed
the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13);
sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were
with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the
apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he
figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt.
17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first
preached
to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the
Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his
brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd
(John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter
(Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke
24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas
(Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He
inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the
first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem
(Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11).
It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be
baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).
PETER THE ROCK
Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the
very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first
meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter,
which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was that—
aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew:
Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2—in the Old Testament only God
was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the
ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now
on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What
is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon
the
fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and
neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new
name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s
name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen.
32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four
Hebrew youths—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar,
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever
been
called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature,
such
as Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but
never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed
Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never
regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was
not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new
name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.
LOOK AT THE SCENE
Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and
unusual
name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was
also important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of
Caesarea Philippi" (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch
built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14.
The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic
wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is
part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer
exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at
the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the
springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon
and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).
The significance of the event must have been clear to the other
apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was
meant
to emphasize the importance of what was being done. None complained
of
Simon being singled out for this honor; and in the rest of the New
Testament he is called by his new name, while James and John remain
just James and John, not Boanerges.
PROMISES TO PETER
When he first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are
Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means
Peter)’" (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration
of
the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other
disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea
Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the
Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that
this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly
reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this
was
added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on
Peter (Matt. 16:18).
Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind
on
earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall
be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for
the
authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of
disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given
similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special
sense.
Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the
keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys
were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great
gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To
be
given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its
import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over
the
city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly
city
itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible
(Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).
Finally, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and
asked Peter three times, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-17). In
repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold
affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14),
gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: "Feed my
sheep" (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles,
since Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me more than these?" (John
21:15), the word "these" referring to the other apostles who were
present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just
before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of
Olives.
Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told,
"Simon,
Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you
like
wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and
when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your
brethren" (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have
faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others;
and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be
fulfilled.
WHO IS THE ROCK?
Now take a closer look at the key verse: "You are Peter, and on this
rock I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18). Disputes about this
passage have always been related to the meaning of the term "rock."
To
whom, or to what, does it refer? Since Simon’s new name of Peter
itself means rock, the sentence could be rewritten as: "You are Rock
and upon this rock I will build my Church." The play on words seems
obvious, but commentators wishing to avoid what follows from this—
namely the establishment of the papacy—have suggested that the word
rock could not refer to Peter but must refer to his profession of
faith or to Christ.
From the grammatical point of view, the phrase "this rock" must
relate
back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith ("You are the
Christ, the Son of the living God") is two verses earlier, while his
name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.
As an analogy, consider this artificial sentence: "I have a car and a
truck, and it is blue." Which is blue? The truck, because that is the
noun closest to the pronoun "it." This is all the more clear if the
reference to the car is two sentences earlier, as the reference to
Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the term rock.
ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE
The previous argument also settles the question of whether the word
refers to Christ himself, since he is mentioned within the profession
of faith. The fact that he is elsewhere, by a different metaphor,
called the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4-8) does not disprove
that here Peter is the foundation. Christ is naturally the principal
and, since he will be returning to heaven, the invisible foundation
of
the Church that he will establish; but Peter is named by him as the
secondary and, because he and his successors will remain on earth,
the
visible foundation. Peter can be a foundation only because Christ is
the cornerstone.
In fact, the New Testament contains five different metaphors for the
foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet.
2:5-6, Rev. 21:14). One cannot take a single metaphor from a single
passage and use it to twist the plain meaning of other passages.
Rather, one must respect and harmonize the different passages, for
the
Church can be described as having different foundations since the
word
foundation can be used in different senses.
LOOK AT THE ARAMAIC
Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes
argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while
"rock" is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a
small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter
was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?
Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke
Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that
language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him
in
everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, "You will be
called Cephas"). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: "You are
Kepha,
and upon this kepha I will build my Church."
When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to
Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist
when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the
word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used
as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is
feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second
appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it
would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a
masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.
Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock
is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra
were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of "small
stone" and "large rock" in some early Greek poetry, but by the first
century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit
(see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible
Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).
Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when his
statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was
the
best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is
no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: "You are
Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church."
Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as
some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, "and the Rock was Christ" though
the
rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the
passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which
is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear
enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude
the
obvious from "Rock . . . rock."
If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say
so?
Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a
clarifying
text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after
Matthew’s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to
clarify it.
The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the
sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was
Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the
first link in the chain of the papacy.
Carlque
>
> read more »
G.K.Chesterton on Peter the Rock
"When Christ at a symbolic moment was establishing His great society,
He
chose for its corner-stone neither the brilliant Paul nor the mystic
John,
but a shuffler, a snob, a coward--in a word, a man. And upon this
rock He
has built His Church, and the gates of hell have not prevailed against
it.
All the empires and the kingdoms have failed, because of this inherent
and
continual weakness, that they were founded by strong men and upon
strong
men. But this one thing, the historic Christian Church, was founded
on a
weak man, and for that reason it is indestructible. For no chain is
stronger than its weakest link." --(From Heretics by G.K.
Chesterton).
--
Ad Jesum per Mariam,
Carlque
john w <j
<ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Peter the Rock???
>
>This is not an invitation for a discussion,
SNIP
"fair enough."
NOSPAM
<ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Many today believe that Jesus called Peter the Rock
>that He was going to build His church on. But is this
>really the case?
No. JESUS IS THE ROCK.
Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
If it was, then you wouldn't even have written this!
The truth is, you know my argument was right,
but since you hate me because I'm not a Futurist
and because you lost every debate we had and
kept on personally attacking me, until I finally
had to kill file you, you really don't give a damn
whether or not what I said is true and just wished
to attack me. And that is why you snipped what
I wrote. because you knew it was true, but still,
because of your dark heart, just absolutely had to
attack me!
--
"Worry is interest paid on trouble before it is due."
duke
No, doc, Jesus is the cornerstone, the Holy Father is the rock foundation.
Jesus is gone. The Holy Spirit rests on the rock foundation.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
bam
"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l8co2492pn6ur32hu...@4ax.com...
>
> Peter the Rock???
As if you know Ancient Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.
When did your interpretation of this scriptural passage first appear? Who
originally came up with your interpretation? Is this brand new? Or is it
ancient?
BAM
duke
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Thu, 15 May 2008 15:47:31 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>On Thu, 15 May 2008 14:34:03 -0400, NOSPAM <nospam@nospam> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 15 May 2008 08:46:04 -0400, Pastor Dave
>>><ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Many today believe that Jesus called Peter the Rock
>>>>that He was going to build His church on. But is this
>>>>really the case?
>>>
>>>No. JESUS IS THE ROCK.
>>
>>No, doc, Jesus is the cornerstone, the Holy Father is the rock foundation.
>
> Ok, genius; let's try this one more time.
> Has it ever--- EVER-- occurred to you that "rock" and "stone" are
>two words for essentially the same thing?
Of course, jw. But that has never been the issue for Catholics, never the issue
for me, just for you. Jesus is the Christ in the "Christ_ian" Church.
It's never dawned on you that Jesus left his Church on Ascension Day, 10 days
before Pentecost. And before he left, he selected a group of men to form up and
head up the Church he left behind. It's a foundation group of men to head up
a Church of men, the Body of Christ.
And he personally picked Simon renamed Peter to be the leader of that
foundation. And he personally gave those 12 men authority to do certain things,
and all of these things are under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus
sent to teach and guide those men.
Your failure to group up your own "churches" is the reason there is 33,000+ of
your groups.
> Peter can't be "the rock", because Jesus HIMSELF is "the stone" the
>prophets foretold!
The prophets???? You're worshipping the OT again, jw. The Messiah prophesied
by the prophets came, 2000 years ago, and gave us new marching orders.
If you ever read the NT, and it's clear you haven't, you'd know that Christ gave
us the "New Way".
duke
>>>>>>Many today believe that Jesus called Peter the Rock
>>>>>>that He was going to build His church on. But is this
>>>>>>really the case?
>>>>>No. JESUS IS THE ROCK.
>>>>No, doc, Jesus is the cornerstone, the Holy Father is the rock foundation.
>>> Ok, genius; let's try this one more time.
>>> Has it ever--- EVER-- occurred to you that "rock" and "stone" are
>>>two words for essentially the same thing?
>>Of course, jw.
> Thank you!
> "Jesus Christ HIMSELF being the chief CORNERSTONE."
> ^ ^ ^ Meaning, Peter cannot be, because Jesus Christ IS!
jw, script directly says "that Jesus is the cornerstone, and Peter is the rock
foundation".
Didn't................you know this?
duke
>>> Has it ever--- EVER-- occurred to you that "rock" and "stone" are
>>>two words for essentially the same thing?
>>Of course, jw. But that has never been the issue for Catholics, never the issue
>>for me, just for you. Jesus is the Christ in the "Christ_ian" Church.
>>It's never dawned on you that Jesus left his Church on Ascension Day,
> ^ ^ ^ Lie. Jesus Christ has never abandoned the church.
Of course not, dummy. He sent the Holy Spirit to guide us and keep us on track.
BUT............Jesus is not with us. The Holy Spirit is now with us.
> He dwells within every believer. ( < that leaves you out)
> SNIP.
No, jw, that's the Holy Spirit, not Jesus. Jesus ascended to sit at the right
hand of the Father, and one day will return. You know what it's called, OR do
you? It's called the 2nd coming.
> No matter how you try to shoe horn Peter in, or Mary, or any of your
>favorite saints,
> there is One Head of the Church, and that is Jesus Christ.
> PERIOD.
I know this is a surprise to you, jw, but no one has tried to replace Christ
other than in the specific ways he left us.
> Why don't you take your trash talk RCC proselytizing some place
>people care?
You need my help, jw. You're not very knowledgeable of Christian script.
> it would SEEM to a rational, sane person ( < both leave you out)
>that a rational sane person would have long ago figured out, "we're
>not interested in the Baptist group."
I know you're not. I bring Christianity to the baptist group.
> AGAIN, you can repeat your trash talk 10 times a day til DOOM's Day,
>and it's still TRASH.
Well, it's trash from Christ.
roy...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 07:17:35 -0700, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> Has it ever--- EVER-- occurred to you that "rock" and "stone" are
> >>>two words for essentially the same thing?
> >>Of course, jw. But that has never been the issue for Catholics, never the issue
> >>for me, just for you. Jesus is the Christ in the "Christ_ian" Church.
> >>It's never dawned on you that Jesus left his Church on Ascension Day,
> > ^ ^ ^ Lie. Jesus Christ has never abandoned the church.
>
> Of course not, dummy. He sent the Holy Spirit to guide us and keep us on track.
> BUT............Jesus is not with us. The Holy Spirit is now with us.
Wouldn't that mean that Jesus cannot be God (i.e. not omnipresent)?
Or that the modal view of the Trinity is OK (Holy Spirit with us but
Father and Son elsewhere)?
roy...@gmail.com
> x-no-archive: yesOn Thu, 15 May 2008 15:47:31 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>
>
> >>On Thu, 15 May 2008 08:46:04 -0400, Pastor Dave
> >><ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Many today believe that Jesus called Peter the Rock
> >>>that He was going to build His church on. But is this
> >>>really the case?
>
> >>No. JESUS IS THE ROCK.
>
> >No, doc, Jesus is the cornerstone, the Holy Father is the rock foundation.
>
>
> two words for essentially the same thing?
>
> prophets foretold!
>
>
> The church is NOT "built upon the rock that is peter."
>
> The church IS built upon the CORNERSTONE that is Jesus Christ!
In Eph 2:20 we find that Christ is indeed the "chief cornerstone" with
"the apostles and prophets" in the foundations as well (v21).
If I understand building construction properly, cornerstone in
integral with the foundations i.e. the foundations are not built upon
the cornerstones.
Cheers.
duke
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Fri, 16 May 2008 10:31:10 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>On Fri, 16 May 2008 07:14:37 -0700, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>Many today believe that Jesus called Peter the Rock
>>>>>>>>that He was going to build His church on. But is this
>>>>>>>>really the case?
>>>>>>>No. JESUS IS THE ROCK.
>>
>>>>>>No, doc, Jesus is the cornerstone, the Holy Father is the rock foundation.
>>
>>>>> Ok, genius; let's try this one more time.
>>>>> Has it ever--- EVER-- occurred to you that "rock" and "stone" are
>>>>>two words for essentially the same thing?
>>
>>>>Of course, jw.
>>
>>> Thank you!
>>> "Jesus Christ HIMSELF being the chief CORNERSTONE."
>>
>>> ^ ^ ^ Meaning, Peter cannot be, because Jesus Christ IS!
>>
>>jw, script directly says "that Jesus is the cornerstone,
>
>and Peter is the rock
>>foundation".
>
> ^ ^ ^ ^ Book chapter verse.
Matthew 16:18 (New International Version)
18And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church,
and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it.[c]
Footnotes:
Matthew 16:18 Peter means rock.
You do understand what it is that one builds a church, don't you, jw. It's
called a foundation, and in this case it on a rock - Simon Peter.
John 1:42 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
42And he brought him to Jesus.
Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be
called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter[a]).
Footnotes:
John 1:42 Both Cephas (Aramaic) and Peter (Greek) mean rock.
You really should spend some time studying the New Testament, jw. It's tells of
our new covenant in Christ. However, maybe you really are Jewish. You appear
pretty vague on the new covenant.
duke
>>> ^ ^ ^ Lie. Jesus Christ has never abandoned the church.
>>Of course not, dummy. He sent the Holy Spirit to guide us and keep us on track.
>>BUT............Jesus is not with us. The Holy Spirit is now with us.
> You are an uneducated, Roman Catholic imbecile.
But I know NT scripture, and you don't.
> The Holy Spirit IS Jesus Christ in Spirit form!
NO, the Holy Spirit is NOT Jesus. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit in his place. If
you were a Christian, you'd know about the Holy Trinity - the Triune Godhead -
one God- 3 equal but separate persons.
> As long as the Holy Spirit is within us (once, forever), Jesus
>Christ has not left!
The Holy Spirit is a teacher who came in the place of Christ. The 2nd coming of
Christ is yet to come. Good grief, are you that dumb?
>>No, jw, that's the Holy Spirit, not Jesus.
> You don't know Christianity, and you don't know the Bible.
> What you are suggesting is that God the Son can't be in more than
>one place at a time! That is HERESY.
All 3 are one God, and the one God is in all places at once. But Jesus is not
the Father or the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son, and
the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit.
> Jesus ascended to sit at the right
>>hand of the Father, and one day will return.
> You AGAIN don't know what you're talking about. That's also known
>as "being a Roman Catholic."
The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ. It includes the Holy Mass,
7 sacraments, and the Papacy - all revealed by the Lord Jesus.
duke
>> Of course not, dummy. He sent the Holy Spirit to guide us and keep us on track.
>> BUT............Jesus is not with us. The Holy Spirit is now with us.
>Wouldn't that mean that Jesus cannot be God (i.e. not omnipresent)?
>Or that the modal view of the Trinity is OK (Holy Spirit with us but
>Father and Son elsewhere)?
The three equal persons are all one God.
Jw has no idea what he's talking about.
roy...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 13:28:33 -0700 (PDT), roym...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Of course not, dummy. He sent the Holy Spirit to guide us and keep us on track.
> >> BUT............Jesus is not with us. The Holy Spirit is now with us.
> >Wouldn't that mean that Jesus cannot be God (i.e. not omnipresent)?
> >Or that the modal view of the Trinity is OK (Holy Spirit with us but
> >Father and Son elsewhere)?
>
> The three equal persons are all one God.
That sounds better.
Cheers.
Christ's Love
That's not true. The Catholic Church began in the fourth century and
immediately started it's campaign of persecution against real
Christians.
Always remember: Christ love's you, and so do I! Each and every one of you!
duke
>>The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ. It includes the Holy Mass,
>>7 sacraments, and the Papacy - all revealed by the Lord Jesus.
>That's not true. The Catholic Church began in the fourth century and
>immediately started it's campaign of persecution against real
>Christians.
The Emperor legalized the Catholic Chruch, which was started by Christ, in the
4th century. The Catholic Church was started by Christ. He instituted the Holy
Mass/Holy Eucharist at the last supper. The protest_ant Church was started in
AD1604.
Qadosh Stephanos
<ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>I hope this has been both edifying and a blessing to you!
>In Jesus' name; Amen!
Messiah never said a word or prophecy about Paul or Mohammed.
Or did He? The Hebrew name of God, Jesus, is not named Jesus.
Preterit's scenario: He chose 12 Apostles then He added more.
Bible published in what year, 1611AD, by the king of England.
All those prior to 1611AD are screwed and without salivation.
Clever works of devils. Clever. As if God is alive in a Book.
Do you expect me to believe that Protestant is not Catholic?
Very clever. You both hold the same corruptions of scripture.
You both embrace the teachings and doctrines of Apostle Paul.
Shame on you both.
NOSPAM
>
> You are an uneducated, Roman Catholic imbecile.
Is this what you call the TOLERANCE you keep telling others to
practice?
m@hotmaildotcom r m
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
news:pspu24lsn0pm73dki...@4ax.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 14:12:56 -0700 (PDT), roy...@gmail.com wrote:
> Š 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>On May 16, 11:25 am, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> x-no-archive: yesOn Thu, 15 May 2008 15:47:31 -0500, duke
>>> <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>
>>> >On Thu, 15 May 2008 14:34:03 -0400, NOSPAM <nospam@nospam> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>On Thu, 15 May 2008 08:46:04 -0400, Pastor Dave
>>> >><ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>Many today believe that Jesus called Peter the Rock
>>> >>>that He was going to build His church on. But is this
>>> >>>really the case?
>>>
>>> >>No. JESUS IS THE ROCK.
>>>
>>> >No, doc, Jesus is the cornerstone, the Holy Father is the rock
>>> >foundation.
>>>
>>> Ok, genius; let's try this one more time.
>>>
>>> Has it ever--- EVER-- occurred to you that "rock" and "stone" are
>>> two words for essentially the same thing?
>>>
>>> Peter can't be "the rock", because Jesus HIMSELF is "the stone" the
>>> prophets foretold!
>>>
>>> "rock" and "stone" being two words for PRECISELY the same concept!
>>>
>>> The church is NOT "built upon the rock that is peter."
>>>
>>> The church IS built upon the CORNERSTONE that is Jesus Christ!
>>
>>In Eph 2:20 we find that Christ is indeed the "chief cornerstone" with
>>"the apostles and prophets" in the foundations as well (v21).
>>
>>If I understand building construction properly, cornerstone in
>>integral with the foundations i.e. the foundations are not built upon
>>the cornerstones.
>>
>>Cheers.
>
> seen cornerstones at the top.
I'm not sure what you saw as the stone "at the top". I seem to remember
that there is some thought that, in some places, 'cornerstone' could also
be translated as 'capstone' or 'keystone' as in the centre stone at the top
of the arch used to keep it together.
> The point was that scripture says Jesus Christ is "The
> Cornerstone", and the foundation (the apostles) were built UPON that
> cornerstone. The structure / superstructure (the church, the
> believers) are build UPON the FOUNDATION and the Cornerstone.
I take it that: cornerstones as those that set out the corners of a
building (the first one laid being the chief cornerstone), and the
'foundation stones' are set out from it rather than sitting on top of the
cornerstone (otherwise the 'cornerstone' would be the foundation for the
'foundation stones' which sorta doesn't make sense).
roy...@gmail.com
> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:pspu24lsn0pm73dki...@4ax.com...
> >> x-no-archive: yes
> >> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> >> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
> >>>On May 16, 11:25 am, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> x-no-archive: yesOn Thu, 15 May 2008 15:47:31 -0500, duke
> >>>> <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> where there was anything between 3 feet and 6 feet of ONE kind of
> material (stone/brick / concrete) that was used as the FOUNDATION. The
> FOUNDATION being the basic structure (bottom) upon which the building
> (brick/masonry/stone- - BUT DIFFERENT than the building's UPPER
> STRUCTURE).
> The foundation, some 3 feet high to 6 feet high, will have a
> CORNERSTONE in it. The cornerstone indicates WHEN the building was
> BEGUN.
> I'm saying I've seen "cornerstones" that were set at the BOTTOM of
> that (let's say 6 feet) tall foundation, and I've seen buildings where
> the "cornerstone" was at the TOP of the foundation. The structure, say
> the 2nd to the 12th floors, are built ON TOP of the foundation.
That's the other use of 'cornerstone' or 'foundation stone', as a
modern ceremonial or memorial practice, which I've assume was not an
ancient one.
> Evidently, you are not aware of the scripture under discussion.
>
> EPH 2:19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens,
> but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household,
> 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ
> Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building
> is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22
> And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in
> which God lives by his Spirit.
>
> In the time of Jesus, and before His time, the authors of the books
> of the Bible would typically refer to "current events" or to customs
> or practices that were familiar to the people, in order to make a
> point.
> Paul, in writing the epistles, referred to the Olympics.
> "The Christian compares himself to the RUNNER. Run the race
> (marathon, decathlon, 90-yard dash), Run the race to WIN!.
>
> In describing the church, Paul says that it's built based on the
> "foundation" of Jesus (the cornerstone) and the foundation (the
> prophets and apostles), the Christians AFTER the apostles being the
> "superstructure."
Yea. Verily.
> >> The point was that scripture says Jesus Christ is "The
> >> Cornerstone", and the foundation (the apostles) were built UPON that
> >> cornerstone. The structure / superstructure (the church, the
> >> believers) are build UPON the FOUNDATION and the Cornerstone.
>
> >I take it that: cornerstones as those that set out the corners of a
> >building (the first one laid being the chief cornerstone),
>
> The "cornerstone" or "chief cornerstone" is the one that bears the
> date the building was started.
> Paul was saying that Jesus himself was part of "the foundation" of
> the church.
See my comment, above, about ceremonial/memorial practices.
> and the
>
> >'foundation stones' are set out from it rather than sitting on top of the
> >cornerstone (otherwise the 'cornerstone' would be the foundation for the
> >'foundation stones' which sorta doesn't make sense).
>
> The "cornerstone" is PART of the "foundation", not the whole
> foundation.
Yep. That's how I understand it, too. BTW, I'm in the construction
industry and know a little how buildings are put together.
> I think you have never gone past a building (say the City Hall in
> your city), and seen the Cornerstone (it bears the date the building
> was started)
>
> Paul is saying that Jesus is the One who is The Start, The Beginning
> of the church.
Forsooth!
Cheers.
>
> Cheers!
Mistylein
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:iddt24hlgnu5nbnct...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 23:05:45 GMT, Christ's Love <christ...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ. It includes the Holy Mass,
>>>7 sacraments, and the Papacy - all revealed by the Lord Jesus.
>
>>That's not true. The Catholic Church began in the fourth century and
>>immediately started it's campaign of persecution against real
>>Christians.
>
> The Emperor legalized the Catholic Chruch, which was started by Christ, in the
> 4th century. The Catholic Church was started by Christ. He instituted the Holy
> Mass/Holy Eucharist at the last supper. The protest_ant Church was started in
> AD1604
Yeah, right. it says it in every ones bibles now a days.
NOT!
M,
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
news:482fa51d$0$30465$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...x-no-archive: no
[snip]
>> I have seen cornerstones at the bottom of the foundation, and I've
>> seen cornerstones at the top.
>
> I'm not sure what you saw as the stone "at the top". I seem to remember
> that there is some thought that, in some places, 'cornerstone' could also
> be translated as 'capstone' or 'keystone' as in the centre stone at the
> top of the arch used to keep it together.
It's an Alpha/Omega, First/Last, Beginning/Ending thing: Jesus is both the
base and peak of the structure at the same time.
Ike
roy...@gmail.com
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "r m" <r m@hotmailDOTcom> wrote in messagenews:482fa51d$0$30465$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> > "john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
> >news:pspu24lsn0pm73dki...@4ax.com...
>
> x-no-archive: no
>
> [snip]
>
> >> I have seen cornerstones at the bottom of the foundation, and I've
> >> seen cornerstones at the top.
>
> > I'm not sure what you saw as the stone "at the top". I seem to remember
> > that there is some thought that, in some places, 'cornerstone' could also
> > be translated as 'capstone' or 'keystone' as in the centre stone at the
> > top of the arch used to keep it together.
Item 1 in the following diagram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch .
> It's an Alpha/Omega, First/Last, Beginning/Ending thing: Jesus is both the
> base and peak of the structure at the same time.
I heard that description before.
Cheers.
>
> Ike
roy...@gmail.com
>
> What I have described is the ONLY use of "cornerstone" I'm familiar
> with. And I don't know why you'd say it's "a modern ceremonial or
> memorial practice..." "which you would ASSUME was not an ancient
> one."
>
> Why would you ASSUME that the use of a cornerstone as I've described
> it is NOT how it was ALWAYS done?
>
> In fact, during my travels in Europe during the 1960s, all the
> ANCIENT (4th to 10th Century) buildings I saw that had cornerstones
> employed the same technique. The CORNERSTONE was laid at the BASE or
> FOUNDATION of the structure.
>
> I think you are perhaps confused as to what "cornerstone" actually
> means.
>
> In fact, the OLDEST structure I saw while I was in Europe, a CHURCH
> built in the year 525 AD had a cornerstone that was set at ground
> level (in the foundation), and it was some 6 feet from the front
> (side) door.
>
> I see no reason to think that the meaning has CHANGED. The ancient
> buildings in Europe have a cornerstone laid in the FOUNDATION; today's
> buildings do as well.
I stand corrected.
However "modern practices" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone
comes pretty close how I understand it.
> ^ ^ ^ ^ I saw it, and you are incorrect.
>
> I don't know how old are the buildings you are referring to. But I
> see 20th and 21st Century buildings with cornerstones set in the
> FOUNDATION; I have seen ANCIENT ( 1st - 10th C) buildings whose
> cornerstones were in the FOUNDATIONS.
Thanks for that.
>
>
>
> >> and the
>
> >> >'foundation stones' are set out from it rather than sitting on top of the
> >> >cornerstone (otherwise the 'cornerstone' would be the foundation for the
> >> >'foundation stones' which sorta doesn't make sense).
>
> >> The "cornerstone" is PART of the "foundation", not the whole
> >> foundation.
>
> >Yep. That's how I understand it, too. BTW, I'm in the construction
> >industry and know a little how buildings are put together.
>
> ????? oh? Doesn't sound like it.
Oh. Well. It's been years since I've been on a project that has a
cornerstone. Sometimes it's a dedication stone in a wall which are
hardly anything like a foundation stone to support the superstructure.
Cheers.
Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
>> >> I have seen cornerstones at the bottom of the foundation, and I've
>> >> seen cornerstones at the top.
>>
>> > I'm not sure what you saw as the stone "at the top". I seem to remember
>> > that there is some thought that, in some places, 'cornerstone' could also
>> > be translated as 'capstone' or 'keystone' as in the centre stone at the
>> > top of the arch used to keep it together.
>
>Item 1 in the following diagram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch .
While it can be said that the cornerstone is at the top,
this is only in a pyramid type design. Either way,
it would still show Him as the Chief Cornerstone.
--
I hit the <CTRL> key, but I'm still not normal!
Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
>> I see no reason to think that the meaning has CHANGED. The ancient
>> buildings in Europe have a cornerstone laid in the FOUNDATION; today's
>> buildings do as well.
>
>I stand corrected.
>
>However "modern practices" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone
>comes pretty close how I understand it.
That seems more modern though, since it is usually
at the very bottom and is normally the first stone laid.
--
"If you keep doing what you always do, you keep
getting what you always got." - Orlando
duke
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Fri, 16 May 2008 17:17:35 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>On Fri, 16 May 2008 13:28:33 -0700 (PDT), roy...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> Of course not, dummy. He sent the Holy Spirit to guide us and keep us on track.
>>>> BUT............Jesus is not with us. The Holy Spirit is now with us.
>>
>>>Wouldn't that mean that Jesus cannot be God (i.e. not omnipresent)?
>>>Or that the modal view of the Trinity is OK (Holy Spirit with us but
>>>Father and Son elsewhere)?
>>
>>The three equal persons are all one God.
>
> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ That much, you have correct.
>
> Then you go and say that Mary is SUPERIOR to the Son! (because she
>"gave birth to Him.)
Nope, Jesus is Son of Man because of his human mother. Jesus is Son of God
because of his divine Father.
I gather you really aren't a Christian, jw, or you would have known that.
>>Jw has no idea what he's talking about.
I, duke, agree with myself here.
duke
>>In Eph 2:20 we find that Christ is indeed the "chief cornerstone" with
>>"the apostles and prophets" in the foundations as well (v21).
>>If I understand building construction properly, cornerstone in
>>integral with the foundations i.e. the foundations are not built upon
>>the cornerstones.
>>Cheers.
> I have seen cornerstones at the bottom of the foundation, and I've
>seen cornerstones at the top.
> The point was that scripture says Jesus Christ is "The
>Cornerstone", and the foundation (the apostles) were built UPON that
>cornerstone.
And the Rock, Simon Peter, is the chief Apostle, the Holy Father, selected by
Christ himself.
duke
>>>and Peter is the rock
>>>>foundation".
>>> ^ ^ ^ ^ Book chapter verse.
>>
>>
>SNIP
> Nowhere does Jesus say that He will build the church upon Peter.
> That's your imagination, and some VERY bad "teaching."
Mat 16:13-20, jw, it nails you every time
duke
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:iddt24hlgnu5nbnct...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 23:05:45 GMT, Christ's Love <christ...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ. It includes the Holy Mass,
>>>>7 sacraments, and the Papacy - all revealed by the Lord Jesus.
>>
>>>That's not true. The Catholic Church began in the fourth century and
>>>immediately started it's campaign of persecution against real
>>>Christians.
>>
>> The Emperor legalized the Catholic Chruch, which was started by Christ, in the
>> 4th century. The Catholic Church was started by Christ. He instituted the Holy
>> Mass/Holy Eucharist at the last supper. The protest_ant Church was started in
>> AD1604
>
>Yeah, right. it says it in every ones bibles now a days.
Yep, that's right.
Mistylein
>
>> I have seen cornerstones at the bottom of the foundation, and I've
>>seen cornerstones at the top.
>
>> The point was that scripture says Jesus Christ is "The
>>Cornerstone", and the foundation (the apostles) were built UPON that
>>cornerstone.
>
> And the Rock, Simon Peter, is the chief Apostle, the Holy Father, selected by
> Christ himself.
Know the Truth and the Truth will set you free.
If you had known the Truth you would not be promoting
Those antichristian anticdotes anymore.
M,
roy...@gmail.com
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 04:08:56 -0700 (PDT), roym...@gmail.com
> spake thusly:
>
> >> I see no reason to think that the meaning has CHANGED. The ancient
> >> buildings in Europe have a cornerstone laid in the FOUNDATION; today's
> >> buildings do as well.
>
> >I stand corrected.
>
> >comes pretty close how I understand it.
>
> That seems more modern though, since it is usually
> at the very bottom and is normally the first stone laid.
That's how I understand it, too.
The Enc.Brit puts it "Until the development of modern construction,
the stone was usually at a corner, possibly as the first of the
foundation stones, and it was a real support. The modern cornerstone
need not actually support, need not be positioned at a corner, and
need not be part of the foundation; often it is placed ornamentally in
the facade or in an interior wall or floor."
The Rock Is Peter
>
> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Revelation 22:13
Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
>The Enc.Brit puts it "Until the development of modern construction,
>the stone was usually at a corner, possibly as the first of the
>foundation stones, and it was a real support. The modern cornerstone
>need not actually support, need not be positioned at a corner, and
>need not be part of the foundation; often it is placed ornamentally in
>the facade or in an interior wall or floor."
That is entirely accurate.
--
"I am not permitted to let my love be so merciful
as to tolerate and endure false doctrine. When
faith and doctrine are concerned and endangered,
neither love nor patience are in order... For
a defective life does not destroy Christendom,
but exercises it. However, defective doctrine
and false faith ruin everything. Therefore, when
these are concerned, neither toleration nor mercy
are in order, but only anger, dispute and
destruction - to be sure, only with the Word
of God as our weapon." - Martin Luther
Pastor Dave
<TheRock...@jesusanswers.com> spake thusly:
>Revelation 22:13
Has nothing to do with the subject at hand,
which is as follows...
#####################################################################
Peter the Rock???
This is not an invitation for a discussion, nor for
an attack. This is simply a study of this issue.
If you do respond, I would suggest that you
read it all first, since you will probably end up
looking foolish, since your objection is probably
covered later in the text. And no, skimming it
is not the same as studying it! The question is,
what is your motivation? To learn? Or to place
your doctrine above all else, even truth? That
is for you to decide, but here it is...
Many today believe that Jesus called Peter the Rock
that He was going to build His church on. But is this
really the case? Let's examine the issue and see
what we can learn from the Bible.
"And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus
looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son
of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas (which is
translated, "A STONE")." - John 1:42
Just so you know, "Cephas" means, "a piece of rock"
and not "a mass of rock", as the word translated as
"rock" means in Matthew 16:18.
One of the two main arguments that people make,
is that Jesus called Peter the rock, giving him this
new name. The problem with this argument, is
that it does not tell us what the actual meaning is,
from the original Koine Greek. You see, there are
actually two different Greek words used there,
one of which is translated to "Peter" and the other,
which is translated to "rock". And in reality, the word
that is translated into Peter is "petros", which means,
"a piece of rock" (a stone, not a huge mass of rock)
and the word translated into "rock" is "petra" and
means, "a mass of rock".
Therefore, Jesus actually renamed Peter to a piece
of rock, that would be part of the massive rock that
He was building His church on. This alone should
be enough to convince us that Jesus was not
referring to Peter as the rock He was going to build
His church on. But of course, people are stubborn
when it comes to their doctrines and frankly, hardly
any of them care about what the Bible says and
take their own word, or some religion's word over
the Bible! This may sound mean, but this is the way
it is and if that were not true, then this type of debate
would not still be around after many centuries!
And so, those who want to believe that Peter is
the rock that Jesus was referring to, will always,
always, next say; "But in Hebrew, it is "Kephas",
which does mean a large rock!".
Now let's say that is true (I believe that is correct).
What difference does that make? None at all!
None whatsoever! And I will prove this to you,
if you're willing to believe the Bible over men.
But for now, we will temporarily put this portion
of the debate to rest until later in this chapter.
Now since most of the people that believe that
Peter himself is the Rock are Roman Catholic,
since they base their whole supposedly Biblical
authority for having a Pope on this one thing,
since without it, their whole argument would
crumble, we really need to take a look at the
Roman Catholic view and apply some common
sense (reason).
Now while many will say (because they don't like
what they're seeing) that; "We go by God's word!
Common sense is man's logic and to base your
view on that is the Devil's work!", I will respond
by quoting the Bible to them, since to apply
common sense to a situation, is simply to reason
it out, but for Christians, it is to do it in a Biblical
fashion. But to say that common sense itself is
the Devil's work, is to say that God, who gave us
this reasoning ability, intentionally created man
for the purpose of doing the Devil's work, since
God created man with this ability to reason!
Think about it. Without common sense, we
couldn't even function! Try driving a car without
any common sense and see if anyone wants to
ride with you as a passenger. I think you see
what I mean. So anyway, what does the Bible
have to say about common sense/reason (those
two terms are interchangeable here)?
"Come now, and let us reason together,
says the Lord. Though your sins are
like scarlet, they shall be as white as
snow; Though they are red like crimson,
they shall be as wool." - Isaiah 1:18
Now note that we are told by the Lord to come
and reason with Him. And not only that, but
He goes on to say that it is through reasoning
it out that our sins become white as snow!
You see, this is saying that the Gospel message
itself is common sense! You have sin! You
need a Savior!
And let us not stick our noses up in the air!
There are those who acknowledge that the Bible
was written for the common man to be able to
read and understand and in fact, for example,
the Greek that New Testament was written in,
was Koine Greek, which was the common man's
"street Greek". Something you would write
a grocery list with. And this is all fine, except
when those same people who acknowledge this
see something that proves something that they
believe to be in error, then, all of the sudden,
"That's just your interpretation and who says
you're qualified to interpret it anyway?!".
Of course, the problem with this argument, is that
it has a boomerang effect. Furthermore, at that
point, they are being hypocrites. And the truth is,
while there are indeed parts of the Bible that do
require spiritual discernment, is that were true
throughout it, then no one who just started reading
it could understand any of it! And the passages in
question here, simply do not take some great spiritual
wisdom to understand! They are quite plain and
simple, with the possible exception of Mat 16:19!
But as I said, the Roman Catholic view needs to be
addressed and so, let us take a moment or two to
look at their view and as I said, apply some common
sense and see if it holds water, before getting into
the more technical arguments. This is a very important
thing that we must do, since if they are correct, then
we should all become Roman Catholics and believe in
the office of the Pope, or we will be headed for Hell,
since if Jesus did name Peter as the rock that He would
build His church on, then we would have to convert!
The Roman Catholics will claim that the torch is
passed on through the line of Popes. But what
are the common sense arguments against this
concept? Here are seven of them:
1) If Christ was saying that the Rock was Peter,
then where do we find Christ saying... "You
are Peter and upon YOU I will build My church!
Oh and by the way, Peter when you die, you
must pass the torch on to the next guy, okay?".
2) To say that Peter is the Rock, would be to have
Jesus referring to Peter as an object and not as
a person. In other words, Jesus says, "upon
THIS rock….", instead of, "upon YOU as the rock…".
But Peter is not a"this", which is how one refers
to an object, or a statement and not a person.
Therefore, Jesus must have been speaking of
either an object He was holding or pointing to,
which is not supported by the text, or He was
referring to Peter's confession of Him (Jesus)
as the Christ.
Note that Jesus said, "YOU are Peter and upon
THIS rock I will build My church.". If He was
referring to Peter as the rock, then He would have
used proper language skills and said, "You are
Peter and upon YOU I will build My church.".
Unless we wish to claim that Jesus didn't know how
to speak and that we are smarter today than He was,
which is the same as saying that we are smarter than
Jesus? We would be saying that we need to make up
for Jesus' lack of speaking skills and His bad use of
language.
Now of course, this also means that what Christ
was referring to could not have just been Himself
either, since He also is not an object, but a Person
and therefore, it must be the confession of Him as
the Christ that He was referring to, which of course,
would indeed include Him as Lord, but as I said,
He, even while on Earth, was a Person and not
an object ("this")!
Some might argue; "But He was on Earth and so
He didn't know everything!".
a) Those people are truly desperate to hang onto
their doctrine and don't much care what they
say about Jesus!
b) The only thing that Jesus actually said that
He didn't know, was exactly what hour of which
exact day He would return.
c) This is till the same, "I'm smarter than Jesus was!"
argument. Think about it. These people would
still be saying that Jesus couldn't speak properly
and that Jesus, God walking Earth, got it wrong,
but they got it right today?! And if Jesus did not
speak properly when He made the statement,
then guess what people? That means that the
Bible has errors!
Is that the position you wish to be in, if indeed
you do believe that Jesus was calling Peter the
Rock? One of saying that the Bible that you
normally claim to be inerrant, actually has errors
and/or that Jesus couldn't speak properly and/or
that you are smarter than He was, because you
can't stand it that your doctrine is not holding
water? You'd better think about that carefully!
3) Where does Peter teach that he (Peter) is the Pope
and the head of the church?
4) Where is there any instruction whatsoever about
there being a Pope and what his office entails
and about passing the torch on to the next guy?
Where does it say that there would be a next guy?
I mean, are we really to believe that the central
office in the entire church is not even discussed
once in the entire NT?! Not even to pass on the
torch?! Please! This strains credulity and it surely
insults the intelligence to know this and still believe
that we should have Popes!
Oh, but wait, don't worry! Those same people
that invented the office of Pope will tell you that
they also get to set the rules and will claim that
these rules were passed down from the Apostles
and throughout the history of the church! And
where is this proved? Nowhere! And the reality
is, that Jesus didn't say;
"And the guys who come after you will also have
this authority, because they will take their turn
being the Rock that I am continuing to build
My church on."
After all, that's what would have to happen! Yet,
even if Jesus was talking about Peter, the reality is,
that it would mean that once Peter died, the church
would have to cease to exist, because the person
that Jesus supposedly built His church on is dead
and there isn't one word about passing on the torch!
And contrary to the process by Cardinals voting that
the Roman Catholic Church goes through, it would
had to have been Peter who passed it on! But again,
that isn't mentioned by Jesus, nor by any Apostle and
so, as I said, once Peter died, if he was "the rock",
that would have been the end of the church!
5) Why is it that all of the Apostles are not found
checking with Peter to see if what they have
his permission to do something?
6) They claim that Peter eventually ended up
in Rome and while that probably is true,
if he was the Pope and Rome is the place to
be, then why didn't he go there right away?
And why don't we see any writings about
Rome being the central church that all churches
must bow to? Do you read anywhere in Paul's
letters, for example, where Paul says this? No!
But we do see Paul blasting Peter!:
"Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood
him to his face, because he was to be blamed."
- Galatians 2:11
Is this how we see subordinates treating the Pope;
the leader of Christ's church? I think not!
7) There have been Popes that were later called,
"Anti-Popes" and their so called "infallible decrees"
were wiped away and so, holes were left in the
time line without these Popes, which could only
mean (if we hold them to their doctrine) that
the church didn't actually exist during those times!
Now what? Hello???
It is these seven points that alone should cause people
to reject the idea of a Pope and Peter being the Rock
that Christ said that He would build His church on!
But I know that most will not find it to be enough and
so, let's move on and address the other parts of this
issue and I hope that you will find this information
a blessing and edifying to you! But first, let us quote
the relevant Scripture:
Matthew 16:13-19
13) When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi,
He asked His disciples, saying, Who do men say that I,
the Son of Man, am?
14) So they said, Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah,
and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.
15) He said to them, But who do you say that I am?
16) Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ,
the Son of the living God.
17) Jesus answered and said to him, Blessed are you,
Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed
this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
18) And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this
rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades
shall not prevail against it.
19) And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of
Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be
bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth
will be loosed in Heaven.
Now before we begin, as a side note, I would like to
note that the proper word here is "Hades", not "Hell".
Hades is defined as "the place or state of the dead",
or sometimes can mean "the grave", or simply "death".
There were two parts of Hades. One was "Hades
Paradise" and the other was "Hades Tartarus".
This is seen in Luke 16:19-31, which most people think
is speaking of Heaven and Hell, but it isn't. You do
not see Heaven from Hell folks. Remember that the
resurrection had not happened yet and so, this is
about Hades, which was "the state of the dead".
This would not even be the definition of Hades,
if everyone was simply out and had no clue what
was going on.
So the point is, that the rich man was in Hades Tartarus,
which was a state of torment and the beggar Lazarus
was in Hades Paradise, which is also where Abraham
was (again, remember, the resurrection had not
happened yet).
As to Jesus' point, He was saying that just like death
would not be able to hold Him…
"(Jesus) whom God raised up, having loosed the pains
of death, because it was not possible that He should
be held by it." - Acts 2:24
…neither would death be able to hold those who died
in the faith!
We must understand what a great message of hope
this was, that Jesus was giving here! He was telling
them that even death would not be able to hold them,
through their faith in Him, which they displayed by
their confession of Him as the Christ! And when we
remember that in the '60's A.D., people went to their
death if they refused to reject Him as the Christ and
that before that, it was the Jews up until at least the
'50's A.D. that persecuted the church and had Christians
crucified (this is historical fact), then we can see what
a great message of hope it was that Jesus was giving
them here!
"Have no fear! Even if they kill you, death will
not be able to hold you!"
"And do not fear those who kill the body but
cannot kill the soul." - Matthew 10:28a
And this also should tell us that it was not Peter
that Christ was talking about as being the Rock
that He would build His church on, since they
died by confessing Christ in many cases and
why else would Jesus tie this in here, knowing
what He knew was coming for them, that He
did indeed tell them was coming upon them?
The truth is, that this ties in perfectly with the
idea that Christ was talking about Himself and
the confession of Him as the Christ, being
"the Rock" that He would build His church on!
And now, to get on with the subject at hand, I ask
that you please forget about anything you know
and read it without any bias whatsoever, regardless
of how it *seems* to read to you and I thank you
for doing that!
And remember as you read it in context, that Jesus
asked *all* of them who He was, not just Peter.
Now Peter is the one who responded, but to say
that Jesus was saying that He would build His church
on Peter, is to say that He would build His infallible
church on a fallible man and it is also to say that the
others would never have confessed Jesus as the Christ.
I mean, otherwise, it wouldn't make sense that He
would say that to Peter and not the others, unless that
is being implied! But we know that didn't turn out to
be the case, since they did believe! So really, that theory
would have Jesus saying...
"Well, Peter said it first, so he gets the golden ticket
and the rest of you guys are just out of luck! Now
Peter gets to be the boss of every single person in
the church, people! You should've spoken up guys!
Oh well, sucks to be you!"
And the disciples respond with...
"Awww, man!!! I never get nothin' 'cause I'm never
quick enough to call it first!"
Is this really what we wish to portray about
the discussion they had?
So no offense, but basically what this doctrine of
Peter being the Rock says, is that whoever calls it
first, gets the whole ball of wax and it just plain
sucks for everyone else! Do you really believe that
Jesus said His church would be built on something
that we used to do as little whiny brats ("Hey, I called
it first!")? And remember that they are not saying
that Peter was "A" rock, but that he was "THE" rock
that the whole church was built on!
Huh?!? The whole church built on one disciple???
I'm sorry, but that just makes no sense at all! (:
Look at it through the eyes of the original Greek
and you will see that it basically reads as follows,
when you remember (Very important!) that Peter
just confessed Jesus as the Christ and it is in that
context that Jesus RESPONDS TO that very
CONFESSION! And I have replaced the words in
v18 with their actual definitions, to show you how it
actually reads in the original Koine Greek language):
Matthew 16:15-18
15) He said to THEM, But who do you say that I am?
16) Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ,
the Son of the living God.
17) Jesus answered and said to him, Blessed are you,
Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not
revealed this to you, but My Father who is in
Heaven.
18) And I also say to you that you are A PIECE OF ROCK
and on this MASS OF ROCK I will build My church,
and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
And so the question is not about Peter's name, since
it does not mean "a mass of rock" and I'm not even
going to entertain the idea that you're right anyway,
which would mean that Jesus didn't know how to say
what He wanted to say and just made a mistake, or
they wrote it down wrong, or in Hebrew it would mean
this and so on.
1) The Bible is without error.
2) The NT was written in Koine Greek,
not Hebrew and see #1 above.
3) I question YOU, *not* the Bible.
And so the question is not "WHO", but rather, "WHAT".
I.e, "WHAT mass of rock is Jesus referring to?"
It cannot be Peter, because according to Jesus,
he is a "a piece of rock" and not a "mass of rock".
And we must also remember that the church is
about Jesus, not Peter! It is all through the Bible
that we see this! Everywhere we look, especially
in the New Testament, we see that "Christ is the
Chief Cornerstone", for example and when the
Apostles taught about this in the New Testament,
they were actually referring to prophecies from
the Old Testament. What people don't seem to
get, is that the New Testament is not some brand
new doctrine. Rather, it is expounding of the
Old Testament to the church. And both Jesus
and the Apostles taught from what we now call
the Old Testament.
And ask yourself… What is a building built upon?
Don't say a cement platform, because that doesn't
determine what the building itself is and we are
talking about the building, not the cement under it.
One can pick up a house with equipment and move
that building and the cement platform would stay
right where it is!
So again, what is a building built upon? Simple!
It is built upon the chief cornerstone, which simply
means the starting corner. That is how a building
made of stones is started. And as I said, in the Bible,
we see that Christ is "the Chief Cornerstone", which
as I said, means the starting corner and also the
main and larger stone.
And even Jesus Himself said about Himself that
He is the Chief Cornerstone, but when He said it,
He asked those that He was telling a parable to;
"HAVE YOU NEVER READ....". So this is about
things that were prophesied about long before
and that is what Jesus was asking them if they
had read and this particular prophecy is found
in a Psalm.
"The stone which the builders rejected has
become the Chief Cornerstone." - Psalm 118:22
AND NOTE THE WORDING OF THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY!!!
"Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious;
but to those who are disobedient; The stone
which the builders rejected has become the
Chief Cornerstone... A ROCK OF OFFENSE..."
- 1 Peter 2:7-8
And yes, the Greek word there is also "a mass of rock"
and is the same word that Jesus used to describe what
He would build His church on, which as we can now see,
is He Himself and our confession of Him as the Christ!
And to carry on further what Peter was saying there,
we need only to back up a little bit in that chapter
and read the following:
"You also, as living STONES, are being built up
a spiritual HOUSE..." - 1 Peter 2:5
So here we have PETER HIMSELF saying that what
the church is built on, is Christ as the Chief Cornerstone
and that people are added to the building as living stones
and yes, the Greek word behind that word "stones"
is the very SAME word that Jesus renamed Peter to!
Peter was also one of the "lively stones"!
A stone; a piece of rock and not the huge boulder/mass
of rock that the church is built on! And yes, the Chief
Cornerstone in a building is bigger than the rest of
the stones of the building. This is seen in older stone
buildings and it's the one with the date stamped or
chiseled into it.
So Peter himself DENIES the idea that he himself
is what the church is built on! He said right there,
that it is Christ that the church is built on, not him!
He talks about "the builders". Well, what do builders do?
They build! And what are they building, when they have
a chief cornerstone and other stones? Why, a building,
obviously!
And what is Peter using this "chief cornerstone"
metaphor that is found in the Psalm and the
"lively stones" metaphor for? What type of
"building" is he talking about that is being built?
THE CHURCH, OF COURSE!!!
Therefore, YES, indeed, Peter ABSOLUTELY DOES state
that the "Chief Cornerstone", the "rock of offense" (mass
of rock) is Christ and our confession of Him as such and
is what the "lively stones" (us) are being built up upon,
which also without question means that to be a part of
this building, we have confessed Jesus as the Christ!
And so, is it just coincidence that when Jesus said
what He said to Peter, that Peter had just finished
confessing Him as the Christ? I think not!
And so here we have another proof that Peter is not
the Rock that Christ was going to build His church on!
So everyone can just forget about their interpretations
of what Matthew 16:18 says! People are spending all
of this time arguing over this passage and they forget
that when they get to 1 Peter 2, we have Peter himself
teaching the opposite of what they are claiming about
Peter being the Rock that Jesus built his church on!
Was Peter just still mixed up then? Gee, what a crummy
first Pope then, huh?!
I mean think about it. If Jesus built his church on Peter,
then that means that once Peter is dead, there's no more
church! How can we go to Peter, if he's not here and
we can't pray to dead humans!
And besides this, it is sacrilege to claim it is Peter that
the church is built on, because in essence, it replaces
Christ with Peter, as the Roman Catholics do, claiming
that the Pope is "Christ on Earth"!
Does the Bible teach this about the building of the
church and the NT is actually in contradiction to what
Jesus taught, since according to them, Jesus said that
it was built upon Peter and not Him (Jesus)?!
No, it doesn't teach that and it is not in contradiction to
what Jesus said and so, it is upon Christ Himself and our
confession of Christ, that the church is built on!
So the only thing left, that Jesus could possibly be saying
to Peter is, "Blessed are you.... and upon this confession
of who I am that you just made, I will build My church!".
Now the Roman Catholics make a big deal out of the next
passage in Matthew 16, which says:
"And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,
and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven,
and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven."
- Matthew 16:19
…and they assume that this proves that it is talking about
Peter being the Rock that Jesus would build His church
on and the first Pope. However to claim that, is to ignore
everything else that was just said!
Furthermore, these same words are said to ALL of the
twelve disciples and not just Peter in Matthew 18 and
therefore, it applies to all who also confess Jesus as
the Christ!
Matthew 18:18-19
18) Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on
earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever
you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven.
19) Again I say to you that if two of you agree on
earth concerning anything that they ask, it will
be done for them by My Father in Heaven.
So no, no special power just for Peter here! People
simply get these ideas in their heads about what those
two passages mean and then they figure it has to be
some special, magical power for just Peter. But like
I said, Christ said to all of the twelve. Peter simply
was told this first, because he confessed Jesus as the
Christ first and later, it was extended to the rest also.
So is it limited to just the twelve then? How can it be?
What about Paul? He wasn't an Apostle yet!
Furthermore, Judas later betrayed Jesus! So obviously
it no longer applied to him!
So you see folks, when we use our reasoning abilities,
which is simply our God given common sense, we can
quite easily see that this is not some special thing
reserved for only Peter, nor for only the twelve!
The problem here is that people think that because of
their interpretation of what the "binding and loosing"
meant, that it means that Peter could have sent an
order up to Heaven and made laws up there. Huh?
Do you really believe that God is going to let Peter,
or even the twelve, make law in Heaven, trumping
the authority of God Himself?! C'mon folks! It obviously
cannot mean that!
But it doesn't matter what it means. In the context of
this issue, the only thing important here, is that it was
not exclusive to Peter. One cannot claim exclusivity to
Peter based on this and nothing you say about this verse
will nullify all of the facts already presented here.
I hope this has been both edifying and a blessing to you!
In Jesus' name; Amen!
##################################################################
--
If your bible is falling apart, chances are your life
is staying together.
duke
>>>>>Wouldn't that mean that Jesus cannot be God (i.e. not omnipresent)?
>>>>>Or that the modal view of the Trinity is OK (Holy Spirit with us but
>>>>>Father and Son elsewhere)?
>>>>The three equal persons are all one God.
>>> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ That much, you have correct.
Ok, got you there.
>>> Then you go and say that Mary is SUPERIOR to the Son! (because she
>>>"gave birth to Him.)
>>Nope, Jesus is Son of Man because of his human mother.
> ^ ^ ^ Correct.
#2 - ok, gotcha there.
> Jesus is Son of God
>>because of his divine Father.
> NO. Jesus is God in Flesh.
#3 - gotcha there too. Jesus has a dual nature - son of man because of Mary,
his human Mother, and Son of God, because of this Father, the 1st person of the
Truine God.
> But you left out the most important person in your "Godhead."
> You left out "The Mother Of God."
#4 - no, I didn't leave it out. He had a dual nature - well defined.
> If you have God the Father, God the Mother, God the Son, and God
>the Holy Spirit,
There is no God the Mother except to you protest_ants.
> your "Godhead" includes FOUR deities, not 3.
Nope, not to us Catholics. There are only 3, no matter how stupid you
protest_ers try to be.
The Rock Is Peter
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 09:38:16 -0700 (PDT), The Rock Is Peter
>
> >Revelation 22:13
>
> Has nothing to do with the subject at hand,
> which is as follows...
>
"Kagoo de soi legoo hoti su ei Petros (in the original Aramaic
"Cepha"), kai epi tautee tee petra (in the original Aramaic "Cepha")
oikodomeesoo mou teen ekkleesian, kai pulai Hadou ou katischusousin
autees." (Matthew 16:18)
We all have heard the Protestant heretics say "Any honest Greek
authority can tell you that Our Lord did NOT call Peter a 'rock' and
tell him that on him the church was founded. What He said was: "Thou
art Peter (a small stone) and on this rock (petra)-the rock of which
thou art an isolated fragment (or rock of truth which thou hast
confessed) I will build My church."
This "Comment" could be dismissed with the indisputable declaration
that "Jesus Christ and His disciples spoke Aramaic"(Wold Book
Encyclopedia 1999). The Semitic language that the Encyclopedia of
Jewish Knowledge says was "akin to Hebrew, (and) became the common
tongue about the year 300 b.c.e." (before the common era, the A.D.
era). The Aramaic word for rock is "Cephas," without any change of
gender, such as in the Greek; where thou art "Petros" is masculine,
and "Petra" feminine, in the translation of Matt. 16:18-19 from
Aramaic into Greek.
If you Prophetics will study St. John 1:42 in an unbiased manner, you
will see that Simon was called "Cephas," the rock, by Christ in
Ceasarea Philippi two years before He announced, as recorded in Matt.
16:18, that Peter was to be the head of the Church Christ built. Your
stale Protestant endeavor to make Peter "an isolated fragment of
stone," is a denial of St. Paul's concept, who called Peter "Cephas,"
the rock, on four occasions, as recorded in 1 Corinthians 1:12; 3:22;
9:5; and 15:5
For most Bible scholars to question as to whether or not Peter was the
"Rock" or a "Stone" is really an OLD AND DEAD discussion. But
unfortunately we live the world suffering from a severe case of "lack
of imagination" for many Protestant heretics have a hard time dealing
with the sacred scripture Matthew 16:18, to put it simply they have
run out to a novel arguments against the scripture in the authority of
Peter. So we see this same old dead argument thrown up over And over.
It is to these unimaginative desperate Protestant heretics the follow
list is dedicated. Below is 35 highly dependent resources backing the
biblical fact that Christ called Simon "Cephas" an Aramaic name which
means "Rock". It is important to note that NOT ONE of these citations
comes from a Catholic source, the references I list come from
Protestant or secular resources. I follow-up the citations with a
large number of statements from the early church fathers verifying
that they clearly understood Peter to be the rock on which Christ
built his Church.
______________________________________________________
35 Protestant sources that admit the rock of Peter:
1)The Easton's bible dictionary (Protestant) tells us "Jesus at once
recognized Simon, and declared that hereafter he would be called
Cephas, an Aramaic name corresponding to the Greek Petros, which means
'a mass of rock' ....It is he who utters that notable profession of
faith at Capernaum (John 6:66-69), and again at Caesarea Philippi
(Matt. 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-20). This profession at
Caesarea was one of supreme importance, and our Lord in response used
these memorable words: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build
my church."
2)The Pocket Bible Dictionary =3DA91996 (Protestant) says "Pe'ter
(Rock),
Syriac, CEPHAS (Rock)... His original name was Simon or Simeon but
when
he was called to the apostleship the Lord gave him the name Peter
(CEPHAS) Matthew.16:18, with a prophetic reference to what he should
do
and be for the church."
3)The Bible Encyclopedia =3DA91941(Protestant) tells us"Note that
Christ
did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common
language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock
is Cepha, which is what Jesus called him in every-day speech (note
that
in John 1:42 he was told, "You will be called Cephas"). What Jesus
said
in Matthew 16:18 was thus: "You are Cepha, and upon this Cepha I will
build my Church."
4)The Bible Cyclopedia, 1914 (Protestant) says"Peter. Of Bethsaida on
the sea of Galilee. The Gr. For Heb. Cephas, "rock."..... As "Simon"
he
was but a hearer; as Peter or Cephas he became an apostle and the
foundation rock of the Church. (Matt. 16:18-19)"
5)The Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible (Protestant), =3DA91962,
Vol.
II, p. 1815 says"The Aramaic word for 'rock' is Cepha, and this is
without a doubt the word that Jesus used in reference to Peter. In the
early Aramaic-speaking Church P. (Peter) was not doubt called
'Cephas.'...Abundant evidence in the New Testament shows that Peter
acted as the head of the apostles during the earthly life of Christ as
well as after Christ's ascension into Heaven;" ...He is the first to
publicly profess his faith in Christ, and on this occasion, at
Caesarea
Philippi, Christ promises him the primacy in His Church (Mt 16:16-19),
a promise fulfilled after Christ's resurrection when Peter makes a
threefold protestation of his undying love for Him (Jn 21,15ff), to
atone for his three-fold denial of Him (Mt 26:69-75)."
6)Dictionary of Biblical Literacy, =3DA91986, p. 415 (Protestant)
"Peter.
Greek 'Petra', Aramaic 'Cephas', 'Rock.' the name Christ
gave to Simon Bar-Johnah."
7)The Harper's Bible Dictionary =3DA91996, p. 777 says "The name
'Peter'is the Greek word for 'rock' (petra) and translates an
Aramaic name (Cepha') that also means 'rock.' ...Peter's
emergence as a leader among Christ's disciples is reflected in the
story found in Matt. 16:18-19 that Christ bestowed the name 'rock'
on Simon as a sign of his future role as upholder and interpreter of
the traditions established by Christ..... Peter is credited with being
a leader among the disciples during Christ's ministry...Christ
elicits a threefold protestation of love, corresponding to the
threefold denial, from Peter before commissioning him to feed
Christ's sheep. These passages suggests that Peter's leadership
among the disciples in the post-Easter church was based on his having
been the first disciple to see the risen Lord (e.g., Luke 24:34; Mark
16:7?). ... The overall picture of Peter as one of the chief leaders
responsible for an expanding Christian mission, first to Jews, then to
interested Gentiles, is confirmed by the picture of Peter in Acts
1-15."
8)The New World Dictionary-Concordance to the New American Bible p.
527
(Protestant) says "Peter. Simon or Simeon, which is the Greek form of
the name, was son of Jonah.... From Christ he received the name of
Cepha, an Aramaic name which means rock, translated into Greek by the
word Petros (Gal. 2:7, 8)...The power entrusted to Peter is further
specified as the power to tie and loose, which, in accordance with the
use of the expression in the Jewish tradition, comprises the power to
declare something prohibited or licit, or to impose or dispense from,
an obligation. This power must be in the context of the power that
Peter received, namely authority in the service of the community as it
tended towards its eschatological end as expressed in the previous
metaphor."
9)A Dictionary of the Bible (Protestant) =3DA91943 says "Pe'ter,The
Greek form of the Aramiac surname Cephas meaning a rock, which Christ
bestowed upon Simon or more properly, Symeon ...Peter ardor,
earnestness, courage, vigor, and impetuosity of disposition marked him
from the first as the leader of the disciples of Jesus. He is always
named first in the lists of the apostles (Matt. x 2; Mark iii 16; Luke
vi 14; Acts i 13). In the more intimate circle of the most favored
three disciples, he is likewise always named first...The period of
leadership in the church, as exhibited in the earlier chapters of The
Acts. During these years Peter justified his surname, and fulfilled
the
prophecy that on him should the edifice of the church be raised (Matt.
16:18). It was by his hold and strong hand that the church was lead in
every step."
10)The Macmillan Concise Dictionary of World History, =3DA9 1986
tells
us
"Peter: d AD 64? Pe'ter,The Greek form of the Aramiac surname Cephas
meaning a rock, Apostle, pope, and saint. According to the Bible
Peter,
a fisherman of Galilee was originally known as Simon. He was chosen by
Jesus to be the first leader (pope) of his disciples. During Jesus'
crucifixion, Peter denied knowing him, an act that Jesus had predicted
and that Peter bitterly repented of. After word of Jesus' ascension to
heaven, Peter actively sought converts, and is believed to have been
crucified, head downward, in Rome by Nero. In the Roman Catholic
Church, he is considered to be the first Pope."
11)Nave's Topical Bible (Protestant) Says =3DA91999 "Peter Also called
SIMON BAR-JONA and CEPHAS 'Rock' Matthew 16:16-19; "
12)Hitchcock's Bible Names (Protestant) =3DA91896 "Pe'ter or Cephas
'rock"
13)The Smith's Bible Dictionary (Protestant) =3DA91901 "Pe'ter (rock).
Jesus gave Peter the name Cephas, a Syriac word answering to the Greek
Peter, and signifying a stone or rock (Matt 16:18)....From this time
there can be no doubt that Peter held the first place among the
apostles, to whatever cause his precedence is to be attributed. He is
named first in every list of the apostles; he is generally addressed
by
our Lord as their representative; and on the most solemn occasions he
speaks in their name. The distinction which he received, and it may be
his consciousness of ability, energy, zeal and absolute devotion to
Christ's person,
14)The Encarta Concise Encyclopedia =3DA91997"Peter in the Gospels it
is
known that the name he received at birth was Simon. Peter (from the
Greek word for "rock"Aramiac surname "Cephas") is thus a metaphorical
or symbolic name that became in time the name of the man in question.
The name may have arisen because Christ called Simon was the
foundation
stone of the church (Matt. 16:18)."
15)The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, Third Edition Copyright =3DA9
1994,
says "Peter, Saint d. A.D. 64?, most prominent of the Twelve APOSTLES,
traditionally the first bishop of Rome. His name was Simon, but Jesus
called him Cephas [Aramaic, (=3D3D (rock], or, in Greek, Petros...
Peter
appears in the gospels as leader and spokesman of the disciples, and
Jesus most often addressed him when speaking to them. When Peter
confessed Jesus to be the Christ, he was told, Upon this rock I will
build my church... After the Resurrection Jesus appeared and charged
Peter to feed my sheep. The ACTS OF THE APOSTLES describes Peter's
role
as leader in the early apostolic period. According to 2d-cent.
sources,
he apparently left Antioch for Rome A.D. c.55 and there died as head
of
the local church-a martyr under NERO-traditionally crucified on the
Vatican Hill. Over his supposed burial place stands ST. PETER'S
CHURCH,
the principal shrine of Europe. Peter is said to have helped St. MARK
write his gospel, but the epistles of PETER are regarded as mistakenly
attributed. His successors as bishop of Rome came to be leaders of the
church (see PAPACY). "
16)The Pinfoplease Encyclopedia =3DA91995 says"Peter, Saint d. A.D.
64?,
most prominent of the Twelve Disciples, listed first in the Gospels,
and traditionally the first bishop of Rome. His original name was
Simon, but Jesus gave him the name Cephas [Aramaic, =3D3D
rock],...Peter
appears throughout the Gospels as leader and spokesman of the
disciples, and Jesus most often addressed him when speaking to them
(Mat. 10.2; 14.28; 15.15; 17.24; 19.27; Luke 8.51; 12.41). His honored
position comes out most clearly in two high points of Jesus'
ministry-when Peter confessed Jesus to be the Christ and was told
'Upon this rock I will build my church';...After the Resurrection,
Jesus appeared by the Sea of Galilee and charged Peter to "feed my
sheep" (John 20.1-10; 21). The first chapters of the Acts of the
Apostles describe Peter's role as leader of the Twelve in the election
of a replacement for Judas and in the public declaration at Pentecost
(Acts 1.15-26; 2.14-40). Much attention is given to Peter's
miracles and to his defense of Christianity; his deliverance from
prison by an angel is a celebrated incident (Acts 3; 4; 5.1-11,
29-32; 8.14-25; 9.32-43; 10; 11.1-18; 12.1-19). He was a
leader at the council of Jerusalem that was called to discuss the
integration of non-Jews into the Christian organization;...From
earliest times Christians looked for leadership to the successors of
Peter as the bishop of Rome...The biblical passages cited to support
Petrine supremacy are Mat. 16.13-20 and John 21.15-25. From the
first passage comes the familiar image of the keys, which are seen to
represent papal power, as well as that of St. Peter as the gatekeeper
of heaven."
17)The Oxford Concise Dictionary of the bible (Protestant) =3DA91943
says
"Peter Saint, Christianity, one of the twelve Apostles His principal
name, Peter, is the Greek translation of that given him (John 1:42) by
Jesus; Cephas is the Grecian form of the Aramaic Kepha, "rock"(Matt.
16;18)...Peter was The true leader of the Church after Pentecost Peter
was noted for his miracles and his devotion to Christ."
18)The Encyclopedic Dictionary of the King James Bible (Protestant)
=3DA91919 says "Pe'ter, Saint d. A.D. 64, The leader of the Twelve
APOSTLES, Believed to be the first bishop of Rome. His name was Simon,
but Jesus called him Cephas [Aramaic, (=3D3D (rock], or, in Greek,
Petros...clearly Simon was the foundation stone of the church (Matt.
16:18)...The ACTS OF THE APOSTLES shows Peter's role as leader in the
early apostolic period."
19)The Brundle Dictionary of the Sacred Bible (Protestant) =3DA91843
says
"Pe'ter. Simon or Simeon, which is the Greek form of the name, was son
of Jonah. "From Christ he received the name of Cepha, an Aramaic name
which means rock,... Peter was the foundation Stone of the early
Church
(Matt.16;18)... in book of Acts we see Peter's establishing h tois
leadership and authority in the church."
20)The Dictionary of the Bible (Protestant) =3DA91967 says " Pe'ter
(Rock), Syriac,CEPHAS (Rock).... Christ put Peter and a place of
authority over the early church. Calling him the foundation stone
Matt.
16:18-19 "
21)National Almanac =3DA9 1996 says"St. Peter, of Bethsaida in
Galilee,From Christ he received the name of Cepha, an Aramaic name
which means rock. Prince of the Apostles, was the first pope of the
Roman Catholic Church. He lived first in Antioch and then in Rome for
25 years. In C.E. 64 or 67, he was martyred. St. Linus became the
second pope."
22)Comptons Encyclopedia =3DA91995 says "He (Peter)was the first of
the
apostles to whom Christ appeared after his Resurrection, commanding
the
repentant Peter, "Feed my lambs, tend my sheep." Reassured by this
that
Jesus still trusted him, Peter became a great teacher in the early
days
of the church. He preached throughout Palestine. Many scholars believe
that he also worked in Rome for a time. Roman Catholics count him as
the first bishop of Rome and the first pope. His claim to the position
of head of the church is based also on the words of Jesus to Peter in
St. Matthew's gospel: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build
my church." (The Greek word petros means "rock."Syriac,CEPHAS "Rock")
the Romans crucified Peter in about AD 64 during the reign of Nero.
Declaring that he was not worthy to die in the same way that Jesus
had,
Peter asked that his executioners hang him on the cross head downward.
23)History of The Early Church =3DA91901 says "Simon was one of the
twelve
followers of Jesus designated as Apostles. He became the leader of the
inner circle, which included James and John. Jesus confirmed Simon's
leadership when he stated, 'Blessed are you, Simon bar Jonah! No mere
man has revealed this to you but my heavenly Father, I, for my part,
declare to you are 'Cephas' (the Aramaic word meaning 'rock'.) and on
this rock I will build my Church and the jaws of death shall not
prevail against it.'The Aramaic 'Cephas' was translated into the Greek
'Petros', hence the anglicized name, 'Peter'."
24)Funk & Wagnall's Encyclopedia =3DA91995 says "Peter in the Gospels
it
is known that the name he received at birth and with which he grew up
was Simon. The Greek word Petros ("rock") and its Aramaic equivalent,
cephas, were not in use as personal names. "Peter" is thus a
metaphorical or symbolic designation that came in time to function as
the name of the man in question. The symbolic name in its Aramaic form
may have arisen in connection with the affirmation that the
resurrected
Lord appeared first to Simon, that appearance and thus Simon himself
serving as a sort of foundation stone of the church."
25)Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, copyright 2000, p. 228
says"Cephas
(Kephas) nickname or surname given to the apostles Peter (from Aram.
Kepa, 'rock')."
26)The New Strong's Guide to Bible Words, copyright 1996, p. 44
says"Cephas; 2786 Kephas (6), Rock"
27)Holman Bible Dictionary, copyright 1991 pgs. 1098-1099 says"Peter
personal name meaning 'rock.'... Cephas and Peter both mean rock...
Peter is credited with being the leader of the 12 Disciples."
28)The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, copyright
1990 says"2786 Kephas, kay-fas; of chald. Or [comp. 3710]; the rock;
Cephas(i.e. kepha), a surname of Peter:-Cephas"
29)The Smith's Bible Dictionary, p. 241 says"Pe'ter. Originally
Simeon, or Simon, heard. (... Peter, a rock)"
30)The Holman Concise Bible Dic-tion-ar-y, copyright 1997, p. 512
says"Peter ('rock') Leader of Jesus's 12 apostles; preacher at
Pentecost; took the gospel to God-fearing Gentiles"
31)The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, copyright 1972, p. 154
says"Ce'phas [from Aram. Kepha, rock]. An appellation given by Jesus
to the apostles Simon...Peter is the Greek equivalent of Cephas"
32)Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, copyright 1989 p. 254
says"Cephas [See fuhs] (rock) The Aramaic named for Simon the son of
Jonah (John 1:42) given to him by Christ"
33)New International Version, copyright 1984, footnote to verse John
1:42 says"Both Cephas (Aramaic) and peter (Greek) mean rock"
34)World Book Multimedia Encyclopedia, copyright 1999 says"Peter,
Saint
(?-A.D. 64?), was a leading apostle of Jesus Christ. He was a leader
of
the early Christian community in Jerusalem and is a prominent figure
in
the New Testament. Peter's original name was Simon. Jesus gave him the
name Peter, which means rock in Greek. Peter is sometimes called Simon
Peter in the New Testament. In a passage from the New Testament, Jesus
is portrayed as saying to Peter: 'And I say unto thee, That thou art
Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of
hell
shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of
the
kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven.' (Matt. 16:18-19)."
35)The New Strong's Complete Dictionary of Words, copyright 1996, p.
646 says"2786 Kephas, kay-fas; of chald. Or [comp. 3710]; the rock;
Cephas(i.e. kepha), a surname of Peter:-Cephas"
Pastor Dave
<TheRock...@jesusanswers.com> spake thusly:
>On May 19, 4:21 pm, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 19 May 2008 09:38:16 -0700 (PDT), The Rock Is Peter
>> <TheRockIsPe...@jesusanswers.com> spake thusly:
>>
>> >Revelation 22:13
>>
>> Has nothing to do with the subject at hand,
>> which is as follows...
>
>"Kagoo de soi legoo hoti su ei Petros (in the original Aramaic
>"Cepha"), kai epi tautee tee petra (in the original Aramaic "Cepha")
>oikodomeesoo mou teen ekkleesian, kai pulai Hadou ou katischusousin
>autees." (Matthew 16:18)
>
>We all have heard the Protestant heretics say "Any honest Greek
>authority can tell you that Our Lord did NOT call Peter a 'rock' and
>tell him that on him the church was founded. What He said was: "Thou
>art Peter (a small stone) and on this rock (petra)-the rock of which
>thou art an isolated fragment (or rock of truth which thou hast
>confessed) I will build My church."
The same copy and paste of someone else's
web page, which is full of false claims that I already
dealt with in my post, which you again ignored.
What a knowledgeable guy and what a smart
debater you are, huh?! <chuckle>
You're not brainwashed by the RCC or anything, right?
I mean, you wouldn't go so far as to try to name yourself
after Peter, would you? Does the word "robot" mean
anything to you?
It's amazing how dedicated RCC'ers are to people,
instead of God. Mary, Peter, the Pope, etc.. For
them, God takes a back seat to these people. (:
And btw, I say again, that you didn't even bother to ask
if I am a Protestant. Instead, you just accuse people
using someone else's words.
Since you have nothing of your own to say and
haven't even bothered to read what I wrote,
goodbye!
--
"Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself,
but talent instantly recognizes genius."
- Sir Arthur Doyle
::: good news runner :::
This guy below has probably never heard of the Commandment to love one's
neighbor as oneself... He can just be kind to people whom he thinks he
can proselytise, and has often threatened to shoot people behind a barn
if they do not believe his sick ideas. No way is he a Christian pastor.
He ignores important parts of Scripture and abuses it for his own
liking. He believes that Jesus has come back for a second time in 70 AD
already. For him, the fall of Jerusalem caused by the Romans was the
destruction of this earth. He denies that Jesus will come back the way
he left - in the flesh!
"Pastor" Dave is of the anti-Christian spirit. Please watch out not to
fall into this sectarian's trap. I know of at least one in the usenet
who did. I do not want this to happen for a second time (and probably
caused by all the so much loving Christian brothers and sisters who
accepted this guy as their fellow Christian - they will all have to
stand in judgement for that and should repent before it is too late -
for giving the public impression that this guy could be a Christian
pastor - though they were warned enough by the Christians).
--
___________________________________________________
::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de :::::::
::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de/Israel.htm :::::::
::::::: http://www.e-sword.net :::::::
::::::: http://alpha.org/default.asp :::::::
In news:as7534d573fcpkrfb...@4ax.com,
Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> typed:
Mistylein
>
>
>
>> I have seen cornerstones at the bottom of the foundation, and I've
>>seen cornerstones at the top.
>
>> The point was that scripture says Jesus Christ is "The
>>Cornerstone", and the foundation (the apostles) were built UPON that
>>cornerstone.
>
> And the Rock, Simon Peter, is the chief Apostle, the Holy Father, selected by
> Christ himself.
Ok! Just keep folowing your Blind teacher and you will continue
to be blind as well.
M,
duke
>> And the Rock, Simon Peter, is the chief Apostle, the Holy Father, selected by
>> Christ himself.
>Ok! Just keep folowing your Blind teacher and you will continue
>to be blind as well.
Jesus is not blind.
duke
>>>> And the Rock, Simon Peter, is the chief Apostle, the Holy Father, selected by
>>>> Christ himself.
>>>Ok! Just keep folowing your Blind teacher and you will continue
>>>to be blind as well.
>>Jesus is not blind.
> Jesus isn't your teacher. The pope is your "teacher."
Jesus is gone, but will return one day. The Holy Spirit is the teacher.
> If you were learning from Jesus Christ, you'd know better about a
>lot of things!
Jesus isn't here. The Holy Spirit confirmed the office of the Holy Father.
What a dummy you are, jw.
CB
<yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:d26134p46lnhgf0fl...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 16:19:13 -0700, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>>
>>> I have seen cornerstones at the bottom of the foundation, and I've
>>>seen cornerstones at the top.
>>
>>> The point was that scripture says Jesus Christ is "The
>>>Cornerstone", and the foundation (the apostles) were built UPON that
>>>cornerstone.
>>
>> And the Rock, Simon Peter, is the chief Apostle, the Holy Father, selected by
>> Christ himself.
>
>Ok! Just keep folowing your Blind teacher and you will continue
>to be blind as well.
ducky is certainly blind and refuses to see.
Mistylein
>
>>Ok! Just keep folowing your Blind teacher and you will continue
>>to be blind as well.
>
> Jesus is not blind.
Jesus is not blind nor is the Bible.
However whom ever seems to be teaching you sure is keeping
you will away from the truth and you will not even walk on
your own to search out that what is true so it will set you
free from all the years and years of descption you have been
taught all your religeious life.
M,
Mistylein
"CB" <count...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ad8c34phnqpbq1s9f...@4ax.com...
>>
>>Ok! Just keep folowing your Blind teacher and you will continue
>>to be blind as well.
>
> ducky is certainly blind and refuses to see.
I know and I am trying to get it/him/ she, to go to the
sorce and let the Spirit of truth enter into him
so he too may know the real truth so the real truth can
set him free from following that false sect he is so much into
but then, he has to want to do it.
Until then he will just remain as blind as his sect and his
teachers.
However there are some that love a lie and go arrond preacing
it as though it was the truth.
it will never end until they are set free.
M,
>
>>
>>M,
ToMountZion
wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 08:46:04 -0400, Pastor Dave
>
> <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
> >I hope this has been both edifying and a blessing to you!
> >In Jesus' name; Amen!
>
>
> Or did He? The Hebrew name of God, Jesus, is not named Jesus.
>
> Preterit's scenario: He chose 12 Apostles then He added more.
>
> Bible published in what year, 1611AD, by the king of England.
>
> All those prior to 1611AD are screwed and without salivation.
>
> Clever works of devils. Clever. As if God is alive in a Book.
>
> Do you expect me to believe that Protestant is not Catholic?
>
> Very clever. You both hold the same corruptions of scripture.
>
> You both embrace the teachings and doctrines of Apostle Paul.
>
> Shame on you both.
Praise God
You are perfectly right that Peter does not mean the Rock as in the
Rock on which the Church was build. The Rock was the revelation that
Peter received, it was on this revelation of who Christ is, is the
Rock on which the Church is to be build.
It is also true that Peter was selected to lead the Apostles after
Jesus' resurrection. Peter was called Peter – ‘stone’ or ‘small rock’
for he was to represent the Rock - Jesus. We all as Christians are
suppose to be Peter. The confirmation of Peter being selected to lead
was in the action that Peter did in the tomb after Jesus resurrected.
(I was to disclose this revelation in my teaching – Jesus the Ultimate
Sacrifice on my website www.tomountzion.com; but since this topic is
getting discussed I thought it ample to let you know)
If you read the scriptures of John 20:1-7
1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was
yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the
sepulchre.
2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other
disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away
the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid
him.
3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to
the sepulchre.
4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter,
and came first to the sepulchre.
5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying;
yet went he not in.
6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre,
and seeth the linen clothes lie,
7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen
clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
If you notice no one entered the tomb until Peter entered it, nor did
anyone else touch the linen cloth (though it may not give a directly
that Peter took the linen cloth, but it is written no one else did
take). What has this to do with Peter leading the Church. If you read
the books of Moses during the most important sacrifice for the sins of
Israel that was offered where in the High priest went in the Holy of
Holies to offer the blood onto the Ark of Testimonies, he would drop
his linen (outer coat) on the floor and his son or heir who was
suppose to take over would enter and pick it up.
Leviticus 16:17,23,32
17 And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation
when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come
out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household,
and for all the congregation of Israel.
23 And Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the congregation, and
shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into
the holy place, and shall leave them there:
32 And the priest, whom he shall anoint, and whom he shall consecrate
to minister in the priest's office in his father's stead, shall make
the atonement, and shall put on the linen clothes, even the holy
garments:
I also like to bring to your knowledge that it is not only Peter but
all who are Peter (little Christ) are called to build the Church. A
Christian is suppose to be a little Christ.
One more truth – The napkin was kept folded in the tomb as a gesture
that the Master will be back to the Table.
We are to build the Church according to our calling, but soon we all
will hand over the reins back unto the Master.
God Bless
Teacher @ Mount Zion
duke
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Thu, 22 May 2008 17:17:22 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>On Thu, 22 May 2008 12:48:24 -0700, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> And the Rock, Simon Peter, is the chief Apostle, the Holy Father, selected by
>>>>>> Christ himself.
>>
>>>>>Ok! Just keep folowing your Blind teacher and you will continue
>>>>>to be blind as well.
>>>>Jesus is not blind.
>>
>>> Jesus isn't your teacher. The pope is your "teacher."
>>
>>Jesus is gone, but will return one day. The Holy Spirit is the teacher.
> You AGAIN prove that you don't know ANYTHING about who God
>actually is.
> You don't know because He truly is NOT in you.
What's the matter, jw? Didn't you know that Jesus said he must go, so that the
Father would send the Holy Spirit, the teacher/comforter/paraclete/counselor in
his place?
I recommend you spend some time in the NT, the Christian bible.
>>> If you were learning from Jesus Christ, you'd know better about a
>>>lot of things!
>>Jesus isn't here. The Holy Spirit confirmed the office of the Holy Father.
> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Lie. ^ ^ ^ Lie.
> Blasphemy!
> Don't speak for the Holy Spirit.
YOU are the one that decides where you agree with Jesus and where you don't.
That's your fatal game, not mine.
duke
>>>Ok! Just keep folowing your Blind teacher and you will continue
>>>to be blind as well.
>>
>> Jesus is not blind.
>
>Jesus is not blind nor is the Bible.
>However whom ever seems to be teaching you sure is keeping
>you will away from the truth and you will not even walk on
>your own to search out that what is true
But I'm not the one that decides for myself if Jesus knew what he was saying or
not. You protest_ants are.
duke
>>However whom ever seems to be teaching you sure is keeping
>>you will away from the truth and you will not even walk on
>>your own to search out that what is true so it will set you
>>free from all the years and years of descption you have been
>>taught all your religeious life.
> On this, we agree!!
> It's called "being a Roman Catholic."
> There is absolutely NO "systematic theology."
The systematic comes from God. He tells us, you and A&E tell him.
> They basically memorize a series of STATEMENTS that have NO
>coherence, NO common theme beyond
You mean like "Jesus said it"?
> The Roman Catholic Church is right about EVERYTHING
> The Pope is God.
> If you reject either of those concepts, "you are beyond
>redemption."
> And I've said MANY times, and I'll say it again:
> When the Roman Catholics come with their guns (they've done similar
>in the past/ called "The Inquisition.")
Are you getting nervous over your heresy, jw?
> And they say to me, "become a Roman Catholic or we're going to put
>a bullet in your head..."
> I'll take the bullet.
Obadiah would be proud of you, jw. He was a good Jew.
duke
>> ducky is certainly blind and refuses to see.
>I know and I am trying to get it/him/ she, to go to the
>sorce and let the Spirit of truth enter into him
>so he too may know the real truth so the real truth can
>set him free from following that false sect he is so much into
>but then, he has to want to do it.
>Until then he will just remain as blind as his sect and his
>teachers.
MASS:
Do this in memory of me - Mat 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1Cor 11.
SACRAMENTS:
Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19
Holy Eucharist - Mat 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1 Cor 11.
Confession - John 20:22-23, Mat 9:2-8
Matrimony - Ephesians 5:31
Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13, Acts 8:14-17, 19:5-6,
Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14
duke
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Thu, 22 May 2008 22:55:27 -0700, "Mistylein"
><yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
> Š 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>
> I think you don't understand the power of that mind-controlling
>cult.
>
> It's been said, "raise a person in the Roman Catholic religion for
>20 years, and they have him FOR LIFE."
MASS:
Do this in memory of me - Mat 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1Cor 11.
SACRAMENTS:
Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19
Holy Eucharist - Mat 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1 Cor 11.
Confession - John 20:22-23, Mat 9:2-8
Matrimony - Ephesians 5:31
Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13, Acts 8:14-17, 19:5-6,
Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14
duke, American-American
CB
<yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>"CB" <count...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ad8c34phnqpbq1s9f...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 22 May 2008 00:01:59 -0700, "Mistylein"
>> <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>
>
>>>
>>>Ok! Just keep folowing your Blind teacher and you will continue
>>>to be blind as well.
>>
>> ducky is certainly blind and refuses to see.
>
>I know and I am trying to get it/him/ she, to go to the
>sorce and let the Spirit of truth enter into him
>so he too may know the real truth so the real truth can
>set him free from following that false sect he is so much into
>but then, he has to want to do it.
>Until then he will just remain as blind as his sect and his
>teachers.
Good luck :)
Mistylein
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
news:1pvc34tpah58jlr6s...@4ax.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 22:46:58 -0700, "Mistylein"
> <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
> Š 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>
>>
>>Jesus is not blind nor is the Bible.
>>
>>However whom ever seems to be teaching you sure is keeping
>>you well away from the truth and you will not even walk on
>>your own to search out that what is true so it will set you
>>free from all the years and years of descption you have been
>>taught all your religeious life.
>
> On this, we agree!!
>
> It's called "being a Roman Catholic."
>
> There is absolutely NO "systematic theology."
>
> They basically memorize a series of STATEMENTS that have NO
> coherence, NO common theme beyond
>
> The Roman Catholic Church is right about EVERYTHING
>
> The Pope is God.
No The pope and the priests only claim to take the place of
the Son of God as their blasphemoust titles says they
do
VICARIOUS FILII DEI.
Add up that infamouls number in the above name and it will
tell you exactly what is prophesied about them.
>
> If you reject either of those concepts, "you are beyond
> redemption."
>
>
> And I've said MANY times, and I'll say it again:
>
> When the Roman Catholics come with their guns (they've done similar
> in the past/ called "The Inquisition.")
>
> And they say to me, "become a Roman Catholic or we're going to put
> a bullet in your head..."
>
> I'll take the bullet.
Oh! Do they not burn "Heritics" at the stake any more?
Look who is burning now!
Poor duckey.
M,
>
>>
>>M,
>
Mistylein
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Fri, 23 May 2008 07:14:48 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>
>>>>However whom ever seems to be teaching you sure is keeping
>>>>your own to search out that what is true so it will set you
>>>>free from all the years and years of descption you have been
>>>>taught all your religeious life.
>>
>>> On this, we agree!!
>>> It's called "being a Roman Catholic."
>>> There is absolutely NO "systematic theology."
>>
>>The systematic comes from God.
The Bible is a book of 2 women;
The Bride and the Harlot.
It looks like duckey likes to study with the Harlot.
M,
>
> You're making it up as you go.
>
> And any SYSTEM that exists within the RCC is NOT from God.
> Because the systems God has devised are detectable.
>
> The "system" you follow is not detectable.
>
> Hence, it's invented.
>
>
> SNIP
>
>>> They basically memorize a series of STATEMENTS that have NO
>>>coherence, NO common theme beyond
>>
>>You mean like "Jesus said it"?
>
> ???? Jesus said that you are to worship Mary?
> Actually, He didn't.
>
> Jesus said that you are to be "baptized" as an infant.
> Actually, He didn't.
>
> Jesus said you are to "pray" using a crucifix attached to a
> Rosary?
>
> Actually, He didn't.
>
> Jesus said that you are to erect statues (idols) of saints in your
> sanctuaries and then bow down to them?
>
> Actually, He didn't.
But what about the Bones of their saints that they have under
their altars.
Did Jesus tell them to do that too.
Actually He didn't! ! !
>
>
>>
>>> The Roman Catholic Church is right about EVERYTHING
>>> The Pope is God.
>>> If you reject either of those concepts, "you are beyond
>>>redemption."
>>> And I've said MANY times, and I'll say it again:
>>
>>> When the Roman Catholics come with their guns (they've done similar
>>>in the past/ called "The Inquisition.")
>>
>>Are you getting nervous over your heresy, jw?
>
> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Are you now admitting that coming to people's doors
> (as you did in past centuries), and threatening them with death
> is coming?
>
> I already knew that!
I too know they are still trying to enforce that Inquission,
it is in full force in South america because they get away with it
M,
>
>>
>>> And they say to me, "become a Roman Catholic or we're going to put
>>>a bullet in your head..."
>>> I'll take the bullet.
>>
>
> SNIP
>
Mistylein
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 22:46:58 -0700, "Mistylein" <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>>>Ok! Just keep folowing your Blind teacher and you will continue
>>>>to be blind as well.
>>>
>>> Jesus is not blind.
>>
>>Jesus is not blind nor is the Bible.
>
>>However whom ever seems to be teaching you sure is keeping
>>your own to search out that what is true
>
> But I'm not the one that decides for myself if Jesus knew what he was saying or
> not. You protest_ants are.
It is high time you start to decided for your self or you too will
receive the wrath of God that is coming to that Harlot you call\
a church.
Read the Bible Rev. 17 and 18 are talking right to you and about
that harlot you ride on.
M,
Mistylein
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 22:55:27 -0700, "Mistylein"
> <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
> Š 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>
>>news:ad8c34phnqpbq1s9f...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 22 May 2008 00:01:59 -0700, "Mistylein"
>>> <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>Ok! Just keep folowing your Blind teacher and you will continue
>>>>to be blind as well.
>>>
>>> ducky is certainly blind and refuses to see.
>>
>>I know and I am trying to get it/him/ she, to go to the
>>sorce and let the Spirit of truth enter into him
>>so he too may know the real truth so the real truth can
>>set him free from following that false sect he is so much into
>>but then, he has to want to do it.
>>Until then he will just remain as blind as his sect and his
>>teachers.
>>
>>it as though it was the truth.
>>it will never end until they are set free.
>
> cult.
Oh But I do!
It is getting through to stuborn sect leaders that I lack the power
to do.
I am hoping I will say just the right word and it may have a chance
to let in the Spirit of truth past that wall of lies he has be indoctrinated
with.
But I will not take the credit I will give that to the Lord to claim.
>
> It's been said, "raise a person in the Roman Catholic religion for
> 20 years, and they have him FOR LIFE."
I have known many that were in her very deeply but came out of
her and are looking at the bible truths with a different light.
M,
>
>
>>
>>M,
>>>
>>>>
>>>>M,
>>
>
Mistylein
> On Fri, 23 May 2008 01:28:16 -0700, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>x-no-archive: yes
>>On Thu, 22 May 2008 22:55:27 -0700, "Mistylein"
>>
>> I think you don't understand the power of that mind-controlling
>>cult.
>>
>> It's been said, "raise a person in the Roman Catholic religion for
>>20 years, and they have him FOR LIFE."
>
> MASS:
> Do this in memory of me - Mat 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1Cor 11.
That is not talking about your Funeral service of the Dead Corpus
Cristiy. Your attempts to keep Jesus Dead is as dead as you
following falshood and Lies of Satan the one your sect
gets its power from.
It (the Bible) is talking about a fellowship sacerment of the altar for us
to receive the Body and Blood of the living Savior.
This is how Jesus enters into us, His beloved Believers, This is
how he lives in us. This is how He loves us.
>
> SACRAMENTS:
> Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19 (NIV)
5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can
enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth
to flesh, but the Spirit[a]gives birth to spirit.
(NIV)
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (NIV)
> Holy Eucharist - Mat 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1 Cor 11.
> Confession - John 20:22-23, Mat 9:2-8
Confession is not a Christian Sacerment as your sect is trying
to pass it off as.
Your confession is an information gathering inquisition chamber
for you to get information on your subjects so you can
control them with your opressive thumbs.
> Matrimony - Ephesians 5:31
Matrimony also is not a sacerment of any altar!
> Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13, Acts 8:14-17, 19:5-6,
Confirmation also is not a Sacerment of any altar!
> Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
Aso no sacerments there for any altar.
> Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14
Again It is not a sacerment of any altar it is brain washing
and why do you not call it as it is?
The last rights or your last chance to fleece them of their
worldly possessions.
>
> duke, American-American
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Mass is a Funeral service done over the Bones of a dead
person.
M,
> Pope Paul VI
> *****
Mistylein
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 22:55:27 -0700, "Mistylein" <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>> ducky is certainly blind and refuses to see.
>
>>I know and I am trying to get it/him/ she, to go to the
>>sorce and let the Spirit of truth enter into him
>>so he too may know the real truth so the real truth can
>>set him free from following that false sect he is so much into
>>but then, he has to want to do it.
>>Until then he will just remain as blind as his sect and his
>>teachers.
>
> MASS:
> Do this in memory of me - Mat 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1Cor 11.
>
> SACRAMENTS:
> Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19
> Holy Eucharist - Mat 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1 Cor 11.
> Confession - John 20:22-23, Mat 9:2-8
> Matrimony - Ephesians 5:31
> Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13, Acts 8:14-17, 19:5-6,
> Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
> Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14
Those were invented as Sacraments for you RCC sect.
The Christians only have 2 Sacraments';
Baptism
and Communion.
M,
Mistylein
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 22:55:27 -0700, "Mistylein"
> <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"CB" <count...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:ad8c34phnqpbq1s9f...@4ax.com...
Snipers<
>>>
>>> ducky is certainly blind and refuses to see.
>>
>>I know and I am trying to get it/him/ she, to go to the
>>sorce and let the Spirit of truth enter into him
>>so he too may know the real truth so the real truth can
>>set him free from following that false sect he is so much into
>>but then, he has to want to do it.
>>Until then he will just remain as blind as his sect and his
>>teachers.
>
> Good luck :)
He he he!
Yes he is a hard nut to crack.
Thank you for you best wishes.
M,
>>
>>However there are some that love a lie and go arond preacing
duke
>>>>However whom ever seems to be teaching you sure is keeping
>>>>you will away from the truth and you will not even walk on
>>>>your own to search out that what is true so it will set you
>>>>free from all the years and years of descption you have been
>>>>taught all your religeious life.
>>
>>> On this, we agree!!
>>> It's called "being a Roman Catholic."
>>> There is absolutely NO "systematic theology."
>>
>>The systematic comes from God.
> You're making it up as you go.
God spoke, A&E said they'd search out what was true.
> And any SYSTEM that exists within the RCC is NOT from God.
> Because the systems God has devised are detectable.
> The "system" you follow is not detectable.
Here it is, jw - right out of that book you ignore in the back part (the NT).
MASS:
Do this in memory of me - Mat 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1Cor 11.
SACRAMENTS:
Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19
Holy Eucharist - Mat 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1 Cor 11.
Confession - John 20:22-23, Mat 9:2-8
Matrimony - Ephesians 5:31
Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13, Acts 8:14-17, 19:5-6,
Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14
PAPACY:
Mat 16:13-20, Acts 15:7
>>> They basically memorize a series of STATEMENTS that have NO
>>>coherence, NO common theme beyond
>>You mean like "Jesus said it"?
> ???? Jesus said that you are to worship Mary?
> Actually, He didn't.
Right, and we don't.
> Jesus said that you are to be "baptized" as an infant.
> Actually, He didn't.
Hebrews 2:14-15 (New International Version)
14Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so
that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the
devil— 15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear
of death.
> Jesus said you are to "pray" using a crucifix attached to a
>Rosary?
Now you're just flat out lying, jw. The rosary is the prayer of the people.
> Jesus said that you are to erect statues (idols) of saints in your
>sanctuaries and then bow down to them?
You need to go to confession to a Priest, jw. John 20:22-23.
duke
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:j0dd34d6u8k0b3tnh...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 22 May 2008 22:46:58 -0700, "Mistylein" <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Ok! Just keep folowing your Blind teacher and you will continue
>>>>>to be blind as well.
>>>>
>>>> Jesus is not blind.
>>>
>>>Jesus is not blind nor is the Bible.
>>
>>>However whom ever seems to be teaching you sure is keeping
>>>you well away from the truth and you will not even walk on
>>>your own to search out that what is true
>>
>> But I'm not the one that decides for myself if Jesus knew what he was saying or
>> not. You protest_ants are.
>
>It is high time you start to decided for your self or you too will
>receive the wrath of God that is coming to that Harlot you call\
>a church.
The Church you call a harlot is the Church founded by Christ.
You are in need of confession, m. John 20:22-23.
duke
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Fri, 23 May 2008 07:17:20 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>On Fri, 23 May 2008 01:28:16 -0700, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>x-no-archive: yes
>>>On Thu, 22 May 2008 22:55:27 -0700, "Mistylein"
>>><yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
>>> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>>>may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>>
>>>>"CB" <count...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:ad8c34phnqpbq1s9f...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 22 May 2008 00:01:59 -0700, "Mistylein"
>>>>> <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ok! Just keep folowing your Blind teacher and you will continue
>>>>>>to be blind as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> ducky is certainly blind and refuses to see.
>>>>
>>>>I know and I am trying to get it/him/ she, to go to the
>>>>sorce and let the Spirit of truth enter into him
>>>>so he too may know the real truth so the real truth can
>>>>set him free from following that false sect he is so much into
>>>>but then, he has to want to do it.
>>>>Until then he will just remain as blind as his sect and his
>>>>teachers.
>>>>
>>>>However there are some that love a lie and go arrond preacing
>>>>it as though it was the truth.
>>>>it will never end until they are set free.
>>>
>>> I think you don't understand the power of that mind-controlling
>>>cult.
>>>
>>> It's been said, "raise a person in the Roman Catholic religion for
>>>20 years, and they have him FOR LIFE."
>>
>>MASS:
>
>>
>>SACRAMENTS:
>
> "Mass?" "Sacraments?"
> This is the Baptist group, boy!
Oh, I'm sorry, jw. I thought you were a Christian. My mistake.
MASS:
Do this in memory of me - Mat 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1Cor 11.
SACRAMENTS:
Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19, Hebrew 2:14-15
duke
>> MASS:
>> Do this in memory of me - Mat 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1Cor 11.
>That is not talking about your Funeral service of the Dead Corpus
>Cristiy. Your attempts to keep Jesus Dead is as dead as you
> following falshood and Lies of Satan the one your sect
>gets its power from.
>It (the Bible) is talking about a fellowship sacerment of the altar for us
>to receive the Body and Blood of the living Savior.
>This is how Jesus enters into us, His beloved Believers, This is
>how he lives in us. This is how He loves us.
This is how we share in his death on the cross and his resurrection to new life.
>> SACRAMENTS:
>> Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19 (NIV)
>5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can
>enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth
>to flesh, but the Spirit[a]gives birth to spirit.
>(NIV)
>19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the
>Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (NIV)
>
>
>> Holy Eucharist - Mat 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1 Cor 11.
>> Confession - John 20:22-23, Mat 9:2-8
>
>Confession is not a Christian Sacerment as your sect is trying
>to pass it off as.
Why not? Jesus, on Easter Sunday night after his resurrection, specifically
assigned his followers to treat the confessions of Chrisitans.
>> Matrimony - Ephesians 5:31
>Matrimony also is not a sacerment of any altar!
Maybe not your altar, but it is of God.
>> Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13, Acts 8:14-17, 19:5-6,
>Confirmation also is not a Sacerment of any altar!
Sealed with the Holy Spirit.
>> Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
>Aso no sacerments there for any altar.
The Chrisitan Priesthood.
>> Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14
>Again It is not a sacerment of any altar it is brain washing
>and why do you not call it as it is?
Forgiveness for sins.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:6add34d5g0f84pkpe...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 22 May 2008 22:55:27 -0700, "Mistylein" <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> ducky is certainly blind and refuses to see.
>>
>>>I know and I am trying to get it/him/ she, to go to the
>>>sorce and let the Spirit of truth enter into him
>>>so he too may know the real truth so the real truth can
>>>set him free from following that false sect he is so much into
>>>but then, he has to want to do it.
>>>Until then he will just remain as blind as his sect and his
>>>teachers.
>>
>> MASS:
>> Do this in memory of me - Mat 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1Cor 11.
>>
>> SACRAMENTS:
>> Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19
>> Holy Eucharist - Mat 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1 Cor 11.
>> Confession - John 20:22-23, Mat 9:2-8
>> Matrimony - Ephesians 5:31
>> Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13, Acts 8:14-17, 19:5-6,
>> Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
>> Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14
>
>Those were invented as Sacraments for you RCC sect.
Actually they came from Christ, or don't you know what the NT is.
>The Christians only have 2 Sacraments';
>Baptism and Communion.
That's only in your protest_er church.
duke
>
>"CB" <count...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:egue34tg40ajib584...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 22 May 2008 22:55:27 -0700, "Mistylein"
>> <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"CB" <count...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:ad8c34phnqpbq1s9f...@4ax.com...
>
>Snipers<
>>>>
>>>> ducky is certainly blind and refuses to see.
>>>
>>>I know and I am trying to get it/him/ she, to go to the
>>>sorce and let the Spirit of truth enter into him
>>>so he too may know the real truth so the real truth can
>>>set him free from following that false sect he is so much into
>>>but then, he has to want to do it.
>>>Until then he will just remain as blind as his sect and his
>>>teachers.
>>
>> Good luck :)
>
>He he he!
>
>Yes he is a hard nut to crack.
>
>Thank you for you best wishes.
Your listening to satan will never crack me.
duke
>> It's been said, "raise a person in the Roman Catholic religion for
>> 20 years, and they have him FOR LIFE."
It doesn't take long at all for God to get his message thru to us, much less 20
years.
>I have known many that were in her very deeply but came out of
>her and are looking at the bible truths with a different light.
We've had 250 new Catholics added in my diocese alone each of the last 2 years.
The only ones that I know of that left are those that think they can remarry
after divorce.
Shame on them.
God's rules apply to all, not just Catholics.
CB
>On Sat, 24 May 2008 13:44:36 -0700, "Mistylein" <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>> It's been said, "raise a person in the Roman Catholic religion for
>>> 20 years, and they have him FOR LIFE."
>
>It doesn't take long at all for God to get his message thru to us, much less 20
>years.
>
>>I have known many that were in her very deeply but came out of
>>her and are looking at the bible truths with a different light.
>
>We've had 250 new Catholics added in my diocese alone each of the last 2 years.
>The only ones that I know of that left are those that think they can remarry
>after divorce.
Galatians 4:27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest
not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate
hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
duke
>On Sat, 24 May 2008 08:04:18 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 May 2008 13:44:36 -0700, "Mistylein" <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> It's been said, "raise a person in the Roman Catholic religion for
>>>> 20 years, and they have him FOR LIFE."
>>
>>It doesn't take long at all for God to get his message thru to us, much less 20
>>years.
>>
>>>I have known many that were in her very deeply but came out of
>>>her and are looking at the bible truths with a different light.
>>
>>We've had 250 new Catholics added in my diocese alone each of the last 2 years.
>>The only ones that I know of that left are those that think they can remarry
>>after divorce.
>Galatians 4:27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest
>not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate
>hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
Revelation 3:12 (New International Version)
12Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again
will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the
city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my
God; and I will also write on him my new name.
Mistylein
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 13:44:36 -0700, "Mistylein" <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>> It's been said, "raise a person in the Roman Catholic religion for
>>> 20 years, and they have him FOR LIFE."
>
> It doesn't take long at all for God to get his message thru to us, much less 20
> years.
Yes some let the wool be pulled over their eyes a bit easier then
others. We know that already.
But get them to reading the Bible and in a flash they are done with
your cult of deceptions and religious manoverings that are only
intrigue and masterfull lies.
>
>>I have known many that were in her very deeply but came out of
>>her and are looking at the Bible truths with a different light.
>
> We've had 250 new Catholics added in my diocese alone each of the last 2 years.
> The only ones that I know of that left are those that think they can remarry
> after divorce.
Or you lost control over them because they saw the light of Jesus
in a better prespective.
>
> Shame on them.
There is no shame on any one in the Christian Life.
Jesus died for all sins not just the one you let them think
you have power over, which you do not,
>
> God's rules apply to all, not just Catholics.
No God's Rules only apply to the Believers.
The non believers are lost already, however when they
do become Believers they soon change their way of thinking
real fast.
God bless you and help you see His Light and the way
of ture salvation through His Living Son Jesus Christ.
M,
Mistylein
> x-no-archive: yes> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>
>>It doesn't take long at all for God to get his message thru to us, much less 20
>>years.
>>
>>>I have known many that were in her very deeply but came out of
>>>her and are looking at the bible truths with a different light.
>>
>>We've had 250 new Catholics added in my diocese alone each of the last 2 years.
>>The only ones that I know of that left are those that think they can remarry
>>after divorce.
>
> Divorce is not an unforgivable sin.
>
> AND you forget (conveniently, if you ever knew to begin with),
> scripture gives grounds for which a person can DIVORCE and REMARRY;
> two are unbelief and unfaithfulness.
>
>>
>>Shame on them.
>>
>>God's rules apply to all, not just Catholics.
>
> Yet you feel free to disregard all of God's rules that don't suit
> you!
>
> 1 no idols
>
> You have idols in your sanctuaries (images of men and angels)
> You "get around that" by not even knowing what an idol is.
> Then you say "there's no such thing as an idol."
> ^ ^ ^ all of which is pagan CRAP.
>
> 2 worship ONLY God
> You worship Mary, and you worship Peter and you worship
> whatever "saints" you please
But the one thing is about the RCC is "ALL THEIR
SAINTS ARE DEAD"!
Christian Saints are living and breathing and Believing in the
Living Lord Jesus Christ.
Sorry I had to interject that. M,
>
> 3 do not forbid ANYONE to marry
> Your cult forbids your "priests" to marry!
>
> That's a FLAT contradiction of "holy script"
>
> 3 baptize ONLY BELIEVERS (that's what Jesus taught)
>
> ^ ^ ^ those for starters.
OOPS!
"Suffer the little children to come onto me and forbit
them not" M,
>
> Why don't you take this TRASH back to the RCC cult group?
>
> After half-a-dozen YEARS, you should have figured it out by now:
> We aren't buying what you're selling!
In the world there are those that Live and love a lie
and go arround preacing it as though it is the Truth. M,
Mistylein
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 14:14:11 -0700, "Mistylein" <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:6add34d5g0f84pkpe...@4ax.com...
>>
>>Those were invented as Sacraments for your RCC sect.
>
> Actually they came from Christ, or don't you know what the NT is.
But only an act of your SECT to act upon and pretend they
are something really Holy.
The only Holy Thing the true Christians have is The Word of
God that we can hold in our hands.
The only Holy Day we have is "Today" Today if you
hear the Word of God do not harden your heats.
I know the NT and I also know the OT and all the prophesies
that they contain about our Sect.
They call it the Mother of Harlots. See Rev 17:5.
They have not come from Christ as anything that are to control
the congergation, as your SECT uses them for.
>
>>The Christians only have 2 Sacraments';
>>Baptism and Communion.
>
> That's only in your protest_er church.
Sorry I am not protestant. I excomunicated my self from
all religeios sects.
I know what it means to be free!
>
> duke, American-American
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Mass is a funeral service to keep the Lord dead.
> Pope Paul VI
> *****
Mistylein
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 14:16:57 -0700, "Mistylein" <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"CB" <count...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:egue34tg40ajib584...@4ax.com...
Snipers<
>
> Your listening to satan will never crack me.
It is not my intentions to crack or harm you in any way.
I am here to mend you and you broken ways.
M,
>
> duke, American-American
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Mass is the most perfect funeral service not a prayer!
> Pope Paul VI
> *****
Mistylein
>
>> You're making it up as you go.
>
> God spoke, A&E said they'd search out what was true.
>
>> And any SYSTEM that exists within the RCC is NOT from God.
>> Because the systems God has devised are detectable.
>
>> The "system" you follow is not detectable.
>
> Here it is, jw - right out of that book you ignore in the back part (the NT).
>
> MASS:
> Do this in memory of me - Mat 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1Cor 11.
How ever in The Bible the Holy communion does not use the
Dead body of Christ (Corpus Cristy)
It uses the bread *The living Body of Christ*
and it uses Good Wine *The living Blood of Christ*
>
> SACRAMENTS:
> Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19
> Holy Eucharist - Mat 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1 Cor 11.
> Confession - John 20:22-23, Mat 9:2-8
"Not a sacarmet of the altar"
> Matrimony - Ephesians 5:31
"Not a sacarmet of the altar"
> Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13, Acts 8:14-17, 19:5-6,
"Not a sacarmet of the altar"
> Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
"Not a sacarmet of the altar"
> Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14
"Not a sacarmet of the altar"
>
> PAPACY:
> Mat 16:13-20, Acts 15:7
REally let's see:
This does not make peter any pope what do ever.
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do
people say the Son of Man is?"
14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others,
Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[a] the Son of the living God."
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you
by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this
rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it.[d] 19I will
give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound
in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven." 20Then he
warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
This also dose not make perter a pope in some SECT of the RCC.
Acts 15: (NIV)
7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some
time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the
message of the gospel and believe.
You have to streach you pope possion a long way for this
to make Peter a pope.
We know there were no Popes on the Roman Throne until
358 AD When "That man of Sin" Was revealed
See 2 Thessalonians 2:3
There was your first pope!
>
>
>> ???? Jesus said that you are to worship Mary?
>> Actually, He didn't.
>
> Right, and we don't.
"Holy Mary Mother of God pray for us sinners now and at the
hour of our death"?
What is the difference between you and Marry?
or are you dead too in your unbelief?
>
>> Jesus said that you are to be "baptized" as an infant.
>> Actually, He didn't.
>
> Hebrews 2:14-15 (New International Version)
> 14Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so
> that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death-that is, the
> devil- 15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear
> of death.
What power does the RCC have in the Inquision that you all
use?
>
>> Jesus said you are to "pray" using a crucifix attached to a
>>Rosary?
>
> Now you're just flat out lying, jw. The rosary is the prayer of the people.
The rosary is an invention of the RCC not of the people.
>
>> Jesus said that you are to erect statues (idols) of saints in your
>>sanctuaries and then bow down to them?
>
> You need to go to confession to a Priest, jw. John 20:22-23.
How come all your RCC Saints are Dead?
M,