ChristiansUnite Forums

"He [Christ] saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
And simon Peter answered and said, THOU ART THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.
And Jesus answered and said, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
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 shlat loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."             Matthew 16:15-19

This is one of the most controversial passages of Scripture because the Church of Rome misappropriated this and applied the teaching contained herein as being applicable to the pope and ex cathedra papal infallibility.  However, when the Lord addressed this to Simon Peter, is that what He what meant?

PETER'S CONFESSION OF FAITH
Peter's confession of faith is the same as that of every believer, and is thus the bedrock of our salvation (Acts 8:37).   John tells us that the miracles of Christ which he recorded were for one purpose: "But these are written, THAT YE MIGHT BELIEVE THAT JESUS IS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD; and that believing, ye might have life through His name" (Jn. 20:30).  He then repeats this in his first epsitle:  "Whosoever shall CONFESS that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God...Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God... These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; THAT YE MAY KNOW THAT YE HAVE ETERNAL LIFE; and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God".  

PETER THE "LITTLE" ROCK
Peter's original name, Simon Bar Jona (Simon son of Jona)  was changed by Christ to Cephas [Kephas or "little rock"] since the Lord foreknew that Peter would be one of the pillars of the early church, and thus join the apostles as foundational "apostles and prophets" of the Church: "And [ye] are built upon THE FOUNDATION OF THE APOSTLES AND PROPHETS, JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF BEING THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE" (Eph. 2:20). This foundation for us is the New Testament, which was constructed by the apostles and prophets. Notice the contrast between "the foundation" and "the Chief Cornerstone". When Christ speaks of building our house upon the "rock" so that it can withstand the floods and storms of life, He explains that that means "His sayings" or the Word of God.

CHRIST THE BEDROCK FOUNDATION AND CHIEF CORNESTONE
Some say that the "rock" is Peter, others that the "rock" is that confession of faith which came out of Peter's mouth.  However, the Bible makes it clear that the true Rock is Christ: "FOR OTHER FOUNDATION CAN NO MAN LAY THAN THAT IS LAID, WHICH IS JESUS CHRIST... For they [Israel] drank of that SPIRITUAL ROCK that followed them: and THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST" (1 Cor.3:11; 10:4). This corresponds to Ps. 91: 2 -- "I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and MY FORTRESS; MY GOD, in Him will I trust". Christ is also the Stone which the builders of Israel rejected (Matt. 21:42-46).

The Church is built in and on Christ, since it is His Body, and He is the Head. He dwells within every believer, and every child of God is eternally joined to Him through the baptism by the Holy Spirit (Eph.4:4-16). "The gates of hell [Hades]" could not prevail against the Church, since on the third day after His crucifixion, He took all the saints in Hades with Him to Paradise (Eph. 4:8-10) after which He gave the Church apostles and prophets (Eph. 4:11-12). Every local assembly is built on Christ, and no pastor has the right to say that he is "the founder" of a local assembly.  Christ is the Founder, and God is the Builder and Maker of the Church -- whether the Body or the local body of believers.

THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM
If entrance into God's Kingdom is through the new birth (Jn. 3:1-21), then the Gospel itself is "the keys" of the kingdom, since the Word of God is "the seed" which produces the new birth by the power of the Holy Spirit ( 1 Pet. 1:22-25; Tit. 3:5). Thus Peter preached the Gospel on the day of Pentecost and about 3,000 souls were saved (Acts 2:14-41), and shortly thereafter, another 5,000 souls were saved. He also preached to the household of the Gentile Cornelius, and they were all saved (Acts 10:34-48). Today, the "keys of the kingdom" are committed to all those called and gifted by the Holy Spirit to preach the Gospel [evangelists, pastors, and teachers -- Eph. 4:11-12].

BINDING AND LOOSING ON EARTH AND IN HEAVEN
Christ delegated His authority to the apostles, and after that through the apostles to elders in every assembly, who were given "rule" by the Holy Spirit (Heb.13:7,17). However, to the extent that a local church is under the full authority of Christ and the leadership of the Holy Spirit, it becomes "THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH" (1 Tim.3:15).  

"Binding" and "loosing" would appear to be a general delegation of authority, but could more particularly apply to church discipline, in which case the WHOLE CHURCH is involved: "For what have I to do to judge them also that are without [outside the church]? DO NOT YE JUDGE THEM THAT ARE WITHIN? But them that are without God judgeth.  Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.  Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust [the worldly or secular courts], and not before the saints? Do ye not know that THE SAINTS SHALL JUDGE THE WORLD? and if the world shall be judged by you, ARE YE UNWORTHY TO JUDGE THE SMALLEST MATTERS? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, SET THEM TO JUDGE WHO ARE LEAST ESTEEMED IN THE CHURCH (1 Cor. 5:12-6:4).  What would the pope say to this Scripture?

Amen, Sower good post I appreciate it much..

God Bless,
Petro

Thanks, Bro:

Continue to "fight the good fight of faith" as you do in your posts.

Sower

I agree with your post.
God hasn't given the authority of his church over to anyone, including the Pope or Peter. God is still in charge. :)
Praise the Lord.

God bless,
bluelake  

The teaching that Peter is the "rock" on which Jesus is building His church has absolutely no scritural basis to it.

The Araimaic word Cephas is inserted and used to replce "rock" at Mat 16:18.

Yet the very Word of God interprets the Aramaic word Cephas for us, we do not even have to go elsewqhere to refute the argument raised by RCC adherents.

Notice;

Jhn 1

42  And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.


So there you have it..


Blessings, Petro

Amen, Bluelake -- excellent point!  GOD IS STILL IN CHARGE. The Lord God Almighty controls every atom of the universe, how much more the leadership of His own Church.  Christ is the HEAD of the Church, and no man can usurp that position.

Sower.

Hello Sower,

That is a good posting....

May I add to your information?  

For this particular passage, context and location is important.  In the previous verses, it is identified that Jesus is walking along the coast of Caesarea Philippi (present-day Banias) with His disciples when He turns to them and asks them, "Who do men say that I am?"


Now, in the background as the disciple look at Jesus, they would be seeing the temple to the Greek god "Pan" to the left and behind Jesus, and on the right, they would see the monumental temple to King Herod.   And who do men say that Christ is?  Is Christ a Greek god deserving of temple worship?  Or worthy of worship because He is an earthly king?

Neither.  When Peter is asked who Christ is, he replies, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

Peter knew that Christ was not a man-made god like Pan, or a governing ruler like Herod, but the actual Son of God.

And in looking further at the text you cited.... concerning Peter the "rock".  It isn't a coincidence that Christ has a reference to "rock" in the region of Caesarea Philippi, for in the rock face of the palace area, there are niches carved out of the stone where rock idols are placed to be view from the distance as one approaches Caesarea Philippi.

And it isn't coincidence that Christ would speak of the gates of hell, for Greek mythology teaches that when the water flow from the cave of Pan is lowered, mythology teaches that the actual "gates of hell" are opened and it is thought that demons come through the gates of hell to walk on the earth.  


It wasn't a coincidence that Jesus spoke the words that He did in the area where He was teaching His disciples.   Each phrase represented something from the history of Caesarea Philippi.  

The "keys to the kingdom"... that's the true teachings of salvation through Jesus Christ and not the teaching of Greek mythology or of King Herod.   He gave His disciples the truth.  


~serapha~

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

Let us look at this verse carefully. On what rock did Jesus build His church? There are those who say that it was built on Simon Peter. Well, obviously it was not, because there is a play upon words here. In the original Greek it is, “Thou art Petros [a little piece of rock], and upon this petra [bedrock] I will build my church.” There are others who hold that Christ is building His church upon the confession that Simon Peter made. I don’t agree with that at all.
Who is the Rock? The Rock is Christ. The church is built upon Christ. We have Simon Peter’s own explanation of this. In 1 Peter 2:4, referring to Christ, he writes, “To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious.” And he remembers Isaiah 28:16, “… Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded” (1 Pet. 2:6). The church is built upon Christ; He is the foundation. “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Christ is the stone, and He says on this rock He will build His church. The church was still future when the Lord made this statement. And please don’t tell me there was a church in the Old Testament because the church did not come into existence until after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, and the sending of the Holy Spirit. There could not have been a church until all of these things had taken place. “I will build my church”—this was future.
The “gates of hell” refers to death. The word used for hell is the Greek word hades, the sheol of the Old Testament, which refers to the unseen world and means “death.” The gates of death shall not prevail against Christ’s church. One of these days the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout. That shout will be like the voice of an archangel and like a trumpet because the dead in Christ are to be raised. The gates of death shall not prevail against His church.

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. 16:19].

What are the keys of the kingdom of heaven? Were they given only to Simon Peter? No, Jesus gives them to those who make the same confession made by Peter, those who know Christ as Savior. If you are a child of God, you have the keys as well as any person has the keys. The keys were the badge of authority of the office of the scribes who interpreted the Scriptures to the people (see Neh. 8:2–8). Every Christian today has the Scriptures and, therefore, the keys. If we withhold the Word, we “bind on earth”; if we give the Word, we “loose on earth.” No man or individual church has the keys—to the exclusion of all other believers. We have a responsibility today to give out the gospel because it is the only thing that can save people. This is a tremendous revelation. Who is sufficient for these things? You and I have a responsibility that is awesome indeed!

Taken from : McGee, J. V. (1997, c1981). Thru the Bible commentary. Based on the Thru the Bible radio program. (electronic ed.) (Vol. 4, Page 92). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

It looks like the RC's got it wrong !

Lance:

Thanks for posting that from Brother McGee's commentary.  The amazing thing is that this is the first time I have seen this, yet it closely matches what I posted! That confirms that the Holy Spirit is our Teacher and has led us both to the same understanding. And certainly, the RCC has perverted these truths, as they have all others.

Yes I was thinking that when I posted it Sower.  :)

Jesus is talking about the Church and the rock it will be built on.  Jesus isn’t talking about the bedrock of our salvation.    

Acts 8:37 but it does not apply because it does not use the term rock anywhere.

Acts 8:37 reads 37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Jesus is not referring to Peter’s faith when He says rock.  The grammar is all wrong for that interpretation.  He says - “thou art Peter and upon this rock” - what rock?  - well the subject of the sentence has to be the rock – Peter is the subject of the sentence.

But since we are doing a Bible study here lets go on to look at your other errors in analysis.


Actually, Simon bar Jona means in Aramaic (grain of sand son of the dove).  This was changed by Jesus to Kephas, which in Aramaic means "rock", not “little rock” as your erroneously claim.  In Aramaic “little rock” is  kevna.  If Jesus had wanted to call Peter “little rock” He would have used that term but He didn’t.
 
Note that the whole play on words Jesus is using for emphasis is based on the idea that he changing Peter’s name to match his position.  From a grain of sand to a rock.  The contrast of the grain of sand being changed to a rock expresses the change that Christ is making in Peter as he makes him the head of the Church on earth.  It was Peter who Jesus told to feed his sheep three times for emphasis at the end of the Gospel of John.  Also note that Jesus never told the sheep to feed themselves.

God has only changed someone's name three times in the whole bible - twice in the OT - and once now with Peter in the NT (Cf. John 1:42). In the case of the OT instances, the position of Abraham and Jacob was elevated to Patriarch of the Nation Israel, just like Peter is the head of the New Israel, the Church in the NT.


Perhaps you could try to provide a verse to support the idea that the New Testament is the foundation.  I know you can’t though because the New Testament writings weren’t even considered, by those who would eventually write them, until after the fact.   But the foundation and the rock are two different things anyway so it really doesn’t matter that you got this wrong too.


Once again these references to rock and cornerstone and foundation are throughout the scriptures and refer varyingly to the Prophets, Apostles, Jesus Christ and God the Father.  They do not all refer to the same thing so they cannot be contrasted or made to contradict each other as you are trying to do.

But if you have it right, the grammar required is almost comical.  You would have Christ saying “thou art Peter and upon this rock (He says thumping His own chest), I will build my Church”.  I am sorry the scriptures just don’t support this bizarre view of the event.

It is interesting to note here that the idea that the rock (that Moses struck so the Israelite could drink) followed the Israelites through the desert, is found nowhere in Old Testament scripture.  It comes from Rabbinic Tradition, so it seems even Paul relied on Tradition.

END PART 1

None of this is contrary to the idea of Jesus establishing a leader on earth for His Church.

But you do skim right over one of the more important points being made here.  Christ is establishing His Church at this moment.  Any other claims by bodies or assemblies claiming to be His Church had better be able to show a connection to this event.  If just anyone can be led by the spirit to form a Church there would have been no need for Christ to have designated this moment in time when His Church came into existence.


The gates of hell were a direct reference to the idea that the Church Christ was establishing on earth could not fail.  His Church would not cease to exist or fall into error.  Your interpretation is more about Christ overcoming the gates of hell, it is not about His Church surviving the attacks of Satan upon it.


Certainly you can’t believe this, some local assemblies aren’t even true Churches as they don’t have the basic doctrines correct, Jehovah Witness for example.   Would you claim they were founded by Christ?  The question of course is where do you draw the line.  Your position has to be that men can only start assemblies that are in error and all others were Founded by Christ.  In that case you can only have one Church because Christ only founded one Church and all these local assemblies as you call them disagree over some point or other, that is why they are separated by name.  This one Church is exactly the position of the Catholic Church, it is the one true assembly and it was founded by Christ on Peter as it’s first head on earth.  No other on earth can do anything but claim Christ as their head, the Catholic Church can show a direct lineage to this event recorded in the scriptures.


Keys in scripture represent authority as in Isaiah 22 where the servant Eliakim, who is a archetype of Peter, receives both the keys and the power to open and shut.  It is this scripture Christ is directly, purposefully paralleling in Matthew 16.  The keys to the kingdom of heaven represent the authority Christ gave Peter to act in His stead leading His Church on earth.


In the case we are reviewing within Matthew 16 it is important to note that the keys are only given to Peter.  When the power to bind and loose is given to the other Apostles, as Bishops of the Church, in Matthew 18, the other Apostles do not receive the keys.  If the other Apostles did not receive them why do you think that evangelists, pastors and teachers would get them?



Not to the elders but to the Bishops only.  That is why elders answered to and submitted to Bishops.  The keys stayed with the Apostles and their successors the Bishops.  There is a distinct hierarchy established in the Bible, one that you should not ignore.


This approach is a correct one, but only if there is one Church not many.   For there is one spirit not many.  But again which Church – they are all so different.  Are there different truths?  No.  There can be only one true Church the one Christ established in Matthew 16.


It only appears as a general delegation of authority if you don’t understand the significance of Apostles and Bishops.  Not everyone in the early Church was given this authority and not everyone holds it now.  If everyone held it who would you submit to, you can’t have it both ways.  Which of your personal theories do you want to go with that the Church leadership has the power to bind and loose or does everyone have it?

This verse isn’t discussing binding and loosing because it is discussing issues of a material and/or carnal nature, the kind you would go to law over.  Binding and loosing are about authority over spiritual and doctrinal issues.  I can’t speak for the Pope but I suspect he has no problem letting those who are least esteemed in the Church judge matters pertaining to this life.  He doesn’t focus on matters of this life, He is concern with shepherding the souls of the members of Christ’s Church.

END PART 1

michael,
 


From this point on nothing you write adds anything to this  bible study, since your interpretation of Cephas is not biblical.

You don't have to interpret it for us since the bible interprets it for us itself, and here it is;

John 1
42  And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.  KJV

You being an RCC adherent no doubt use the NAB, translated from the Original Languages with Critical Use of All Ancient Sources, and believe it.

Unfortunately this false version of the teaching would have, one believe the explanation of 1 Peter 2:4, has Jesus Himself, being built on top of this Peter the "rock", which you say is the foundation to the church; but unfortunately their own marginal explanation does not agree with the teaching,

Why because it is false...

Note:

1 Pet 2
4  Come to him, a living stone rejected by men but approved nonetheless, and precious in God's eyes. 5  You to are living stones, built as a edifice of spirit into a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.  6  For the Scripture has it:

"see, I am laying a cornerstone in Zion an approved stone, and precious.  He who puts his faith in it shall not be shaken." NAB

In the margins this is what the RCC claims;  

"2,4-6:  Come to him to Christ a living stone, rejected by men but approved by God because of his death and resurrection (v4). Beleievers joined by the Spirit (1 Cor 3,16) to Christ the cornerstone (v7), themselves becoming living stones and constitute the spiritual edifice of the Chritians community.  They are a holy priesthood whose function is to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (5f).  To unbelievers, Christ is an obstacle and a stumbling stone on which they are destined to fall (v60; cf Rom 11,11.  

You can see from this explanantion that the RCC understands from these verses that beleivers of which is one numbered who is called Peter the Stone, who is joined to Christ together with all other believers constituting the edifice, known as the Chruch.  It is clear from verse verse 7, that Peter is just another stone, and not the chief conerstone (the bedrock to the foundation).


The version of the teaching is not the same thing, but is Peter being the "rock" foundation on which Jesus together with other all other believer's being stones making up the edifice.  

Notice that even their teaching of the priesthood within the institution is not in accordance with their understanding of these verse 7, since the priesthood is grounded in Peters popehood, and not the Head of the Chruch (Col1:12-18) who is Christ, as taught by scripture which brings up the fact that according to the RCC not all believers are priests of God.

Jesus is the foundational ROCK on which His Church is being, built Peter is one of the stones, he makes this perfectly clear.

1 Cor 3
11  For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

He is the foundation, not just a stone on a foundation.

You are wrong..


Blessings,

Petro

It would appear that there is a difference of opinion.  Well I'll put my money on Sower "for better or worse."
You're all quite frisky on this forum.  I have got used to a sedate existence.  LOL

Petro you don't even seem to know the difference between interpretation and translation.  The KJV is not an interpretation it is a translation and one full of errors at that.  The fact that the KJV translates Petros as stone only shows that it was translated by biased Protestants who wanted to deny the Churches teaches or were to lazy to do the research to find the proper translation.


Actually I have 12 different translations at home I use to due research.  But you don't seem to know anything about Bible translations either.  The NAB is translated directly from the original languages, and from the best original texts available.  The KJV is not.  The KJV was translated from texts that Erasmus had in his personal collection and they were copies of originals of the day or even worse in some instances the books had been copied from Latin texts and then translated back into Greek before being translated into English.   So the KJV isn't even really based on original language texts.

But I do use the KJV when I argue with Protestants and it is sufficient to prove my points as long as one sees it as a fallible translation, since it is the work of men.  If you read the preface even the translators themselves never claimed it was perfect.


No 1 Peter 2:4 doesn't say anything about Christ being built on Peter or anything else for that matter.


This has nothing to do with what we are talking about.  Yes the Catholic Church accepts Christ as the head of the Church, but Matthew 16 is talking about the Church on earth, of which Peter was made the head.  Do you really think that if the error in logic and consistency in the Church's position was that glaring that someone prior to you wouldn't have already pointed it out and the RCC would have changed their position to cover it up?  Your theory is illogical.

If this is a sample of Bible Study, I think I will give Theology a miss.
This is more like ChristiansDevourEachOther than ChristiansUnite LOL

"just like Peter is the head of the New Israel, the Church in the NT."


Ephesians 5:23.  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
 24.  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Colossians 1:18.  And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
 19.  For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;


 1 Peter 2:5.  Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
 6.  Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
 7.  Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
 8.  And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
 9.  But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
 10.  Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.



Why do some of your uninspired statements seem to contradict those inspired of God?

Ollie

I am sorry I should have made it clear that I was refering to the Church on earth.  I did several times in several of my posts, but I did not do it everytime and I should have.  

The Catholic Church knows that Christ is the head of the Church.  But it also sees Christ tell Peter he was going to build His Church on Peter as it's earthly head.  So there is no disagreement between my statements and that of scripture.

I assumed everyone who knew we were discussing Matthew 16 knew that it is only about the Church on earth and who was to lead it once Christ ascended into heaven.  I should not have assumed that everyone understood that.

But to interpret the rock in Matthew 16 as Christ is to have a grammatical comedy of errors.  You have to have Jesus saying "thou art Peter" and then in the middle of His sentence change topics and say "and upon this rock" pointing to His own chest "I will build my church".  It is ridiculous to imagine such a scene.

I too regret that it sometimes has to be this way, but Bible studies are not about getting a warm fuzzy.  They are about getting the truth by digging below the surface to make sure you understand what is really being said.  

If there were no need to interpret scripture as some have said there would be no need for Bible studies.  You would simply just read the text and all would be clear, but as you can see with all the varying opinions expressed on this forum that is not the case.

Well Bible Study is fairly clear to me michael_legna.  It's only the cults that get confused.  You see the Holy Spirit interprets, not man.  It's only when man lends a hand, confusion sets in.

 1Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

 Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

The Lord has spoken.

You may have a point.  It's true that there wasn't any confusion until men got involved around 500 years ago.  Until then the Church was pretty unified, not split into 40,000 factions, sects and cults as it is today.

michael,

YOU are Wrong again...

The KJV, uses the same Word "stone" that is in the Greek-English Interlinear.

And it has Interpreted the Aramaic word "Kephas" for us as a stone.

You need not add anything to it..

Petro

A Bible can't interpret at all, only men can interpret and if men interpret as they translate the Bible it is called changing the Word of God.  

Which Greek InterLinear Bible are you using, obviously one biased toward Protestant theology rather than an independent scholarly one, because they got the translation wrong.  Kephas isn't even a Greek term so they should not have been translating Petros as they obviously resorted to, Kephas is Aramaic and in Aramaic it means rock not little stone.  But this is well known even in the Protestant world so legitimate scholars know to translate Petros properly as rock.

michael,

You are kicking agaist the pricks, say what you want, it is not going to change what is written.

Allow, me give the verse to you again;

John 1
42  And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

The NAB is the one that interprets this verse to mean what it wants it to mean, and that is the truth.

You are just wrong all the way around, on this one..

Petro

I see your mistake now, it is relying on the KJV as if it were infallible.  It makes two mistakes here, first it translates the Greek  hermenia (Strongs 2058/2059) which Strongs admits is best translated as "to translate" (interpretation being a secondary usage) clearly showing the purpose of the writer here was to focus on Peter's new name not what it might mean.  But even when other translations do interpret the term into english they generally use rock not stone, because the meaning of Kephas is that clear.

You keep forgetting Jesus wasn't speaking Greek.  So there was a need to translate the Aramaic Kephas (which means rock and not small stone) into Greek so it could be written in the New Testament.  The Greek Word they choose was the masculine form of the Greek word rock so it would be the closest possible translation and yet not be a feminine word refering to a masculine character.  This word is Petros thus coming up with the name Peter.  There is no attempt in this verse to do anything but to show his new name.

The proper translation of John 1:42 is thus 'He brought him to Jesus.  Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Kephas (which is translated Peter)."  

This is what is used in the NASB (a Protestant translation which clearly doesn't want to acknowledge Peter as the first Pope so wouldn't do this if they could avoid it)  They bent their prejudices to admit the honest translation - something the translators of the KJV could not bring themselves to do considering the force behind their translation being a Protestant King hoping to support his sovereignty as seperate from the Church in Rome.  

Similar translations are also found in the NIV and the RV, the ASV and the NRSV as well as the Catholic Bibles the Douay-Rheims, the NAB, the Jerusalem Bible, also in the Complete Jewish Bible by David Sterns (a messianic Jew), the New English Bible, the Contemporary English Version, and the New Testament translation by William Barclay.  

Face it, modern independent scholarship shows the translation of this verse in the KJV to be biased and wrong and the understaning of the Church during its first 1500 years to be right.

Michael:

Do you believe that every word in Scripture is a "word of God"?And do you believe that when the Holy Spirit says "which is by interpretation" then that is not "men" interpreting but the Holy Ghost stating what He desires to state, and the human scribe (apostle or prophet) simple writing down what God gives by Divine inspiration?

Now, regarding John 1:42-43, the phrase "which is interpreted" is written down twice, and these are the words of the Holy Spirit [Greek Textus Receptus]: "He first finds his own brother Simon and says to him, We have found the Messias, WHICH IS BEING INTERPRETED the Christ. And he led him to Jesus.  And looking at him Jesus said, Thou art Simon the son of Jonas, thou shalt be called Kephas [Cephas] , WHICH IS INTERPRETED Petros [Stone]." So it is the Holy Spirit who interprets the Aramaic word with a Greek word. In other words, Simon bar-Jona becomes Simon the Stone.  

This is a far cry from CHRIST THE ROCK. Now when we come to 1 Cor. 10:4 here is what we read in the Greek: "...for they drank of a SPIRITUAL PETRA [Rock] following , and THE PETRA [Rock] was the Christ" so the KJV translates it" ...for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ".

Do you see the difference between PETRA, which is like the rock of Gibraltar, and petros, which is like a pebble lying below it? That's how Peter saw himself in relation to the Lord, and that is what he teaches in his first epistle.

Michael, before you do any more Bible interpretation "YE MUST BE BORN AGAIN".

Yes I do, but the written word cannot interpret itself.  Look up the meaning of the word interpretation.  It means to 'conceive in the light of individual belief".  The written word is inanimate, it does not conceive of things or have a belief, that is what man does.


I have already shown that the Holy Spirit did not say what you are claiming it said.  The original text, which is the inspired form of scripture (not the KJV in English) has the Greek word hermeneia which when translated properly with no prejudice toward one doctrine or another is "to translate" not "interpereted" as the KJV translators did to support their preconceived notions of what doctrine should be.  


The word used in both places is from the same Greek root and should be translated in both places as "translate"  not "interpret".  Just because the KJV is consistent in it's error does not mean it is not an error.

michael,

You sound like a parrot, the official RCC bible, confirms the KJV is true, or and it has been interpreted from the Latin V.

So, your teaching is full of holes....



Blessings,

Petro

Can't you see michael_legna that Catholics and Protestants will never agree on scripture interpretation ?  They are like chalk and cheese.  The Catholic repeats his church dogma and the obedient ones will not budge from it come what may.  The Protestant on the other hand really has no dogma to cling to and relies on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  One repeats his church dogma secondhand; the other gets his teaching direct from the third person of the Trinity.

Amen

Petro once again you make no sense.  First you accuse me of being a parrot and then you claim that I don't agree with the official Catholic Bible so my teaching is full of holes.  Make up your mind - which is it.

You ignore my points since you can't refute them and instead change your attack to some unquoted claim that the RCC Bible says the KJV is true.  Provide a quote so people can see if your misunderstand the statement otherwise no one is going to believe you.  I know base on my past interactions with you your understanding of even the simplest statements leaves a lot to be desired so I can't take your claim at face value.  Show me where the RCC Bible says the KJV is true then I can determine what it is they meant by it - I am sure they do not mean it was infallibly translated.  I am also sure they do not contend that the KJV was translated from the Latin Vulgate - what utter nonsense.

Yes I agree there is a difference in approaches.  One relies on the Church to resolve all disputes as in Matt 18:17 and sees the Church as the pillar and ground of truth as in 1 Tim 3:15.

The others rely on the promise of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in true believers, but unfortunately that indwelling is apparently by 30,000 or more different spirits since their are 30,000 or more interpretations of scripture.  I for one don't believe there are 30,000 different Holy Spirits, so that is why I don't trust those individuals interpretations because they aren't from the Holy Spirit no matter what their pride tells them.  

I think the key reason the Holy Spirit isn't helping those individuals with their 30,000 different interpretations is because they aren't all true believers - I mean how could they be, they all believe different things.

And Amen! It is truly awesome! May the LORD receive all honour, praise and glory for teaching us and guiding us daily.

To hear Catholics talk one will soon realize that St Paul and his team were wasting their time, according to them, since they had no church to lean on like modern day Catholics—and yet they quote scriptures written by them.  If they were inspired, is inspiration limited to them alone.  I think not.

There are rogues in every outfit but it doesn't make everyone bad.  I would be interested too, to know where the figure of 30,000 comes from.  Is it an accurate figure or an approximate one.  Could it be 29, 999 or possibly 30,001 ?

Both, you are a parrot repeating what the RCC teaches at this point, the bible interprets words not, the church, and your points are full of holes because it clear the bible, has interpreted this particular word for us from the Aramaic language, so keep the elect from being deceived from false teachers, and to manifest who the false teachers are.

Peter, is interpreted as "a stone", case closed....

 


The Bible refutes your points I don't have to refute anything.


I already have and as you can see, it is you who does not understand, because you cannot hear, nor see the things which are clearly seen and understood by those who possess Gods Spirit.



You know nothing, this is why you put more weight in your churches teachings rather than Gods Word.

I gave you there understanding of what they interpreted, in there marginal refernce.  

You simply diasagree with it also.

Peter is not the rock on which the church is built, Jesus is that rock  the stone cut out without hands of Dan 2:34,45, WHICH IS THE KINGDOM he has established and it will given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him.

And this is not speaking of Peter.

Sorry michael, but you are wrong again...



Petro

lance,

Now you are talking, not much scripture but, you at least got it right.

Who needs mans dogma, when one possess the Spirit of God, to lead them unto ALL TRUTH, isn't that what Jesus promised??

Jhn 16
7  Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you
8  And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9  Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10  Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11  Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
12  I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13  Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.
14  He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.
15  All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you.
16  A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.

Dogma is like a bad joke, it not only perpetuates human teachings for doctrines of God, but  leads souls further from God, While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought into bondage.

Your follow up post was wishy washy...Oh well..

Blessings,

Petro

Faint praise. LOL

Are you saying the Holy Spirit is needed to interpret the doctrines of Christ which He the Holy Spirit has already taught and brought into rememberance to the apostles and the other inspired writers of the Bible?

And the only institution that has this power of the Holy Spirit to interpret the inspired words of the Holy Spirit again for the
masses is the church headquartered at Rome?




 

St. Paul and the others had a Church to lean on the Catholic Church - it started with Peter!  You can see Paul leaning on this Church at the Council of Jerusalem in the Book of Acts.  He would have been wasting his time though if he had not resorted to asking the Church to resolve the dispute because it was clear he was at an impass with those other members of the Church, so he did the right thing and asked the Church to decide the issue.    And yes they also were inspired in some instances - like when they were writing the New Testament letters and documents.  But they were not inspired at all times, they still made mistakes, they still sinned.  But if you want to claim that that inspiration continues today in the average individual Christian you should provide some scripture to support the idea because it isn't so, it wasn't even so in St. Paul's day.


I will try to get you a source but it is a widely known figure.  As for if it is exactly 30,000 or not you should note that I said "30,000 or more", I mean there is a new denomination formed almost every day so an exact figure is probably impossible to nail down, but I was being kind actually.  The number of different doctrines certainly exceeds 10 times that number since most Protestants don't agree completely even with their own pastor or church's doctrine on every issue.

I am saying something very similar to that, but not exactly that.  

One can interpret the Bible for themselves, and be quite successful at it, if they study hard to show themselves approved.  But they cannot interpret scripture infallibly for they are not protected from error by the Holy Spirit as the Church is.  So if they come up with an interpretation that differs from the Church they must submit to the Church's teachings on that matter.

Hi michael_legna,

I am well aware what Roman Catholics believe.  I obtained the book "Catechism of the Catholic Church" which is 1½ inches thick and will take you a thousand years to quote on this forum.  That ought to demonstrate how the RCC have sewn things up doctrinally.  However it is wrong from beginning to end.  I think I would be prohibited from saying on this forum just what I believe the RCC to be but I dare say you can guess.  That does not mean all Catholic things are wrong.  That is how one gets converts—look for the points of agreement and expand from there. These are the very tactics cults use too.

God bless.

It takes more than just obtaining a book to know what it says you actually have to read it.  I have not only read the Catholic Catechism cover to cover, but have studied it and  have highlighted something of value on every page.  I know what it says and I am willing to discuss anything you want to quote from it to show you it is not contrary to a proper understanding of scripture.


Unfortunately the length of something does not prove it is wrong, unless you want to accuse the Bible of the same flaw, as it is longer than the Catechism is.


That's funny it begins with -

God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.

and ends with -

By the final "Amen," we express our "fiat" concerning the seven petitions: "So be it."

In what way do you think either of those statements are wrong?


I probably know what you think.  I will say it for you.  You think the RCC is the harlot of the Apocalypse.  You probably get this from Hislops Babylon Mystery Religion (which has been discredited and denounced even by the Evangelical Pastor Ralph Woodrow who was it's prime advocate after Hislop died), or from Boettner's Roman Catholicism or Hunt's The Woman Rides the Beast.  I have read both of these last two and there is either an error, or a misrepresentation of the Catholic Church on EVERY page.  

I am willing to bet if you didn't get your notions from them you got them from someone who has relied on them.  You certainly didn't come by them on your own as you haven't even read the Catechism so you don't know what the Catholic Church teaches.

Well michael_legna, you deserve a medal for reading all that.  LOL   Don't get me wrong, I admire your zeal for your church and realize that you could be a powerful force on our side, but alas I have met powerful forces before and I have yet to see one change course.  There were zealots in Jesus day too and one of them was in Jesus band but that was an exception and Jesus could see that his motives were right.

Your description of your own church, I thought a little extreme since there are probably saved people in all churches.  I can think of a few in your own church but they are the exception rather than the rule.  My experience of Catholics has been so adverse that I no longer witness to them because of their violent reaction to the true gospel.  Equate that with, " My sheep hear my voice " and you will see that there is something dreadfully wrong.

God bless

Lance says:

Bingo!  I agree Lance – which is why I do not get caught up in arguments that include the perceived need of spiritual judgment (or arguments that may result in name-calling).  I have a fairly large extended family.  My family is also fairly “religious”.  I have cousins who are Catholic, Methodist, Church of Christ, Presbyterian and Baptist.  I have spirit-filled cousins in each church, and I know they are saved and we will meet again in the next life.  When we have family reunions we are quite harmonious – due largely to mutual respect and love.  
While we may say "I disagree because I have been taught that..." we never say "You are wrong!".

I did not describe my own Church that way I merely stated that I know of other who do portray it in that light.


Again you error in your reasoning.  The violence of the reaction is not an indicator of right an wrong.  His true sheep would react as violently to a false Gospel, as those who are not His sheep react to the true Gospel.  Did you ever stop to think that that adverse reaction was not to the true Gospel but only to what you thought was the true Gospel.  

I have read the Bible cover to cover as well, several times in several different translations and I have seen nothing in the scriptures that teach a different Gospel than what is held by the Catholic Church.

Thanks for the "vote of confidence" in my gospel, michael_legna.  LOL

Just as a matter of interest, when I was first saved 27 years ago, our minister kept saying, "The gospel this .... and the gospel that .... " but never actually said what the gospel was.  This so intrigued me that I determined to sit down and try to write down what I thought the gospel was.  I expected to write down some rough notes which I could alter later on but the Holy Spirit must have got hold of my pen and guided it because, to this day, I have never had to alter a single word of it.  It can be found at : -
http://lance.christian.net/gospel.htm

See what you think.
God bless

I’ve been keeping quiet, but that just calls for a response. Lance, I know many, many, many Christians who react violently to Darwinism. I guess that means we are wrong, uh? I guess it was by chance, and not the will of God that the Universe was formed, uh?

Here is a thought, maybe it has nothing to do with what you say, and EVERYTHING to do with how you say it. Let me give you an example: I could say you are mislead, but your heart is in the right place. Or I could call you a troll. One show respect, the other tells it like it is. If you attack Catholics in real life the way you are attacking Catholicism on the net, then is it any wonder they get upset?

I don't have a bit of problem with your summary of the Gospel as far as it goes.  I would ask you to copy and paste it into a text document and send it to me as a response to this post, but before you do take the following verses from scripture that relate to being saved and show me where they would fit within your outline of the Gospel.  I mean if your outline is accurate it should be easy.

Matthew 19:23, Mark 10:26, Luke 18:25, 1 Corinthians 13:13, Matthew 10:38, John 10:27-28, Hebrews 5:9, James 2:17, James 1:21-22, 2 Thessalonians 1:8, 1 Peter 4:17, Matthew 25:31-46, John 3:5, Matthew 7:21, 2 John 5-6, 1 John 4:7-21, John 14:15-24, John 15:9-10, 1 John 5:2-3, Matthew 19:16, Mark 10:17, Luke 10:25, Luke 18:18, James 2:22, 1 Corinthians 13:2, Col 1:24, James 5:20, Luke 13:3, Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19, John 6:54, 1 Corinthians 11:29, Romans 2:6-7, 1 Timothy 6:18-19, Philippians 2:12, 1 Tim 4:16

Done !

Is it not possible for all parties concerned to simply say, " Let us go to God's word and see what He teaches?"
Then accept it as the final authority on the matter since it is from God.

WHY ?

Oklahoma Howdy to Lance,

Because God's Word is ONLY authority in this discussion. It might also be an intelligent way for everyone to learn something in peace and respect for all involved.

In Christ,
Tom

Well BEP, there is plenty of scripture in reply #47.  It took me the best part of an hour to look that lot up and reply (privately).

It would appear that some of you like the ginger in my posts.

God bless

I never react to Darwinism Tibby.  Not even Darwin believed his theory when he died but a lot of those who were anxious to put the boot into the church for supporting Creation, they used it as a weapon.  I put his theory in the same bracket as the phlogiston theory.  Eternity will show who was right; God or man.  Who do you think ?

I think you are refering to my post #47.  I just wanted to let you know if you sent me a reply (privately) that I did not get it.  Probably a glitch somewhere, but I would like to see it if you have your reply done.

By the way I don't mind "ginger" in posts.  Be as bold and out there as you care to be - the only way you can offend me is to deny our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

I will resend.  If you don't get it in an hour, let me know.

You might not mind ginger michael_legna but the moderator is giving off signals.  :)

???

Not sure why you ask "why" to having God's word as the final authority in any discusion of Godly things, rather than each one arguing his own opinions. God's word should be the finality of it all.

I agree with BEP.

Ollie

I got your reply but you misunderstood me.  I didn't mean for you to just cut and paste those verses at the bottom of the page, I could have done that.  

I wanted you to cut and paste them into your 9 points - to show how your 9 points, outlining the Gospel, account for or cover the ideas contained in each of those verses I suggested.

Thanks in advance for your efforts in this.

Hi michael_legna,
Anybody who says Martin Luther was a heretic is a heretic.
[Re:To any "confused" posters
« Reply #14 on: Today at 06:53:46pm » ]
I grant you he got it wrong putting consubtantialism in place of transubstantiation [a halway house] but he generally got it right.  The only thing I never fully understood was why your church didn't burn him at the stake like they did to all the other "rebels" who broke away from your church.  I suppose it was that powerful prince who protected him.  Well zeal is one thing but murder is another.  I don't know why you come here pedling your Catholic doctrine.  You must know you will be opposed.  Perhaps it is to get some recogniition from the "holy father."

You seem to be conveniently forgetting all the Catholics put to death by protestants.

Is it not possible for all parties concerned to simply say, " Let us go to God's word and see what He teaches?"
Then accept it as the final authority on the matter since it is from God.
Sounds good in theory, but (of course) if it were really that simple it would all have been sorted out years ago.  What happens in reality is no-one will agree on which is the correct interpretation of scripture.

I come here to discuss scripture but since you don't want to offer any (or if any logical argument based on facts for that matter) to support your claims, and rely instead on just statements of your personal opinion,  I can't really address them.

If you are prepared to defend his doctrine from scripture I am more than willing to discuss them with you and search for the truth.

Until then I maintain that anyone like Luther who removes entire books from the Bible (refering here to the Epistle of James) is a heretic.

I would not say "no-one" but rather there are those that will not agree on God's word, while at the same time there are those that do.
The scriptures however must be used as the basis for agreement and not the adulterations that man may try to add in and of himself.


The church in the first century seemed to be in agreement in Christ. Why can not men be in this same agreement and unity in Christ in the 21st century?
To say they can not be is denying the power and authority of God's word through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit..

Wrong michael,


you say;


Heh, heh...

Everybody knows the Roman Catholic Chruch added books to the Bible, no one in their right mind would argue this point as you do, in this century.

History proves it.

But what the heck, we will just leave you the dark on this one..

Petro

Are you talking about the Apocrypha in the OT?  If so, do you know when these books were added and why they were added?

Thanks

cris

They never were "added".  They were in the LXX (the greek translation of the jewish scriptures), as used by St Paul et al.

When the Jew's formalised their canon AFTER Christianity had got started, they decided not to include them.  St Jerome noticed that they didn't appear in the Hebrew version of the scriptures and so some people gradually started to get suspicious about them, moving them to a separate section in between the OT and the NT.  More recently, hebrew/aramaic fragments of many of the books have been found.  When the reformation came along, many protestants wanted to throw them out completelt (since they lend support to a few doctrines they didn't like, such as praying for the dead), so the RCC, at the council of trent, formally stated that they are part of scripture.  They didn't add anything, just formally stated what had been decided over a millenium earlier.  It should be noted that the original version of the A.V. (K.J.V. if you will) did include them and they were only removed in 1885.

This topic seems to be deteriorating to the uneven playing field of the world so I won't be contributing anymore to it.  I dare say certain Catholic people will lick their lips and say they have won but history will tell the truth; unfortunately for some.

"just like Peter is the head of the New Israel, the Church in the NT."


Ephesians 5:23.  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
 24.  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Colossians 1:18.  And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
 19.  For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;


 1 Peter 2:5.  Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
 6.  Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
 7.  Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
 8.  And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
 9.  But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
 10.  Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.



Why do some of your uninspired statements seem to contradict those inspired of God?

Ollie


Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Now Read:

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

The Crusader

Once again just your saying something doesn't make it true Petro.  You really need to stop thinking so highly of yourself.

Of course the books you refer to are the ones in the Deuterocanonicals and they weren't added to the Bible by the Catholics, they were included in the Septuigant by the Israeilites and used by them from around 200 BC until after the times of the Apostles.  That is why the Apostles regularly quote from them in the writings of the New Testament and why a majority of the quotes in the New Testament use the wording from the Septuigant not the Hebrew scriptures.  

The books in question were only removed from the Jewish Bible at the Council of Jamnia in 90 AD, the same council were they pronounced an anathema on the Gospels and the Christian cult.   Of course they were removed once again in the 1500's by the Protestants.   ;)

The Christian Chruch continued to use them after Jamnia and they were included in the Canon approved at both the Council of Hippo and of Carthage.  It is ironic that Protestants reject the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals at councils such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), because these are the very same early Church councils that Protestants appeal to for the canon of the New Testament.

You can side with the Jews at Jamnia who hated Christians but I prefer to side with the Christians at Hippo and Carthage.

The key here is they only seem to.  Once you stop and listen or read all that I have said you will see I am not in disagreement with scripture.  I was talking about the Church on earth.  Catholics accept Christ as the head of the Church, there is no question of that.  Peter or his successor serve as the head of the Church on earth, only because Christ set him up as that.  The Church on earth needs to be a physical entity so it can serve as final arbitrator of disputes as in Mt 18:17.  That requires a hierarchy, one that we also find established in scripture with bishops and elder.  The Bishop of Rome since he follows Peter is seen by the Roman Catholic Church to be the prime Bishop of the Church.  None of this contradicts the fact of Christ being the head of the Church as I have explained many times in this thread.

Uneven playing field?  Two defending the Catholic position and the other half dozen or so attacking it?  Yeah I guess that is uneven but then why are you leaving?  

Chris,

In answer to your query at reply #64


First you should familiarize yourself with the history of this work;

Http://students.cua.edu/16kalvesmaki/lxx/

Having done this, you should recognize that at about 90 AD, the Jews held a Council at Jamina,  Jaminia, Jami, and several other names...........[/b]

But here is one site

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Aqum

of many, which explain the history, of the "Palestinian Canon"[/b], the Septuagint which was translated at Alexandria, was referred to as the "Alelxandrian Canon"


Finally you might search what the early church fathers thought of the Alexandrian canon which contained the additional books.;

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html

The RC never considered the OT canon, until it became an issue in the fourth century, and never really canonized the entire collection until the sixteenth century at the time of the reformation.

The early church fathers rejected the  Deuterocanonical  books as spurious, but the RC embrace them as inspired, the Jews should have known what was and what  was not inspired, and the Jews in Palestine during the first century resolved this at the above refernced council.

By now the RC rely on the Deuterocanonicals books heavly for the teaching of  the doctrine of purgatory, which is based on some obscure reading in the book of 2d maccabees, among other teachings.

This is a good start..
Petro

That is nonsense Petro.  The RCC accepts the Councils at Hippo and Carthage as infallible Church councils.  Both of these Councils included the Deutercanonical books in the Canon of the Old Testament.  The Church only restated their inclusion at Trent to respond to the heresy put forward by the reformers in an attempt to remove them.


It is true some of the Father's questioned them, even Jerome who translated the Vulgate did not intend to include them.   He was ordered to by the Pope, which shows that the RCC did accept them as part of the Canon.  But while you can pick and choose quotes from some Early Church Fathers to show they occasionally expressed doubt,  in general the Deuteroncanonicals were accepted by the Fathers as can be shown if you do a thorough study of their letters and writings.  This was because these same writings were relied upon and quoted from by the Apostles in the New Testament, not just once in awhile but scores of times.


Since the doctrine of Purgatory goes back to the 100's this again proves that the Church accepted the Deuterocanonicals since the beginning.  Gee you just can't catch a break can you Petro, your own analysis even goes against you.

That isn’t proven. The Circumstances in which this claim was made public are in great question. Evolution is wrong, God doesn’t need Darwin’s endorsement.



I think “Creationism” the science stretches things kind of far, and they have this boarder-line heretical Jesuit thing going on. I believe Genesis.  As I said above, God doesn’t need Darwin’s endorsement, and that goes for all Science. God doesn’t want man to prove he is real, he wants man to have Faith to believe he is.

So there you go, the Roman Catholic church added the pseaudapedigraphical and deutorocanonical books to the bible.

By the way you are wrong, the pope never ordered Jerome to add anything, he translated them into latin and included them on account of Augustine's encouragement.


Hah...purgatory never existed as a teaching until much much later..


http://www.biblebelievers.net/FalseTeaching/kjcromeh.htm

HERESIES EXPOSED
A Brief Critical Examination in the Light of the Holy Scriptures of some of the Prevailing Heresies and False Teachings of Today
Compiled by
WM. C. IRVINE
Roman Catholicism
By Wm. C. Irvine

Concerning the Roman Catholic Church this is what is written at P.146;

We again make use of Dr. Scroggie's article:-

The Doctrine of Purgatory, for which there is in Scripture not the slightest warrant, is one of the most abhorrent doctrines of the Roman Church.
The priest, summoned to the bed of a dying man, administers to him extreme unction, and solemnly pronounces full and final absolution; and yet, after the man is dead, money is cruelly extracted from his mourning relatives and friends  to pay for masses to be said in order to shorten the period of his torment in Purgatory.
Anything more utterly absurd and wicked could not be imagined. How different is the Protestant teaching, that at death the spirit of the believer, relying entirely on the merits of Christ, goes immediately into the Divine Presence, and is for ever with the Lord.
Paul declares that to depart is, to be with Christ, which is far better: A Voice from Heaven says, "Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord;" and the Master Himself says to the faithful servant, "Well done, enter thou into the joy of thy Lord."




Purgatory was a place of fire and torment for the expiation of the sins of the deceased, however evne that has changed according to a Toronto Globe article which quoted the present pope, as describing it as a rosy not really such a bad place to spend time while having sins cleansed away.

It really is a place believed by faith, which does not exist, but is a product of  the RC churches teachings, to extract money from

"mourning relatives and friends to pay  for masses to be said in order to shorten the period of his torment in Purgatory.

I know this from first hand experience, that one must pay a fee to have a mass said for a deceased person, no $ no mass.

Literally it is a form (indulgence) of buying with money forgiveness of sins

My own dear elderly parents (who still consider themselves roman catholics thou they do not attend church), had to pay 600.00  dollars, because they desired to have a priest hold a mass for one of my brothers, who died last year, the fee was set by the perish priest through the funeral director who contacted the church upon the request of my own mother.

It makes me sick of the deception, to even think about it..

And that is the truth.

Petro

The way you can misinterpret even a simple english statement amazes me Petro.  How does the Jerome submitting to use the Septuigant based on the Popes instructions prove the Church added the Deuterocanonicals?  Those books were already in the Greek OT put there by the Israelites, used by the Apostles and accepted by the Council of Hippo and Carthage.

All Jerome did was submit to the Church as we are instructed to do in the scriptures. (Heb 13:17)   The same Church who had decided what books were to be included in the New Testament.  If you want to accuse the RCC of adding books to the Bible you should start with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John since they are the ones who put them in the Canon.


...and your source for this bizarre claim is what?  I have thje following independent unbiased source for my position.

It was in 382 that Pope Damasus (366-384) called upon Jerome (Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus) to remedy the situation. Jerome was the greatest scholar of his generation, and the Pope asked him to make an official Latin version -- both to remedy the poor quality of the existing translations and to give one standard reference for future copies. Damasus also called upon Jerome to use the best possible Greek texts -- even while giving him the contradictory command to stay as close to the existing versions as possible.

Jerome agreed to take on the project, somewhat reluctantly, but he never truly finished his work. By about 384, he had prepared a revision of the Gospels, which simultaneously improved their Latin and reduced the number of "Western" readings. But if he ever worked on the rest of the New Testament, his revisions were very hasty. The Vulgate of the Acts and Epistles is not far from the Old Latin. Jerome had become fascinated with Hebrew, and spent the rest of his translational life working on the Latin Old Testament.

quoted from http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/Versions.html#Vulgate



Once again your claim is based on an anti-Catholic website who would of course deny the antiquity of the doctrine of purgatory since they came along much later and don't accept it.  If your claim were true then there would be no mention of it in the writings of the early Church Fathers now would there?  But unfortunately for you there is.

John Chrysostom

"Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice [Job 1:5], why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them" (Homilies on First Corinthians 41:5 [A.D. 392]).


Augustine

"Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment" (The City of God 21:13 [A.D. 419]).

There are more quotes available at the following to show the doctrine of purgatory was well know to the early Church Fathers

http://www.catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/purg.htm

michael,

You haven't produced any evidence that proves anything concerning purgatory was a teaching in the church in the 100's (first century)

By the time crysostom, and augustine began teaching this phony doctrine, the Roman Catholic church had become well established.

I don't consider either of these men church fathers, when I say Church Fathers, I am speaking of the per Nicene fathers, (perhaps ending with the likes of Bishop Anathasius) so, anyone after him I wouldn't get to excited about.

Although I recognize Augustine did contribute some good teachings, it is questionable in mind whether this man was truly a child of God.

Clearly He is the sole responsible individual who began the teaching of purgatory, as for Chrysostom or any of the popes, I simply ignore anything they have to say.

Your reference to Aurelius's commentary in "City of God" XXI:13, I would suggest you look at the title of the paragraph you quoted;

13. Against the opinion of those who think that the punishments of the wicked after death are purgatorial

Then read the entire parapgraphs in the lite of Plato and Virgils comments which he critics herein. You will never prove anything using a few sentences on his commentary, besides chapter 12, and 14 need to examined together with 13.

Besides all this Augustine errored in his teaching of temporray punishments after death, because of his warped view of eschatology.

His interpretation of the Millennium as the era between the Incarnation and Second Advent of Christ in which the church would conquer the world led to the Roman emphasis on the Church of Rome as the universal church destined to bring all within its fold and to the idea of postmillennialism.

What is interesting is that the Watchtower teaches Augustuines thoughts concerning this today.  

That in it self should cause a lite to go off in religious peoples brain, since whenever the likes of JW's embrace a doctrine taught as if it were inspired, Watch Out....cause Satan is not far away.

Romanisn, may very well rise up again in the last generation to once again crusade and persecute the real belivers.

What I find interesting is that you believe Augustiunes teachings on purgatory, which are false, and reject His teaching on the eternal security of the believers which has more scriptural authority than the former.

Of all of his doctrinal errors, Aurelius Augustine was most importantly wrong about the foremost doctrine in all of Scripture—how to be saved.

And, since Augustine's salvation plan is no real plan of salvation at all, both it and Augustine himself would thereby be condemned under Gal. 1:8,9, by Paul:

It is clear Calvin simply picked up Augustines teachings and ran with them during the reformation, both have errored in the teaching.

But your belief, of this or that doesn't surprise me, since it is clear to me you don't understand exactly what you believe, and most clearly you do not believe, what the bible teaches,.............................. thats for sure.


Petro

I didn't realize that I would have to be so literal in my defense, but that's ok I can be.  It is just I thought that since your church hadn't come into existence until the last 500 years or so you would accept those much earlier in the Church, I especially chose Augustine because he was relied on so heavily by Calvin, even though calvin misunderstood most of what he read.


Actually it was Paul who first started teaching this doctrine within the Church in his First Epistle to the Corinthians.  But Clement of Alexandria also taught it.

Accordingly the believer, through great discipline, divesting himself of the passions, passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, viz., to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance from the sins he has committed after baptism.  He is tortured then still more--not yet or not quite attaining what he sees others to have acquired. Besides, he is also ashamed of his transgressions. The greatest torments, indeed, are assigned to the believer. For God's righteousness is good, and His goodness is
righteous. And though the punishments cease in the course of the completion of the expiation and purification of each one, yet those have very great and permanent grief who are found worthy of the other fold, on account of not being along with those that have been glorified through righteousness.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, The Stromata, Book 6, Chapter 14 [A.D. 188-199]


Well who you do and don't consider to be a Church Father is of no concern to me.  I said the Church taught purgatory since the 100's (actually the doctrine comes from the book of Maccabees in the Old Testament and the book of 1st Corinthians in the New Testament so the Church taught it since it inception).  It matters not if you agree with the individual, because if the Church was not teaching it at the time, they could not have even been putting forth the idea, or argue against it for that matter.  So if we see evidence of either it proves my point.

Let us see what Clement of Rome says, since he is even of the 1st Century

However those who through the grace of God, have been made perfect in love, now possess a place among the godly.  And they will be made manifest at the revelation of the kingdom of Christ.  For it is written; Enter into your secret chambers for a little time, until my wrath and fury pass away.  And I will remember a propitious day, and will raise you up out of your graves.  (Clement of Rome c.96 - 1.18)

Here he refers to Is 26:20 which is also later quoted by Tertullian in the same way, showing a consistent interpretation by the Church of an intermediate state that exists between our death and entrance into heaven.


It is nonsense to claim Augustine as the originator of the idea that there was an intermediate state after death between mortal life and heaven.  The Book of Maccabees showed that there were those even prior to the Church who taught this doctrine.

You are free to disbelieve anything the Popes say to your own peril, but you cannot simply ignore it or you are purposely ignoring history and that is what we are discussing here, not the merits of the doctrine but when it was first taught to correct your erroneous claim.


I have reviewed the material and disagree with your interpretation of his teachings, but it matters not, since because he referenced the teaching it shows the teaching was in the Church during or even prior to his life time (even if he was arguing against it, which he was not).  As for proving anything or not based on a few paragraphs I would agree that one cannot prove the validity of the doctrine of purgatory by selecting a few quotes from the huge libraries we have of the Church Fathers, but you forget the point of the discussion.  It is not whether the doctrine is true it is whether the Church taught the doctrine of purgatory in the 100's.  And since I have proven the early Church Fathers were aware of the doctrine that proves it was taught in the Church.


No, I do not disagree with Augustine's teachings I disagree with your understanding of Augsutine, as you hold that he taught Once Saved Always Saved and I know he didn't.  That is one error of Calvin’s analysis of Augustine you should definitely abandon.  If he had taught this idea the Catholic Church who denies it would not have made Augustine a Doctor of the Church.

It has been my understanding that Jesus respnded to teachings within Judaism, so in many cases it pays to know some of the teachings which existed. On this particular subject, I think this might apply.
The Jewish people believed then , as today, that God is One and found it hard to accept Jesus.
   In Rabbinic teaching, it was said ( according to Rashi in commenting on Gen. 49:24 ) that the word "stone or rock"
symbolized the relationship between father & son, which was a sign of permancy. The word for rock is "eben" which is a contraction of Av for father and ben for son.

When Jesus asked in Mat. 16:13,"Who do you say that I am?"
Peter responded, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living  God."  Jesus knew that could only be revealed through God and when He said "... upon this "rock" (or "eben" )
I will build my church." I think He might have been referring to the belief in THE FATHER & THE SON.
So I would see it meaning that you must accept Jesus as God's Son to be a part of the church.