Catholic bashing

[phil112]

Hello Phil, I suspect Jeff has learned that our Saviours name was Hebrew. My name is Eric, and if I go to Indonesia, I still like to be called Eric. All of this is off topic, but the Greek butchered His name. Joshua would be a more proper transliteration to English. In fact, Joshua in the OT is the same name as our Saviours name yet we say Jesus instead of Joshua. When you study it, it is interesting, but I doubt Jeff or any other Messianic claims to earn their salvation by keeping the law or using His name as it is.

You have so many problems with what you just said it would be laborious for me to address it all.
What your post boils down to is that the greek translation, the translation that men of God did for you and I, the translation He told His spirit to guide men thru, is wrong. They didn't get some of it right. Do you really believe that? Seriously?

And by the way, it doesn't matter what you want to be called. In a foreign country they will translate your name so they can understand it. That is the point. They are the ones that matter. It is of utmost importance that they get what is said.

Depending on the country I could be called felipe, philip, phillipe, etc.
I could care less as long as I know who they are talking to or about when they speak my name.

 

[Elin]

I'm thinking petra is the rock of Christ in 1Co 10:4; Ro 9:33/1Pe 2:8; Eph 2:20; also Mt 7:24-25.

In the other post you indicated that you thought it was Peter upon which the Church was built.
Are you changing that to Christ? If so how does that fit with Jesus' statement?

In Jesus' statement it would seem that He is indicating that He is building His church on something much larger than Peter.

Yes, He built his church on something much larger than P
Well, I didn't say I thought it was Peter, just that there was a grammatical problem with seeing it as Peter's confession.

Your response regarding the difference between petra and petros, showing that Jesus indicated something much
larger than Peter, caused me to look into the NT usages of petra.

And as a result, I am proposing that the petra to which Jesus is referring is himself.

He is the chief cornerstone (Eph 2:20) of the foundation on which the church is built.

 

[ThomistColin]

I did. (I read what she herself said) She never ever thought of herself as SAVED !!!! ever! not once! She died without any assurance at all of being saved.

Except her final words, "Sisters, if there is anything you wish me to say to Our Lord, tell me now, because I am about to meet Him."

 

[ThomistColin]

Yes, He built his church on something much larger than P
Well, I didn't say I thought it was Peter, just that there was a grammatical problem with seeing it as Peter's confession.

Your response regarding the difference between petra and petros, showing that Jesus indicated something much
larger than Peter, caused me to look into the NT usages of petra.

And as a result, I am proposing that the petra to which Jesus is referring is himself.

He is the chief cornerstone (Eph 2:20) of the foundation on which the church is built.

Except Jesus didn't say Petra or Petros. He said Kepha/Cephus. In his own time, Peter was known as Cephus.

 

[Karraster]

You have so many problems with what you just said it would be laborious for me to address it all.
What your post boils down to is that the greek translation, the translation that men of God did for you and I, the translation He told His spirit to guide men thru, is wrong. They didn't get some of it right. Do you really believe that? Seriously?

And by the way, it doesn't matter what you want to be called. In a foreign country they will translate your name so they can understand it. That is the point. They are the ones that matter. It is of utmost importance that they get what is said.

Depending on the country I could be called felipe, philip, phillipe, etc.
I could care less as long as I know who they are talking to or about when they speak my name.

How ironic. that's usually my thoughts when I view your posts..but if we could possibly get niceties out of the way, have you considered the Islam faith?
You as a Christian would say you worship the God of your fathers!
Islam says,,I do too!
You say, He is the God of Abraham!
Islam says, my God is the God of Abraham!
You say, His Name is God! (which is a title btw, not a name)
Islam says, His name is Allah!
You say, no! God is His name!
Islam say, hahahaha

 

[guardmyheart]

You have so many problems with what you just said it would be laborious for me to address it all.
What your post boils down to is that the greek translation, the translation that men of God did for you and I, the translation He told His spirit to guide men thru, is wrong. They didn't get some of it right. Do you really believe that? Seriously?

And by the way, it doesn't matter what you want to be called. In a foreign country they will translate your name so they can understand it. That is the point. They are the ones that matter. It is of utmost importance that they get what is said.

Depending on the country I could be called felipe, philip, phillipe, etc.
I could care less as long as I know who they are talking to or about when they speak my name.

Perhaps if we were sitting down together this conversation would not seem controversial. I am not saying there is a problem with the Greek rendering of His name when I say that the Greek butchers His name. All I am saying is the fact that the transliteration of His name into Greek renders His name to sound much different than it sounds in Hebrew. As you pointed out, your own name changes as it is transliterated into other languages. Sometimes the transliteration has a mild effect and sometimes a name really gets butchered... But in the end, it is respectful to do our best to refer to someone as closely as we can to how it originally sounded. If someone from Russia came to work for you in your company... You wouldn't say to him, "Hey, Bob, get to work!". It is respectful to consider what HE says His name is.

So, it is simply refreshing to some of us to refer to the Saviour by His name Yehshua or Yahshua. It shouldn't be offensive. I do have a question about why Joshua in the OT has a better rendering into English than our Saviour.... But, I am not saying it is wrong for you to say Jesus.

Still off topic, I am sorry to all in the Catholic bashing thread!

 

[guardmyheart]

I made 2 mistakes in my post.... First, if someone from Russia named BORIS came to work for you... You wouldn't call him BOB. Not respectful. You always TRY to be respectful and call someone by their name as closely as we can.

Also, I forgot to mention that it is also nice to know the meaning of His name...but nobody can know the meaning of His name until they first examine it in Hebrew. Yahweh is Salvation!

 

[mikeuk]

Tell me what was her faith in? Faith in and of itself is nothing. Only the faith that God gives through the hearing of His word brings souls to eternal salvation in Christ.

I wonder if mother Theresa ever thought of herself as a sinner? Do you think she ever realized her need of a Savior? Or was her faith in her works? I honestly cannot say as I have never read anything she may have written on the subject.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

As a catholic I thought it might help to clarify some issues here.

Unlike some christian communities, catholics rely on the magisterium for their understanding and beliefs so are consistent. Few things are optional, and in as far as they are they are only peripheral, for example you are free to believe in "approved" modern day miracles or not, because even if "approved", which is a term that needs understanding, they are not an article of faith.

So in answer to the questions mother did consider her self as a sinner, in need of a saviour and accepting Jesus as that saviour. She did works because the bible commands it so as per Matthew 25:34-40 she saw christ in all the poor, sick and suffering, " and as you do to the least of these, you do to me" but as standard teaching she knew she was saved by grace, not saved by works or faith both of which are necessary, (as are many other things! like keep the commandments) none of which are sufficient by themselves . So she lived out her calling to aspire to be a saint, and lived in hope of salvation not assurance of it.

Her writings confirm all of that, that she was for example passionate about the need for confession of sins from her own personal experiences, not just as advice for others, so clearly considered herself a sinner!

As per catholic belief.The belief in being already saved is certainly presumptious, not least because such as 25:34:40 etc, demonstrate it is certainly not so! Only when the course is complete, could she hope for mercy, and can be saved by grace alone.

And whether or not people agree with any of those (not the point I am making)
I am simply trying to explain what she believed, because they are articles of faith for catholics. She could not pick and choose variations of belief as she might in some of the other christian communities, so it is rather a misunderstanding of catholicism to ask what she believed in the matter of central articles of faith - love them or hate them - they are there in the catechism.

 

[Kerry]

As a catholic I thought it might help to clarify some issues here.

Unlike some christian communities, catholics rely on the magisterium for their understanding and beliefs so are consistent. Few things are optional, and in as far as they are they are only peripheral, for example you are free to believe in "approved" modern day miracles or not, because even if "approved", which is a term that needs understanding, they are not an article of faith.

So in answer to the questions mother did consider her self as a sinner, in need of a saviour and accepting Jesus as that saviour. She did works because the bible commands it so as per Matthew 25:34-40 she saw christ in all the poor, sick and suffering, " and as you do to the least of these, you do to me" but as standard teaching she knew she was saved by grace, not saved by works or faith both of which are necessary, (as are many other things! like keep the commandments) none of which are sufficient by themselves . So she lived out her calling to aspire to be a saint, and lived in hope of salvation not assurance of it.

Her writings confirm all of that, that she was for example passionate about the need for confession of sins from her own personal experiences, not just as advice for others, so clearly considered herself a sinner!

As per catholic belief.The belief in being already saved is certainly presumptious, not least because such as 25:34:40 etc, demonstrate it is certainly not so! Only when the course is complete, could she hope for mercy, and can be saved by grace alone.

And whether or not people agree with any of those (not the point I am making)
I am simply trying to explain what she believed, because they are articles of faith for catholics. She could not pick and choose variations of belief as she might in some of the other christian communities, so it is rather a misunderstanding of catholicism to ask what she believed in the matter of central articles of faith - love them or hate them - they are there in the catechism.

But is your faith in the cross or some dude?

 

[mikeuk]

But is your faith in the cross or some dude?

I will answer in a roundabout way...
That question illustrates the problem that divides christians, not just catholics from others, but also many other groups.

The injection of words like , Either or. Alone. Only.
"faith alone" "scripture alone" and so on.
The presumption that because mother focussed her life on works, is taken to mean she thought "only works" would save her.

Yet the only place "faith" and "alone" are used together in the same sentence is to say that faith alone is not enough! James 2:24.
Similarly scripture alone. The early christians did not have the new testament, which was a couple of centuries in the making, so for them scripture was the old testament, and "pillar of truth" was the church where as St Paul saysthe faith was passed on by teaching and tradition, and even scripture can only be viewed in terms of the meaning of sentences and words, that those inspired to compile our canon, that they used as a basis of choosing it. So since the early christians cannot have been "bible christians" in the sense of bible alone as we know it now, does that mean they were not christians at all - hardly?

So when you ask me do I believe in the cross, I do most certainly necessary for our salvation (but only if we accept our part in salvation), or "some dude" presumed Jesus? I say I believe in both passionately! and many other things besides. I do not see the alternative "or"!

I may start a thread on this, because I think "only" "either or" "alone" and so on, have done a lot of damage to the cooperation of christians. I understand entirely why Martin Luther felt compelled to get rid of unhelpful baggage (take selling of indulgencies!) - but in stating scripture and faith alone, and then declaring such as timothy "an epistle of straw" because it no longer lined up with the "stripped down version" - he threw a lot of babies out with the bathwater!

Get rid of the only, or , alone etc and many of the bunfights would disappear!
We would all agree on a great deal more - we do not need to focus on our differences.

I hope that answers your question!

 

[prove-all]

Yes, He built his church on something much larger than P
Well, I didn't say I thought it was Peter, just that there was a grammatical problem with seeing it as Peter's confession.

Your response regarding the difference between petra and petros, showing that Jesus indicated something much
larger than Peter, caused me to look into the NT usages of petra.

And as a result, I am proposing that the petra to which Jesus is referring is himself.

He is the chief cornerstone (Eph 2:20) of the foundation on which the church is built.

yes Christ is our rock, glad we can agree on something.

Then Jesus added: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art
Peter” (Greek inspired original word, Petros, meaning a stone),

“and upon this rock” (Greek inspired original word, petra,
meaning a ledge or shelf of rock or a crag) “I will build my
church …” (Matthew 16:18).

Peter was also called Cephas (Greek Képhas, from the Aramaic Kêpha).
In John 1:40-42 is related how Andrew,Simon Peter’s brother, found Peter,
and brought him to Jesus.“And when Jesus beheld him, he said,
Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, w
hich is by interpretation, a stone”

The English word stone is translated from the Greek word petros,
meaning a single stone or loose stone. Also the Greek word Kephas
means such a stone, referring definitely to a human man.

when Jesus said “upon this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18),

the Greek word, as written originally by Matthew, was not either Kephas or petros,
but petra, which means a large massive rock.

a few other passages where this same Greek word petra
is used. In Matthew 7:24, Jesus spoke of the man who built his
house on a rock. The Greek word is petra

In Matthew 27:60, it is stated that the tomb in which Jesus
was buried, after the crucifixion, was hewn out in the rock —
in the petra! This is a mass of rock, not a single stone.

The Greek petra cannot mean the human Peter, but the
glorified Christ! Speaking of the Israelites under Moses, in
the wilderness, Paul writes: “… for they drank of that spiritual
Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ”
(1 Corinthians 10:4).

In plain language, then, that petra was Christ—but the
smaller stone, petros, or Kephas, was Simon Peter.

Behold, I lay in Sion [the Church] a chief corner stone, elect, precious:
and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 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, And a stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the
word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed”
(1 Peter 2:6-8).

In the above passage Peter is speaking to the Church.

He quoted from Isaiah 28:16: “Therefore thus saith the Lord
God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tried
stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation”!

This pictures Christ as that foundation of the Church, on which it is built.
God’s Church was built on the ROCK (its foundation),Christ—not on the stone, Peter

The Church is described in Ephesians 2:20 as being “built
upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets [including
Old Testament prophets], Jesus Christ himself being the chief
corner stone.”

“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid,
which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11)

“I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee” (Hebrews 13:5)He is shown
in Revelation 1:13, 18 to be the living Head, spiritually in the midst of the Church.

“Christ is the head of the church”! (Ephesians 5:23). Read it
also in Ephesians 4:15; 1:22; Colossians 1:18; 2:19.

He has been the living Head and High
Priest of the true Church, which He built.

 

[Hizikyah]

yes Christ is our rock, glad we can agree on something.

Then Jesus added: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art
Peter” (Greek inspired original word, Petros, meaning a stone),

“and upon this rock” (Greek inspired original word, petra,
meaning a ledge or shelf of rock or a crag) “I will build my
church …” (Matthew 16:18).

Peter was also called Cephas (Greek Képhas, from the Aramaic Kêpha).
In John 1:40-42 is related how Andrew,Simon Peter’s brother, found Peter,
and brought him to Jesus.“And when Jesus beheld him, he said,
Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, w
hich is by interpretation, a stone”

The English word stone is translated from the Greek word petros,
meaning a single stone or loose stone. Also the Greek word Kephas
means such a stone, referring definitely to a human man.

when Jesus said “upon this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18),

the Greek word, as written originally by Matthew, was not either Kephas or petros,
but petra, which means a large massive rock.

a few other passages where this same Greek word petra
is used. In Matthew 7:24, Jesus spoke of the man who built his
house on a rock. The Greek word is petra

In Matthew 27:60, it is stated that the tomb in which Jesus
was buried, after the crucifixion, was hewn out in the rock —
in the petra! This is a mass of rock, not a single stone.

The Greek petra cannot mean the human Peter, but the
glorified Christ! Speaking of the Israelites under Moses, in
the wilderness, Paul writes: “… for they drank of that spiritual
Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ”
(1 Corinthians 10:4).

In plain language, then, that petra was Christ—but the
smaller stone, petros, or Kephas, was Simon Peter.

Behold, I lay in Sion [the Church] a chief corner stone, elect, precious:
and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 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, And a stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the
word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed”
(1 Peter 2:6-8).

In the above passage Peter is speaking to the Church.

He quoted from Isaiah 28:16: “Therefore thus saith the Lord
God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tried
stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation”!

This pictures Christ as that foundation of the Church, on which it is built.
God’s Church was built on the ROCK (its foundation),Christ—not on the stone, Peter

The Church is described in Ephesians 2:20 as being “built
upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets [including
Old Testament prophets], Jesus Christ himself being the chief
corner stone.”

“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid,
which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11)

“I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee” (Hebrews 13:5)He is shown
in Revelation 1:13, 18 to be the living Head, spiritually in the midst of the Church.

“Christ is the head of the church”! (Ephesians 5:23). Read it
also in Ephesians 4:15; 1:22; Colossians 1:18; 2:19.

He has been the living Head and High
Priest of the true Church, which He built.

John 10:16, "And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd (4166. poimén)."

 

[mikeuk]

yes Christ is our rock, glad we can agree on something.

Then Jesus added: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art
Peter” (Greek inspired original word, Petros, meaning a stone),

“and upon this rock” (Greek inspired original word, petra,
meaning a ledge or shelf of rock or a crag) “I will build my
church …” (Matthew 16:18).

Peter was also called Cephas (Greek Képhas, from the Aramaic Kêpha).
In John 1:40-42 is related how Andrew,Simon Peter’s brother, found Peter,
and brought him to Jesus.“And when Jesus beheld him, he said,
Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, w
hich is by interpretation, a stone”

The English word stone is translated from the Greek word petros,
meaning a single stone or loose stone. Also the Greek word Kephas
means such a stone, referring definitely to a human man.

when Jesus said “upon this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18),

the Greek word, as written originally by Matthew, was not either Kephas or petros,
but petra, which means a large massive rock.

a few other passages where this same Greek word petra
is used. In Matthew 7:24, Jesus spoke of the man who built his
house on a rock. The Greek word is petra

In Matthew 27:60, it is stated that the tomb in which Jesus
was buried, after the crucifixion, was hewn out in the rock —
in the petra! This is a mass of rock, not a single stone.

The Greek petra cannot mean the human Peter, but the
glorified Christ! Speaking of the Israelites under Moses, in
the wilderness, Paul writes: “… for they drank of that spiritual
Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ”
(1 Corinthians 10:4).

In plain language, then, that petra was Christ—but the
smaller stone, petros, or Kephas, was Simon Peter.

Behold, I lay in Sion [the Church] a chief corner stone, elect, precious:
and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 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, And a stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the
word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed”
(1 Peter 2:6-8).

In the above passage Peter is speaking to the Church.

He quoted from Isaiah 28:16: “Therefore thus saith the Lord
God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tried
stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation”!

This pictures Christ as that foundation of the Church, on which it is built.
God’s Church was built on the ROCK (its foundation),Christ—not on the stone, Peter

The Church is described in Ephesians 2:20 as being “built
upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets [including
Old Testament prophets], Jesus Christ himself being the chief
corner stone.”

“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid,
which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11)

“I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee” (Hebrews 13:5)He is shown
in Revelation 1:13, 18 to be the living Head, spiritually in the midst of the Church.

“Christ is the head of the church”! (Ephesians 5:23). Read it
also in Ephesians 4:15; 1:22; Colossians 1:18; 2:19.

He has been the living Head and High
Priest of the true Church, which He built.

Here is catholic thinking on that. Love it or hate it, here is the explanation.

Jesus spoke aramaic which as far as I am aware does not discriminate as the greek does between the m and f, petra and petros, a distinction which is therefore artificial in greek. They are the same word in aramaic and so it must be the same peter to whom he refers, not a separate thing. And he gives something to Peter which is the "keys of the kingdom". That reference is critical.

It is a clear reference back to the old testament where Hezekiah as king gives the keys of the (davidic) kingdom to Eliakim an office equivalent to "prime minister" which is an office that has succession. Given to a person, not an organisation. He is not offering the kingship to Eliakim, but a much lower role , so makes sense in terms of the prospective organisation of the church that remains on earth. All accept christ as King. The holder of the keys does not usurp that.


The question then is, If jesus had not wanted to invoke that allegory ( the old testament reference as defined as it is ) why would he refer to it in those terms, when he was frequently quoting from scriptures in order to make people understand.

 

[Elin]

Well, I didn't say I thought it was Peter, just that there was a grammatical problem with seeing it as Peter's confession.

Your response regarding the difference between petra and petros, showing that Jesus indicated something much larger than Peter, caused me to look into the NT usages of petra.

And as a result, I am proposing that the petra to which Jesus is referring in Mt 16:18 is himself.

yes Christ is our rock, glad we can agree on something.

Then Jesus added: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art
Peter” (Greek inspired original word, Petros, meaning a stone),

“and upon this rock” (Greek inspired original word, petra,
meaning a ledge or shelf of rock or a crag) “I will build my
church …” (Matthew 16:18).

Peter was also called Cephas (Greek Képhas, from the Aramaic Kêpha).
In John 1:40-42 is related how Andrew,Simon Peter’s brother, found Peter,
and brought him to Jesus.“And when Jesus beheld him, he said,
Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, w
hich is by interpretation, a stone”

The English word stone is translated from the Greek word petros,
meaning a single stone or loose stone. Also the Greek word Kephas
means such a stone, referring definitely to a human man.

when Jesus said “upon this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18),

the Greek word, as written originally by Matthew, was not either Kephas or petros,
but petra, which means a large massive rock.

a few other passages where this same Greek word petra
is used. In Matthew 7:24, Jesus spoke of the man who built his
house on a rock. The Greek word is petra

In Matthew 27:60, it is stated that the tomb in which Jesus
was buried, after the crucifixion, was hewn out in the rock —
in the petra! This is a mass of rock, not a single stone.

The Greek petra cannot mean the human Peter, but the
glorified Christ! Speaking of the Israelites under Moses, in
the wilderness, Paul writes: “… for they drank of that spiritual
Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ”
(1 Corinthians 10:4).

In plain language, then, that petra was Christ—but the
smaller stone, petros, or Kephas, was Simon Peter.

Behold, I lay in Sion [the Church] a chief corner stone, elect, precious:
and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 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, And a stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the
word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed”
(1 Peter 2:6-8).

In the above passage Peter is speaking to the Church.

He quoted from Isaiah 28:16: “Therefore thus saith the Lord
God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tried
stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation”!

This pictures Christ as that foundation of the Church, on which it is built.
God’s Church was built on the ROCK (its foundation),Christ—not on the stone, Peter

The Church is described in Ephesians 2:20 as being “built
upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets [including
Old Testament prophets], Jesus Christ himself being the chief
corner stone.”

“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid,
which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11)

“I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee” (Hebrews 13:5)He is shown
in Revelation 1:13, 18 to be the living Head, spiritually in the midst of the Church.

“Christ is the head of the church”! (Ephesians 5:23). Read it
also in Ephesians 4:15; 1:22; Colossians 1:18; 2:19.

He has been the living Head and High
Priest of the true Church, which He built.

Yep, Jesus is the petra of 1Co 10:4; Ro 9:33/1Pe 2:8; Eph 2:20; and also of Mt 7:24-25, 16:18.

 

[mikeuk]

Yep, Jesus is the petra of 1Co 10:4; Ro 9:33/1Pe 2:8; Eph 2:20; and also of Mt 7:24-25, 16:18.

With respect, I can only repeat that does not make sense in terms of the passage as a whole.

- First because Jesus spoke aramaic to peter, which does not recognise the distinction between petra and petros in greek - so clearly was referring to the same person in both parts of the sentence. If he was addressing peter with petros, he was also addressing him with petra. And considering 16:17 , he clearly WAS talking to peter at the time! So the difference between petros and petra was added in greek translation for emphasis not to clarify a distinction between.

- Second because he gives the "keys of the kingdom" a clear reference back to the old testament where the keys were the symbol of an office with succession handed on to a person Eliakim, not a thing , an office resembling prime minister. That office does not usurp the king Hezekiah. If jesus had not wanted people to consider the allegory of the keys of the kingdom from the old testament, when he often quoted old testament for peoples understanding, then why did he say something that could only confuse, if not the explanation given?

- Third because following on from that he says "what you bind on earth" - which would be a very strange thing to say of a thing not present in the conversation: why say "you" to someone or thing not present at the time to hear, or when referring to himself in a conversation in which Peter was clearly the one being spoken to? "you" does not then make sense, if he was referring to himself or a "thing" like the church.

So the explanation that Petra is jesus does not make sense in terms of the rest of the passage. Picking other uses of the word petra from elsewhere, ignoring the context of this passage is clearly misleading.

Anyway, I have repeated the issue which is clearly biblically based, and catholic understanding of that passage for those unaware of why they think what they do..

You are welcome to believe what you will, and by the way I am interested in knowing why others think what they do!

 

[jeff_peacemkr]

as many (for thousands of years; and more recently, hundreds of years) have pointed out, the catholic understanding and doctrine is heresy.

as the site owner and admins point out , it is not permitted to promote catholic thinking/heresy on this site.
(thankfully! - I agree heresy is not something good nor even to be considered, as God forbids it.
As Scripture says clearly, it ought not to be considered nor discussed any more than mormon, jw, or buddhist or any other heathen doctrine - all of which are deceptive and destructive to life and deadly to souls, not helpful nor right at all according to Yahweh (God) the only Creator.)

 

[mikeuk]

as many (for thousands of years; and more recently, hundreds of years) have pointed out, the catholic understanding and doctrine is heresy.

as the site owner and admins point out , it is not permitted to promote catholic thinking/heresy on this site.
(thankfully! - I agree heresy is not something good nor even to be considered, as God forbids it.
As Scripture says clearly, it ought not to be considered nor discussed any more than mormon, jw, or buddhist or any other heathen doctrine - all of which are deceptive and destructive to life and deadly to souls, not helpful nor right at all according to Yahweh (God) the only Creator.)

I am new. I don't know the rules here.
The comments I see on a "catholic heresy" thread are talking about matters beyond "sola scriptura" so whether or not I agree with those things, in appreciation of the owners rules I have not strayed into those areas.

I am more interested in the discussion of what we agree upon, not where we differ.

However. In this case it is a bible discussion, on a bible thread, and the points I make are perfectly reasonable interpretations of the scriptural references, whether or not you agree with them. I did not raise those scriptures in origin on this thread, someone else did. I simply gave an alternative view.

I am genuinely interested in hearing the refutations - why did Jesus mention giving the "keys" with old testament overtones and meanings, if that was not his intention, and to whom did he give them if not the one he was speaking to? The idea that petros/petra refer to two different things is unlikely, since in aramaic which they spoke the two things are the same word etc etc.

So I am engaging in a biblical discussion interested in others views on a thread specifically aimed at catholics.. If people want to attack the catholic view, thats fine by me, and I am interested in the arguments, but at least do it on the basis of what they actually think. Too often they are mistated, so the arguments against them become straw men.

 

[jeff_peacemkr]

that's how error is propagated. that's how and why souls are lost. 'studying' that which God has forbidden to study. taking part in that which God has forbidden. thinking that those who seek to destroy God's people, those who have always sought to destroy God's people, and their doctrines, might have something redeemable , useful or helpful in some way. God says no - do not study their ways, do not study the ways of other (gentile or pagan) nations or other peoples because it leads to idolatry and destruction.

catholicism is idolatry and abomination. it is not a sect nor a portion of christianity (of true believers).
oh, to the world, and to 2,000,000,000 lost souls, it is thought of as 'christendom', and has been for a long long time.... that means nothing to God(what it looks like to the world, deceptive in its entirety).

it has always been evil and opposed to God and opposed to His people, murdering His people, Jews and gentile believers, since it started (before and with and after constantine).

 

[mikeuk]

that's how error is propagated. that's how and why souls are lost. 'studying' that which God has forbidden to study. taking part in that which God has forbidden. thinking that those who seek to destroy God's people, those who have always sought to destroy God's people, and their doctrines, might have something redeemable , useful or helpful in some way. God says no - do not study their ways, do not study the ways of other (gentile or pagan) nations or other peoples because it leads to idolatry and destruction.

catholicism is idolatry and abomination. it is not a sect nor a portion of christianity (of true believers).
oh, to the world, and to 2,000,000,000 lost souls, it is thought of as 'christendom', and has been for a long long time.... that means nothing to God(what it looks like to the world, deceptive in its entirety).

it has always been evil and opposed to God and opposed to His people, murdering His people, Jews and gentile believers, since it started (before and with and after constantine).

Jeff - I would love it if you kept to the scriptural arguments made! - I want others to explain the alternative meanings.
Rather than expressing a generalised attack on the catholic church: which is indeed "catholic bashing" as per the thread title.. so not useful to respond.

People often accuse catholics of not being bible christians, yet most of what they believe is found not in tradition but in the new testament, as indeed the points I make relating the "keys". So it is worthwhile others knowing at least WHY they believe what they do even if they disagree..

I have been to a lot of churches over the years, and have always found it fascinating that there are far more scriptures quoted in the average catholic mass than any of the other denominations, something I always found strange given the stance of others.

Out of genuine interest, what church do you belong? Are you free to interpret scriptures from own study, or are their core beliefs? What do they believe the keys were and to whom they were given? One of the problems of christianity is it is very disjoint, so few know what other communities believe than their own or ones they visited previously. (my case a few...). Thats what I hope to find out!

I am hoping for a conversation, not a sparring match!

 

[john832]

Here is catholic thinking on that. Love it or hate it, here is the explanation.

Jesus spoke aramaic which as far as I am aware does not discriminate as the greek does between the m and f, petra and petros, a distinction which is therefore artificial in greek. They are the same word in aramaic and so it must be the same peter to whom he refers, not a separate thing. And he gives something to Peter which is the "keys of the kingdom". That reference is critical.

It is a clear reference back to the old testament where Hezekiah as king gives the keys of the (davidic) kingdom to Eliakim an office equivalent to "prime minister" which is an office that has succession. Given to a person, not an organisation. He is not offering the kingship to Eliakim, but a much lower role , so makes sense in terms of the prospective organisation of the church that remains on earth. All accept christ as King. The holder of the keys does not usurp that.


The question then is, If jesus had not wanted to invoke that allegory ( the old testament reference as defined as it is ) why would he refer to it in those terms, when he was frequently quoting from scriptures in order to make people understand.

And yet we read...

Act 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
Act 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

Who made the final decision? James the head of the New Testament church.