Who is the Rock?

Helen,
Thank you for starting this thread. You've made several excellent points in your post which support the Catholic position. Indeed, we Catholics are very familiar with the very Scriptures you refered to. And we agree 100% with you: Rock was a name reserved to God.

Only once is it used in regard to a man, to Abraham in Is 51,1-2. And then it isn't a proper name but a designation noting the relationship of the Israelites to Abraham.

So then, Helen, what is the meaning of the word "Peter"? Jesus Christ changed the name of His apostle Simon to the name of Peter.
Peter means "Rock". Why did God give a name reserved for Himself to a man?

The old objections: well, Peter means a little stone...etc. do not stand in the light of examination. Peter means Rock. And a large rock at that. And Mt 16 is telling us about God giving to a man a name reserved previously for God Himself. And when God said, "Upon this rock I will build My Church", He did mean Peter. An honest study of Scripture shows that. The language Jesus and the apostles spoke was not Greek. An accurate translation in our language would read: "You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church." Or, "You are Peter and upon this peter I will build my Church."

Furthermore, God then went on and gave that same man named Rock the keys to the kingdom of heaven. And the Jewish people knew that to be given the keys meant to be made the chief steward. See Is 22,21-22.

So you have shown what a great and unique thing it was for God Himself to give to a man a name which had previously been reserved for God Himself. We all know the significance of a name change given by God, it bestowed a position and mission upon the one given the new name. It had something to do with God's Plan of Salvation in history.
Pauline

 

Hi Helen,

I hope you're doing well.

You wrote, "The saddest thing to me, of all this, is that the Roman Catholic Church counts on the fact that their members DON'T know the Scriptures." Well, you should feel relieved because the Catholic Church counts on the fact that its faithful know the Scriptures intimately, such as myself.

Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation: Dei Verbum (Word of God) says,

"For in the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven meets His children with great love and speaks with them; and the force and power in the word of God is so great that it stands as the support and energy of the Church, the strength of faith for her sons, the food of the soul, the pure and everlasting source of spiritual life."

and

"Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful. That is why the Church from the very beginning accepted as her own that very ancient Greek translation; of the Old Testament which is called the septuagint; and she has always given a place of honor to other Eastern translations and Latin ones especially the Latin translation known as the vulgate. But since the word of God should be accessible at all times, the Church by her authority and with maternal concern sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books. And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities approve, if these translations are produced in cooperation with the separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them."

If you don't believe me, the link is here: http://www.cin.org/v2revel.html

But, that's not going to keep individuals such as yourself from proclaiming particular untruths, will it? Unless, of course, you're just speaking from ignorance, which I hope is the case.

It's interesting that you spent so much time trying to convince us that the rock isn't the rock, especially considering the fact that Jesus Christ, who is the cornerstone of the Church, named Simon "Rock" himself.

John 1:42 - He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter)

Cephas or Kephas is "Rock" in Aramaic.

Please forgive me for trusting in Christ and his promises, but his Word is more valuable than yours.

God bless you,

Carson

[ December 09, 2001: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Pauline, meet Carson!

You two make my job easy! All I have to do is lay back and let you two defend the Faith!

I knew Carson back when he posted on CARM and a few other sites. He is a joy to watch in his apologetics, and YOU TOO!

Having said that, beware of the sin of pride!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

 

Hi Helen,

I enjoyed your quotations from 1 Rock 1:1; 2:4-9 and other verses.

There's also some really good stuff in 2 Rock.

Thank you for sharing the Word of God with me and everyone else on this board.

Pauline, Bill, do any of you have a quarrel with these passages? I don't.

I really enjoyed your joke about the pope. Oh, and did you know that Pontifex Maximus is also a pagan designation that Christianity sanctified with Christ? In addition to titles, the Church also Christened the use of pagan wedding rings. By the way, are you wearing a pagan wedding ring?

in Christ,

Carson

[ December 09, 2001: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi Bill,
Thanks for the kind words. But don't get too comfortable, there's plenty of challenges for all.

Welcome, Carson. I've been reading and enjoying your posts.

Helen,
Please explain why Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, named Simon Peter (Rock) when that name was previously reserved for God. Please tell us the significance of God giving that name change to a man. Do you think Jesus Christ is truly God? Do you think what He did and what is reported in Scripture is important for us to understand?
Thanks,
Pauline

 

Helen,

You are apparently laboring under the misapprehension that Catholics believe that Peter is "Rock" INSTEAD OF Christ. But whoever told or suggested that to you is a liar, as shown by the following from the old Baltimore Catechism: http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/baltimore/bcreed09.htm
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>116. Q. Who is the invisible head of the Church?

A. Jesus Christ is the invisible head of the Church.

"Invisible head." If, for example, a merchant of one country wishes to establish a branch of his business in another, he remains in the new country long enough to establish the branch business, and then appointing someone to take his place, returns to his own country. He is still the head of the new establishment, but its invisible head for the people of that country, while its visible head is the agent or representative he has placed in charge to carry on the business in his name and interest. When Our Lord wished to establish His Church He came from Heaven; and when about to return to Heaven appointed St. Peter to take His place upon earth and rule the Church as directed. You see, therefore, that Our Lord, though not on earth, is still the real head and owner of the Church, and whatever His agent or vicar -- that is, our Holy Father, the Pope -- does in the Church, he does it with the authority of Our Lord Himself.

117 Q. Who is the visible head of the Church?

A. Our Holy Father the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, is the vicar of Christ on earth and the visible head of the Church.

The "Bishop of Rome" is always Pope. If the Bishop of New York, or of Baltimore, or of Boston, became Pope, he would become the Bishop of Rome and cease to be the Bishop of New York, Baltimore, or Boston, because St. Peter, the first Pope, was Bishop of Rome; and therefore only the bishops of Rome are his lawful successors -- the true Popes -- the true visible heads of the Church. The bishops of the other dioceses of the world are the lawful successors of the other Apostles who taught and established churches throughout the world. The bishops of the world are subject to the Pope, just as the other Apostles were subject to St. Peter, who was appointed their chief, by Our Lord Himself.
"Vicar," that is, one who holds another's place and acts in his name. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You state:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Pauline, I am a born again Christian, secure in Christ eternally. He is my Lord and My God. He is also the only Rock in my life."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But when you call Christ your "Rock" you only mean that in a SYMBOLIC sense, like most everything else you believe. For nobody can seriously believe Christ is the "Rock" and at the same time believe He allowed His church to go into error for some 1,500 years. When all is said and done, only Catholics truly believe Christ is "Rock."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It is also interesting to note that Peter submitted to Paul in the argument over legalism, and that Peter referred to Paul's writings from the beginning as Scripture, while Paul never referred to Peter's that way -- and Paul certainly had plenty of chance to as he is the main author of the New Testament.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a typical Protestant error, replacing Peter as Pope with Paul (or sometimes with James as "Pope" at the Jerusalem Council.) So, you're saying that Peter's epistles aren't even scripture? That Peter wasn't even equal to Paul? Perhaps that Peter wasn't really an apostle at all? (I shudder to think that you might, if you hold to the arch-heresy of Dispensationalism's "two Gospels.")

I have an old article on "The Rebuke": http://www.shasta.com/sphaws/rebuke.html

[ December 09, 2001: Message edited by: SPH ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Helen:
Carson, Yes, there is quite a bit of paganism in the Roman Catholic church. I cannot see why anyone who calls himself a Christian would want anything to do with it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Including baptism? After all, purification rites was common among the pagans as well. Or how about celebrating Christmas on Dec. 25th, that pagan holiday called Saturnalia, or the pagan "Winter Solstice" riturals?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Pauline, I am a born again Christian, secure in Christ eternally. He is my Lord and My God.
He is also the only Rock in my life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Glad to hear that you are that secure, so I suppose you do not sin anymore, right? As a Catholic, I am "born again" as well, Per what Christ told Nicodemus in John 3. As for being the only "rock" in your life (Jesus), that's fine, as "rock" is a fine metaphor for truth, steadfastness, unwavering, strong, etc, which Christ certainly is.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[/QB]Peter and the Apostles knew quite well what Jesus was referring to when Jesus said Peter was A rock. Peter explained it himself, as I quoted above.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure they understood when Jesus said, "You are Peter (Kephas in Aramaic) and upon this Rock (Peter, kephas again in Aramaic) I will build my church." (I will have to read your message again to see what you think Peter "explained.")

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Of course, if you want to consider Peter the rock on which you are building your church, you may have a wee bit of trouble with the next name Jesus called him, which was Satan! At which point Jesus said quite clearly, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God but the things of men!"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We had nothing to do with "building" the Church, Christ did. As for calling Peter "Satan," it is obvious that Christ is not renaming him once again! But rather that Peter still did not fully understand Christ's mission, and that what Peter speaks of is something Satan might say. After all, Peter and the rest of the apostles were still in the learning stage, don't you agree?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What a name to call a person on whom you plan to build your church!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, it is Christ's doing in Matthew 16:18-19, including giving him the "keys of the kingdom" (which he gives to Peter only) and is the first to give the power to "bind and loose."

Calling him "satan" is a figure of speech, a tool for telling Peter he is still mouthing something Satan might say. Full realization on the part of Peter comes later, after the resurrection.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[/QB]It is also interesting to note that Peter submitted to Paul in the argument over legalism, and that Peter referred to Paul's writings from the beginning as Scripture, while Paul never referred to Peter's that way -- and Paul certainly had plenty of chance to as he is the main author of the New Testament.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many of the apostles wrote anything at all? I count about six of them... Your point is........?

Also, what "legalism" are you speaking of?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In other words, the Roman Catholic claim that says Christ said He would build His church on Peter, who is therefore called the first pope, is violently ripped out of context where Scripture is concerned.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sir, I would suggest a good book for you to read:

JESUS, PETER & THE KEYS
by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren and David
Hess, ISBN: 1-882972-54-6 in paperback for about $20.00

This book totally destroys all Protestant arguments against the Catholic interpretation of John 20:22-23 and other passages that show that Peter was indeed, the "Chief of the apostles" and the first pope! My humble opinion, of course...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

Helen,
I too am a born again Christian. Have been for forty years. Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. The Scriptures are a very important part of my daily life.

Please tell me: What was the significance of God changing Abram's name to Abraham? Of Jacob's name being changed to Israel? Then tell me why Jesus Christ changed Simon's name to Peter (Rock)? Thanks
Pauline

 

Hi Helen,

My sister in Christ, you didn't answer my question.. "Do you wear a pagan wedding ring?" It's okay to admit. I admit that Catholicism christened many pagan items and titles in the conquest over paganism and idolatry by the Kingdom of God. Do you inherit this paganism from Catholicism?

Oh, and by the way, I'm a born again Christian myself as well. I was born by water and spirit at 48 days of age. And, last night, I renewed my baptismal faith in Jesus Christ publicly.

You may give the charge that the Church has ripped Scripture conncerning Matthew 16:16-19, but it is you that is not familiar with the Davidic Covenant. When you study it, perhaps you'll be humbled a bit.

Don't forget to answer my primary question.

God bless,

Carson

 

Hi Helen,

You wrote, "Peter and the Apostles knew quite well what Jesus was referring to when Jesus said Peter was A rock." Are you misquoting the Word of God again? Where is the article "a" in Scripture with regards to Christ calling Simon "Kephas"?

I also know how deficient most non-Catholics are in their Catholic catechesis, so I thought I would include some points from the catechism to catch you up a bit.

424. "Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church."

756. "'Often, too, the Church is called the building of God. The Lord compared himself to the stone which the builders rejected, but which was made into the cornerstone. On this foundation the Church is built by the apostles and from it the Church receives solidity and unity."

your brother in the Prince of Peace,

Carson

[ December 09, 2001: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi Helen,

You wrote, "The wedding ring I wear is not pagan. In fact, my husband designed it to reflect the holiness of Christ in our marriage. It has three sapphires in it. The middle one is the largest - it is the one representing Christ."

Oh, you can't trick me. I know that this is raw paganism that you just "say" is Christian. Don't deny it.

You wrote, "That is not being born again."

Well, according to Jesus, it is. You do know that the phrase, "born again", comes from Jesus' words to Nicodemus when he spoke of baptism.

Have you ever read the writings of the Christian Apologist Justin, who was thrown to the lions for his Christian Faith? He wrote some pretty intellectual treatises about Christianity, especially to Jews. Well, this guy wrote:

"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we (Christians) teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19), they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ (John 3:3)" (First Apology 61 A.D. 151).

That's okay if you don't believe what he believed. You see, I share communion in faith with the early Christians. It's nice living in the same Church as Justin Martyr did; we both can agree on what baptism does for us as a regenerative sacrament.

You wrote, "Secondly, the New Testament is quite clear that repentance must come first."

Amen sister, preach it how it is. The Church won't baptize an adult unless they repent and believe in Jesus Christ.

You wrote, "Nor, at that age, were you held responsible for your sin nature, as you had not yet volitionally rebelled against God."

You see Helen, as Christians, we believe in this thing called Original Sin because we believe in the Word of God. Adam was driven from God's presence, and we contract this loss of God's life after the Fall of Man. We need God's life back in us; we call it the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. So, we need, even as infants, this indwelling, which occurs by being born again.

You wrote, "I'd love to think that is what you make it sound like, but I am betting it has a lot more to do with the Roman Catholic church and your allegiance to her rather than the person of Jesus Christ Himself! Tell me, now, do you pray the Rosary? Consider that a primary question.

Well, let's see here, I have the baptismal renewal right here..

"I reject sin, so as to live in the freedom of God's children. I reject Satan, father of sin and prince of darkness. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, my Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified, died, and was buried, rose from the dead, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father. I believ ein the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of siants, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and live everlasting. Amen.

"Heavenly Father, I praise you and thank you for giving me life and for your love which enables me to live as your child. In my humble way, I commit myself and my life to you. Strenghten me to be faithful to my commitment, to seek to make you the center of all I do. I pray this in the name of Jesus, my Saviour and LORD. Amen."

Of course I pray the rosary! I love to meditate upon the life of my LORD and Saviour Jesus. Don't you?

You wrote, "The word Christ referred to in talking to Peter was 'petros', while 'this rock' in the Greek is 'petra.'"

You're mistaken. Jesus didn't speak Greek. He spoke Aramaic and named Simon "Kepha."

Why the difference in Matthew 16 between petros and petras? Well, let's see what the Protestant scholar D.A. Carson says:

"Although it is true that petros and petra can mean "stone" and "rock" respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses ("you are kepha" and "on this kepha"), since the word was used both for a name and for a "rock." The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name. . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been lithos ("stone" of almost any size)."

Protestant scripture scholar Oscar Cullman in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament writes:

"The Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between p tra (petra) and P tros; P tros = p tra. . . . The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable . . . for there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of "thou art Rock" and "on this rock I will build" shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first . It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected."

You wrote, "I was superimposing his definition on what Christ said."

Well, next time, let's not alter the Word of God to fit our man-made traditions.

You wrote, "In other words, Carson, that word is NEVER used for any human being other than Christ."

Except, of course, for Peter (Rock).

You wrote, "If Peter was truly the 'rock' the RC church says he is, then it would have been mentioned by either (or both) Luke in Acts or Romans. These two books give the history of the early church (Acts) and the doctrinal statement (Romans). In neither do we find any reference to Peter being anything other than one of the Apostles and a fellow with the others."

This is where your study of the Davidic Covenant and the knowledge that Matthew was writing to a primarily Jewish audience would come in handy.

You wrote, "Now the Roman Catholic church had basic control of the Scriptures for almost a thousand years. Surely that was enough time to correct the Greek!"

You see, Helen, the Catholic Church thinks that the Scriptures are so sacred and inspired that they are unalterable. This flows from her veneration of God's sacred and holy writ. You should learn from her example.

God bless,

Carson

 

Helen replied, quoting from my last:

Bill:Including baptism? After all, purification rites was common among the pagans as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you choose to consider Christ Himself as indulging in a pagan ritual, that is certainly up to you. However, as Paul says in Romans 6, the true baptism is baptism into the death of Christ. If we do not undergo this baptism, we will not be raised with Him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Helen, you avoided the point I was trying to make! Baptism is an adoption of pagan rites, and oh, by the way, the Jews had a purification rite using water as well. We can discuss the salvific nature of baptism later, for for now, read the exchange between Nicodemus and Jesus in John 3.

Bill:Or how about celebrating Christmas on Dec. 25th, that pagan holiday called Saturnalia, or the pagan "Winter Solstice" riturals?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There may be something else there. That is very probably the date the magoi visited the Child. See what you think: http://www.ldolphin.org/birth.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll do that later after I write this, but I have two theories as why we celeberate on Dec 25th:

1. Because Christ's birth was actually in the Spring, but to celebrate then would put this holiday too close to Easter.

2. In ancient Rome, where the Christians were persecuted severely, Saturnalia was a day of great dabauchery and revelry, and as a result, Christians could come out of hiding and go unnoticed. Therefore, it was a great time to celebrate the birth of Jesus as a counter to the great sinning that took place on that day. And to this day, what does world remember December 25 for? Certainly not Saturnalia, but of the birth of Christ!

This us pure conjecture as even the Catholic Church does not know the original reason for it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Helen: Pauline, I am a born again Christian, secure in Christ eternally. He is my Lord and My God. He is also the only Rock in my life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bill: Glad to hear that you are that secure, so I suppose you do not sin anymore, right? As a Catholic, I am "born again" as well, Per what Christ told Nicodemus in John 3. As for being the only "rock" in your life (Jesus), that's fine, as "rock" is a fine metaphor for truth, steadfastness, unwavering, strong, etc, which Christ certainly is.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you are truly born again, then you have a new heart - one that does not WANT to sin. However, as I John tells us,
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin…If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness… <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does that mean that you no longer sin? Boy, I sure do, and I feel bad when I do, but then I have the wonderful means of having them forgiven! (See John 20:22-23.)

How do I know that I have a "new heart"? In my Protestant days, I was saved at the altar at a revival, said "sinners prayer" and went home on cloud nine!

But it was not long before I sinned again, and again, and again, and again... I was dishearted to say the least.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In Genesis 8:21, we read that the hearts of all men always tend toward evil from childhood. That is why we need new hearts. My new heart does not TEND toward sin, but that does not mean I do not sin. I do. But I no longer live in a state of sin. I know that Jesus is totally sufficient and that I am safe in His care. Philippians 1:6 tells me He takes responsibility for raising me and Hebrews 12:7-11 tells me to endure His training and discipline. I Peter tells me I am a living stone, being built up, and I Corinthians tells me I am part of the body. In the gospel of John, I find I am simply a sheep, and Christ is the Good Shepherd. I'm a country girl, and I have never seen a sheep that could care for itself! Of all herd animals, they are the most utterly dependent on the shepherd. And I am utterly dependent on Christ. There is nothing I can do to 'maintain' my own salvation! I am born anew and indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:8). My total job now is to trust and obey, being simply a glove on His Hand. HE does the work and the person He is in is simply what people see. There are no rites or rituals I need to perform. I am His, totally, completely, eternally, and safely. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just gotta find out about this "new heart' business! How do you know it when I get one?

Bill:I'm sure they understood when Jesus said, "You are Peter (Kephas in Aramaic) and upon this Rock (Peter, kephas again in Aramaic) I will build my church." (I will have to read your message again to see what you think Peter "explained.")

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[/QB]I hope you read it. As I wrote in my opening post, all the disciples were Jews and had been bar mitzvah'd. They KNEW what the Scriptures said about God being the Rock. There is no way they would have not considered it blasphemy to ascribe that name to anyone else. Nor do any of them ever refer to Peter by that name, either directly or indirectly. Peter himself is the only one to use that term, and he refers to himself as one of the believers who are 'living stones.' That's it. [/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet Jesus turns around and renames Simon and calls him Peter (Rock or Kepha in
Aramaic.) And not one word of protest from the other apostles! Because Jesus is called a Rock somehwere in scripture, does not mean Jesus cannot use the same metaphor on some one else. Jesus is a Rock and Peter is a Rock, and never the twain shall meet!

Bill: We had nothing to do with "building" the Church, Christ did. As for calling Peter "Satan," it is obvious that Christ is not renaming him once again! But rather that Peter still did not fully understand Christ's mission, and that what Peter speaks of is something Satan might say. After all, Peter and the rest of the apostles were still in the learning stage, don't you agree?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yes, Christ has built His church, and is building it. His Kingdom, however, is NOT of this world, and neither is His church a physical church. As for 'renaming' Peter, no, Christ did not. But in order to get around that almost immediate referral to Peter as Satan in what he had said, the Roman Catholic apologists have to do incredible mental and verbal gymnastics!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not a physical church? First, Jesus builds His church upon Simon, now Peter, then He gives Peter the "keys of the kingdom," and as a final shot, Peter is the first to receive the power to "bind and loose." Now if that is not building up a "first charter clergy" of his new quite visible and physical church with great authority, then my 30 years of career service in the United States Navy missed something with me in defining what authority is!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And yes, they were all learning. It was Christ who was building HIS church on HIMSELF as the foundation - the ROCK.[/i]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then explain to exactly what Jesus is doing with Peter in John 28:15-17 with the "Feed my sheep...lanbs" exchange three times. Yes, there is some symbolic meaning in that Jesus forgives Peter for denying Him three times, but there is a greater significance that most Protests miss, the final commissioning of Peter and the lead authority in His church!

He says this to Peter ony, and not to the others. Peter is in charge, and there is ample evidence of it in scripture...

Bill:Again, it is Christ's doing in Matthew 16:18-19, including giving him the "keys of the kingdom" (which he gives to Peter only) and is the first to give the power to "bind and loose."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If any Catholic has ever taken a look at that 'binding and loosing', they will find it does not refer to persons, but to "what"'s or words and actions. Only God can judge people. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who was Jesus taling to in Matt 16:18 when He gave the power to "Bind and loose"? Peter! And later in Matt 18:18, Jesus extends this power to..........who? The apostles!

Now how is that for taking you by the hand and showing what "persons" Jesus gave that power to...

Bill:Calling him "satan" is a figure of speech, a tool for telling Peter he is still mouthing something Satan might say. Full realization on the part of Peter comes later, after the resurrection.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How do you KNOW it is a 'figure of speech' at that point, when you are taking the name "Peter" so seriously as a point of faith? You see, I think both are figures of speech, and I think Peter explains very nicely about the 'rock' in his own first letter. But to claim one is a figure of speech and not the other needs some kind of contextual reason and not extra-biblical mental and verbal gymnastics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does Christ say "you are Satan"? Common sense tells you this is a literary device that Christ uses to Peter to say he is speaking like Satan. In Matt 16:18, Christ does not say "get behind me, Peter" to name him, does he?

See the difference? I bet any English teacher could explain that better then I could.

Helen: It is also interesting to note that Peter submitted to Paul in the argument over legalism, and that Peter referred to Paul's writings from the beginning as Scripture, while Paul never referred to Peter's that way -- and Paul certainly had plenty of chance to as he is the main author of the New Testament.

From you: How many of the apostles wrote anything at all? I count about six of them... Your point is........?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I was only talking about Peter and Paul.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

?????

Bill:Also, what "legalism" are you speaking of?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Read Galatians 2, please.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

O.K.

Bill:Sir, I would suggest a good book for you to read:

JESUS, PETER & THE KEYS
by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren and David
Hess, ISBN: 1-882972-54-6 in paperback for about $20.00

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am Helen, which sort of makes me a 'm'am' I think…
OK, if I get that book to read, will you read one I suggest in return?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry about the gender mix-up.

Tell me what book I should read, please...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

[ December 09, 2001: Message edited by: WPutnam ]

[ December 09, 2001: Message edited by: WPutnam ]

[ December 09, 2001: Message edited by: WPutnam ]

 

Carson,

If Helen wants examples of "paganism" don't forget the "cross" and "fish" symbols, which many have associated with paganism. I presently don't have handy links, but I've seen them. (And I'm sure a search would reveal them.)

In the meantime, maybe Helen will be satisfied knowing that the Trinity is pagan, as "proven" by this "Oneness" Pentecostal (United Pentecostal Church) minister: http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mfblume/pagantr.htm

And this link, showing that all of Christianity is pagan!!!

The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors (or Christianity Before Christ: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That is not being born again. If you take a look at the Torah you will find something interesting. The age at which the Israelites were divided regarding who could enter the Promised Land and who had to die in the wilderness for rebellion was twenty. The age of military service was 20. The age at which the tax rate increased was 20. God does not hold teenagers and younger to any decisions or promises made. That is the first thing.
Secondly, the New Testament is quite clear that repentance must come first. That is part of the righteousness involved in Jesus' baptism. You were totally incapable of repenting at 48 days of age. Nor, at that age, were you held responsible for your sin nature, as you had not yet volitionally rebelled against God. Paul explains this quite clearly in Romans 7:7-11. Being born again is something that happens after you have died spiritually (been separated from God through conscious rebellion). It is not even possible or necessary before that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ha, I love it when people who claim to know so much yet prove they know so little. You claim that all your doctrine comes from Scripture yet you promote a theology with no Scriptural basis, in this case "the age of accountablility". You managed to completely ignore Gen 17. Specifically verses 9-14 "And God said to Abraham,' As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old shall be circumcised. ... Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant." God commands that any child from the household of believers must be circumcised by their eight day or they will not be part of the covenant. So there can be no age of accountability.

Since we are all sharing born again dates, I was born again into the New Covenant of the Lamb at the grand age of 1 month and I renew my Baptismal vows everyday.

BTW Helen, the wedding band is a pagan symbol adopted by Christians. It is nice that your ring has a Christian theme, but it started as a pagan symbol.

[ December 09, 2001: Message edited by: Godmetal ]
Sometimes I wish I would learn how to type

[ December 09, 2001: Message edited by: Godmetal ]

[ December 09, 2001: Message edited by: Godmetal ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Godmetal:


[ December 09, 2001: Message edited by: Godmetal ]
Sometimes I wish I would learn how to type

[ December 09, 2001: Message edited by: Godmetal ]

[ December 09, 2001: Message edited by: Godmetal ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hah! I did the same thing! And this is why I wish the administrators of this board would read my private E-mail to them where I suggest installing the capability of reviewing out messages before we finally publish them!

This is an EZBoard forum which allows you that capability...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+