Who is the Rock?

WPutnam · Dec 11, 2001

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

AHHHHHHHH run for the hills. Its the language of the antichrist. Umm, did I say that out loud? In silly mood, couldn't help myself. Latin and I don't get along, a dispicable language to translate, particularly when working with Cicero.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then you have not heard the wonderful
Gregoran chant in Latin! If so, I pity you, as you have missed the music of the angels!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt
adversum eam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque
ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque
solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis.
[Matt 16:18-19 From the Latin Vulgate]

WPutnam · Dec 11, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Godmetal:
This debate over what languages Jesus and the Apostles spoke is pointless.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pointless? Why? Can you support your allegations without such a profound dogmatic statement that is seldom heard even from the popes?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

Helen · Dec 12, 2001

Hi Bill,

OK, let's have a go at this.

First, you asked why I linked the Christmas Star article. It was to show you that the choice of Dec. 25 was probably not a date taken in an attempt to transform a pagan ritual, but rather it was originally a far more special date, and that the visit of the magoi might be the reason we use that date.

The second reason I linked it is because the author is my husband and I am very proud of him!

But yes, I do think the Catholic church is 'encumbered with paganistic elements' to quote your choice of words. I just don't think the date of Dec. 25 for Christmas happens to be one of them, despite popular belief to the contrary.

But here are some to think about:

1. At the Last Supper, Jesus broke the bread. The disciples ate pieces of broken bread, which was symbolizing the death of Jesus which would occur the next day. The Roman Catholic church, however, for centuries used perfectly round wafers. These were taken directly from sun god worship and represented the disc of the sun, having nothing to do with the broken bread of the Last Supper. This is thoroughly documented by J Gardner Wilkinson.

2. Lent: "* It was called Pasch, or the Passover, and though not of Apostolic institution, * was very early
observed by many professing Christians, in commemoration of the death and resurrection of Christ. That festival agreed originally with the time of the Jewish
Passover, when Christ was crucified, a period which, in the days of Tertullian, at the end of the second century, was believed to have been the 23rd of March. *
That festival was not idolatrous, and it was preceded by no Lent. "It ought to be known," said Cassianus, the monk of Marseilles, writing in the fifth century, and
contrasting the primitive Church with the Church in his day, "that the observance of the forty days had no existence so long as the perfection of that primitive
Church remained inviolate." * Whence, then, came this observance? The forty days' abstinence of Lent was directly borrowed from the worshippers of the
Babylonian goddess. Such a Lent of forty days, "in the spring of the year," is still observed by the Yezidis or Pagan Devil-worshippers of Koordistan, * who have
inherited it from their early masters, the Babylonians. Such a Lent of forty days was held in spring by the Pagan Mexicans, for thus we read in Humboldt, * where he
gives account of Mexican observances: "Three days after the vernal equinox.... began a solemn fast of forty days in honour of the sun." Such a Lent of forty
days was observed in Egypt, as may be seen on consulting Wilkinson's Egyptians. * This Egyptian Lent of forty days, we are informed by Landseer, in his Sabean
Researches, was held expressly in commemoration of Adonis or Osiris, the great mediatorial god. *" (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/2bab015.htm)

3 Mary as the wife of any 'part' of God. Read the following from the Orphic Hymns, and see if you can't see where the Roman Catholic Mary comes from:

O royal Juno, of majestic mien,
Aerial formed, divine, Jove's blessed Queen,
Throned in the bosom of caerulean air,
The race of mortals is thy constant care…

The list of pagan symbols and rites in the Roman Catholic church is enormous and extraordinarily well-documented for several hundred years by those who have studied the classical literature.

Regarding your conversion to Catholicism, you said you had a 'similar feeling' regarding what I described as being born again. But I was not talking about feelings, Bill. I was talking about the change in me as a person. My feelings can run the scale at any given time, but the absolute change God has made in my life since He gave me that new life have nothing to do with my feelings, but with changes taking place in the very core of my being. This is quite different from an emotional experience.

You asked if my 'new heart' can be soiled. I don't know. I really don't. I do know that I am completely covered by Christ and that, when He is finished maturing me, my heart will be pure then. But can further sin 'return us to a state even worse than before?" No, absolutely not. Jesus said He has not lost one, and I'm not scheduled to be the first! When I wander, He comes looking for me and hauls me back in. And sometimes there is discipline (Hebrews 12), but never am I not His. His Holy Spirit indwells me and as I grow in Him, God is fulfilling His purpose for me (Philippians 1:6.). God is utterly faithful, and I am utterly His.

Getting back to the Rock - God very clearly said He is the ONLY one and knows of no other. God is the same eternally - past, present, and future. Therefore that will not change. The name given to Peter is the SAME NAME given to each of us, as Peter himself referred to us ALSO as 'living stones.' That 'also' is very important. Peter KNEW what Jesus meant. It is the Roman Catholic church that has twisted that into a form of paganism.

You said "Matthew simply had to conform to those grammar rules and write 'You are Petros, and upon this petra will I build my church." There are NO Greek grammar rules concerning the use of these words in this way! If Matthew had meant that Jesus had said that Simon was the same rock upon which the church was to be built, then the same word would have been used. There is not a Greek grammar rule that has ever been in existence which would require otherwise. The two words were used by Matthew for the distinct reason of separating the name Christ gave to Simon and the rock upon which the church would be built. Simon Peter HIMSELF delineates upon the concept of us ALL being rocks in his first epistle. Nowhere in the Bible is Peter shown to have primary authority among the Apostles.

As far as the 'keys' goes, ONLY God has the power to open or shut heaven for people, as ONLY God is the judge. That is the context of the entire Bible! Given that primary doctrine, it is impossible that Simon Peter or any other human being was given God's authority.

As far as the canonization of Scriptures is concerned - that was simply a validation of the Scriptures that had been in use from the beginning, over and against those spurious bits and pieces that kept cropping up. The Bible did not come from the Catholic church. It came from God through the chosen writers. It is HIS Word, and He has always been in charge of it.

The church is invisible, because it is spiritual. As Jesus told the woman at the well, the time will come and has come when true believers will worship in spirit and in truth. This was over and against her question about a physical place of worship. Paul said we are a body. And we are. I have traveled a reasonable amount in my life and no matter where I am, or what language the people speak, Christians know each other. Spirit recognizes Spirit and I can't put it any other way. It doesn't matter which Christian church they worship in - it matters that they are born again in Christ and know our Lord as their Head. We are each directly accountable to Him and obedient to Him. Among those who are born again there is the most remarkable sense of recognition. And I have no other way to explain it. We are an invisible church in that sense. It is the visible people who carry the Gospel to the world as Christ has directed us.

It is the contention of the Roman Catholic church that they are the visible church Christ created on this earth. If so, then Christ has failed miserably, for no other religious organization has, through history, been responsible for so much slaughter, immorality, and agony as that which has been done by the Roman Catholic church. From the rampant immorality of so many popes and bishops and other clergy through time to the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the slaughter of groups who did not agree with them, and cultures who did not agree with them - I cannot think of any one organization in the entire world's history which has been responsible for as much bloodshed, violence, and immorality as the Roman Catholic church. There is NO WAY that this is the church of the Jesus Christ of the Bible.

You wrote: Documentation please, Helen. Christ being the "chief cornerstone" is not the same "stone" as pplied to Simon now renamed Peter (ROCK) in Matthew 16:18!

That is exactly my point, Bill. Peter was not what the church was built on. Christ was and is.

You asked for documentation regarding the keys being a matter of opening heaven to people's understanding rather than a carte blanche to judge people worthy or unworthy of heaven. The documentation is the entire Bible. Only God can judge. And what you see Peter doing from the first is explaining about Jesus to people, and it is through Jesus and Jesus only that heaven can be gained. Peter indeed used his 'keys' to open heaven to people. But heaven is still a matter of Jesus and the individual, and Peter has no place as any kind of 'doorkeeper.' Christ said HE is the gate for the sheep.

You said that Peter was the only one who had the fortitude to go to where the trial was being held. No, he wasn't. In John 18, John quotes exactly what he heard and tells what he saw. You have your choice of that or that he was making it up or taking it as hearsay!

You will read that, at the time of Jesus' arrest, "Then all the disciples deserted him and fled." (Matthew 26:56). ALL. Not 'except Peter.'

ALL

Then Matthew, at least, and John, as well as Peter, must have followed at a distance and then gone into the courtyard. We know Peter was there, but both John and Matthew give eyewitness accounts of what happened. And it was only Peter who denied Christ.

Were the others more cowardly than Peter? John was at the foot of the cross with Mary. That is cowardly? Peter was evidently back in the crowd with the others. But John was identifying himself with Jesus, and thus risking execution, too. Matthew talked to the soldiers and got their story. Was that cowardly? He could have been arrested for being a known follower and there he was, interviewing soldiers who were at the tomb!

Inasmuch as they were cowards, they were all cowards together. I don't see that Peter was particularly brave. Rash, yes. But don't confuse that with bravery. And that rashness was the reason Peter was constantly being rebuked by Jesus. Peter had a chronic case of 'foot in mouth' syndrome!

You said: Peter's denial is profound, but his brothers sins are even worse!

And I would ask you "Who made you judge?" And upon what standard are you judging? That Jesus did not have to correct and rebuke the others as much as He did Peter? This made their sins greater? I have a very hard time with that!

And, if Peter was to be the strong one, why was Mary not given into HIS care? Perhaps it was because Peter was too afraid to get near the cross???

You said that Paul's confrontation of Peter showed Peter's primacy! That is an impossible leap, Bill. Are you telling me that if Peter were not a leader that Paul would not have confronted him publicly? And, as far as Paul referring to Peter as Cephas - that just shows that Matthew could have done the same except for the fact that Matthew had a strong point to make.

You mentioned the title of the pope as "vicar of Christ." 'Vicar' is the root of 'vicarious', meaning 'in place of.' That is pure blasphemy. It is the Holy Spirit who represents Christ on earth in the hearts of Christians. There is no human authority representing God. That, too, is directly from paganism - such as the 'god-kings' of Egypt.

And don't call me a liar about reading the book you recommend. Yes, you could lie to me about reading the Bible cover to cover. Would you? It appears as though, like every Catholic I have ever asked to read the Bible cover to cover, by itself, no commentaries and no apocrypha, you refuse. That is very strange to me as a Christian, for the Bible is the food for the spirit in a man. Reading bits and pieces as dictated by some authority or guide along with their 'explanation' is taking away from the impact of the purity of God's Word. Why are you afraid of that? Don't you think God had a purpose in having the Bible put together as He did?

I didn't ask you to prove that you had read it. I was willing to take your word. You are the one who said your word might not be good. So be it. I'll accept that.

Pauline: you asked why God gave Peter revelations He gave no one else? Why did He give Paul revelations He gave no one else? Why did He give John Revelation He gave no one else?

Nor was Peter the only one made a shepherd. Peter was the one restored to that position after he had been the only one to actively deny Christ!

Pauline · Dec 12, 2001

Helen,
If you're going to make conversion of heart and mind and life the criteria for being a Christian, then Catholics are in the lead. Because one thing we teach and live is on-going conversion. And yes, I belong totally to Jesus and He has changed me drasticly. I still have far to go but many of the old sins have fallen away because of Him. Both my husband and I have experienced this and our marriage of nearly 49 years gets better and better because of His grace in our lives.

I'm interested in what you know about the Inquisitions. Can you give me some details?
Pauline

DHK · Dec 12, 2001

Carson,
You want my opinion on your post about the Davidic Kingdom? I read it, and the links.
Personally, I think your theology is a bit out of whack, and I am not impressed with the links that you provided.
First, the covenant is not an extension of the old covenant. Where do you get that? The old covenant was made with Israel.
Second, King David was NOT the King of the International Kingdom/Family of God. He was the King of Israel.
---Learn about Israel. God made a covenant with Abraham. That covenant was passed down through Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and down to David. God reaffirmed His covenant with David. The Messiah, Jesus came through the line of David, as promised. This covenant is for the Jews, the nation of Israel alone. God has made a new covenant with those of us that live this side of the cross. At this time Israel is set aside for a time.

Rom.11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
---Israel for a temporary period of time is blinded to the truth (vs.25). God has set them on a shelf, so to speak, for a temporary period of time. He has not cast them away. He is not finished with them. They are still God's people. But for a temporary period of time, they are in blindness to the truth.
Now, in verse 26, it tells that all Israel shall be saved. This will happen at the end of the Great Tribulation, as they enter into the Millennial Kingdom. Then Christ will appear and sit on the Throne of David, and those promises in Isaiah 22 will be fulfilled. The Kingdom promises have to do with Israel, and the covenant made with Israel, not with us.
Look at verse 27, where Paul says: "This is MY COVENANT UNTO THEM" God's covenant with who? With Israel, not with Christians.

"King David had many cabinet members (ministers) to run the affairs of the Kingdom, and one of these ministers was the Prime Minister, whose authority was designated by the handing on of the "keys of the kingdom.""
---And where is this in Scripture?

"The Old Testament parallel to the New Testament account of Jesus giving the keys is found in Isaiah 22:20-22 (KJV):"
---Did you not bother to read the verses you posted? They are prophetic, still yet to be fulfilled. They speak of the Millennial Kingdom that is to come, when Christ will set up His throne on earth for a thousand years and rule with a rod of iron. That is not happening now. If you think it is, take a look at all the crime and ask Jesus why He doesn't bring the wrong-doers to justice, as He promised He would when He sets up His Kingdom?

Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience familiar with the Old Testament Scriptures is true enough, but to imply that that same audience would be familiar with RC theology that Peter would be the first Pope, is laughable. That's really what your implying here isn't it?
Your right. You won't hear this outside of a Catholic Church, and for good reason. It doesn't line up with Scripture, and looks like a lot of nonsense.
DHK

poikilotherm · Dec 12, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Pauline:
Helen,
If you're going to make conversion of heart and mind and life the criteria for being a Christian, then Catholics are in the lead. Because one thing we teach and live is on-going conversion. And yes, I belong totally to Jesus and He has changed me drasticly. I still have far to go but many of the old sins have fallen away because of Him. Both my husband and I have experienced this and our marriage of nearly 49 years gets better and better because of His grace in our lives.

I'm interested in what you know about the Inquisitions. Can you give me some details?
Pauline<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suspect it is the usual anti-Catholic stuff. Church bad, freedom struggling heretics good etc. What she fails to point out is that from (say) a Jewish point of view, Protestants aren't much, if any better. Luther (the originator of Sola Scriptura?) stands out as quite the example.

I recall one Protestant, often prominent on discussion boards, who claimed that not only were Jews a genetic race, but that the treatment of Jews by Nazis and Cossacks was evidence of their racial status. The sad thing is that I don't thnk the person was an anti-Semite, but simply tolerated, fostered and attempted to bolster with a weird combination of science (!) and religion the notion of Jews as a genetic race. Not only is such a view untenable Biblically (viz. Ruth) but it often gives rise to more fringe views on race (e.g. the KKK, and the notions of religious Apartheid under the Dutch Reformed Church). I'm not saying that these ideas are intrinsic to Christianity, or even in specific Protestantism, but if the morality of the Catholic Church must be condemned by some of its historical fruits, then Sola Scriptura should stand in line for a helping of the same.

Chemnitz · Dec 12, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I recall one Protestant, often prominent on discussion boards, who claimed that not only were Jews a genetic race, but that the treatment of Jews by Nazis and Cossacks was evidence of their racial status <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This used to be true, but after centuries of invasions and being scattered to the four corners there is not a distinct Jewish race.

ONENESS · Dec 12, 2001

I just read the first couple of posts, and wanted to comment on something. So if it as already been stated then just over look what i say.

Helen I assume that you are catholic. So i want to point out what you said earlier.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>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 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your points are great. They really are, but I am just cofused as of why you guys do not adhear to what the"Rock" Preaches.

ACTS 2:38
AND 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

pleas comment

poikilotherm · Dec 12, 2001

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

This used to be true, but after centuries of invasions and being scattered to the four corners there is not a distinct Jewish race.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I doubt it was ever true. Again, recall that Ruth was a progenitor of David, and Ruth was not a Jew though she was a Moabite and thus descended from Lot). In brief, conversion to Judaism is an old practice that dates to before the Diaspora: the fact that converts (like Ruth) are Jews pretty much blows the notion of Jews being a race out of the water. Also, if you look at the y chromosome haplotype frequencies of Jews, it very much falls into the same distribution as native Arabs in Israel and surrounding regions. There is simply no evidence, and abundant evidence to the contrary that Jews form a genetic race. Yet still you will the notion propagated, like an invidious virus. Sad really, especially given the history that the misconception has behind it.

Pauline · Dec 12, 2001

Helen,
Some of your comments really interest me. If Catholics do something that pagans are known to have done -- then the Catholic is taking on paganism. Is this correct from your view?

But if you take on something that pagans are known to have done -- then you are not taking on paganism. Isn't this how you're explaining it? Wearing a ring was a pagan practice but when you wear one, it's no longer pagan. Right?

So please, explain to me -- how do you know that Lent is a pagan practice for me? Can you describe for me what we do during Lent? And what it means to us? Or for that matter, for any or all Catholics? And please, tell me how you define and recognize what is pagan? What are the marks of paganism?

Have you ever heard of the early Christian
belief that Jesus Christ is the Light, the Sun, of the world? They even believed that when He returns, He will come from the East.
Therefore, to them, to worship Christ on the day of the Sun meant recognition of Him as the Light, the Sun, of this world. It was not a caving in to paganism.

If I start a thread on the Inquisiton(s), will you post your information on it (them)?

I'm looking forward to your reply.
Pauline

Pauline · Dec 12, 2001

poikilotherm,
Sounds to me like you might add some interesting observations to a thread on the Inquisition.

"the": Hey, I cannot call anyone :the Everlasting Father. But I do want to respond to your post. I'm wondering why you think we don't obey Ac 2,38. Why do you think that we don't repent? Aren't baptized? Haven't received the Holy Spirit? I would say to you that I have repented, been baptized and have received the Holy spirit. So why do you seem to think otherwise?
Pauline

Carson Weber · Dec 12, 2001

Hi Helen,

You seem to have this idea that our doctrine of Petrine primacy is built upon the character of Peter as if we require a stronghearted, brave, valiant man. Well, I'm going to let you in on a little secret.

God takes our pitfalls, our sin, our weaknesses.. and turns them into his glory. Paul was such a great Apostle precisely because Saul was such a great sinner.

I believe in the institution of the papacy because the Bible testifies to it. I hope you understand that I would run from the Catholic Church if she wasn't the New Covenant Family of God. I would be like those millions of ex-Catholics that have left the Church out of non-Catholic Protestant proselytism if I wasn't ardently familiar with covenant theology and what Scripture teaches.

If you are familiar with the Davidic Kingdom, you will recognize that the New and Everlasting Covenant is an extension of the Davidic Covenant; Christ is the last of a long line of messiahs who fulfills the Davidic Kingdom-Covenant begun by Solomon.

King David was the King of Davidic Dynasty and Jesus is the King of the Eternal Dynasty.

King David had many cabinet members (ministers) to run the affairs of the Kingdom, and the highest of these ministers was the Prime Minister, whose authority was designated by the handing on of the "keys of the kingdom."

The Prime Minister handled the affairs of the King while the King was away.

Jesus, as our Eternal King, gave Peter the keys of the kingdom as his Prime Minister to handle the Church on Earth, and this position entails a succession just as the Prime Minister of the Davidic Kingdom did.

The Old Testament parallel to the New Testament account of Jesus giving the keys is found in Isaiah 22:20-22 where the corrupt Shebna (under the reign of Hezekiah, a Davidic King) is replaced with Eli'akim (KJV):

"And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open."

Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience, which was intimately familiar with the Old Testament and its implications. In addition to this, the overtones of the Davidic covenant are assumptions all throughout the New Testament. So, the imagery brought forth when Jesus addresses Peter tells the audience that the King is appointing his Prime Minister in Matthew 16:18-19 (KJV):

"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 shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

You said, "There is no human authority representing God." This idea of yours comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of how God has worked with his people throughout the history of the Old Testament, especially with the Davidic Covenant.

In addition to this, you may also recognize that Jesus is the New Solomon (Son of David). Solomon built God's house (Temple) on the 'eben shetiyah (stone of foundation), which is now located under the golden dome at the Muslim shrine atop the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Jesus, the New Solomon, builds his house upon a rock as well.

You also seem to have this notion that Catholics are afraid to read the Bible without a priest looking over his/her shoulder to guide him/her.

Well, I've got news for you. This isn't so. I read the Bible every day by myself without any commentary, and I know of many, many Catholics who do the same. "Catholic" does not equal "under authoritarian rule." It's precisely because we have the Church as our mother that we are given the freedom to read Scripture and be theologically liberal in many areas. The children of God have a beautiful freedom that far surpasses what you have thought of. It's precisely because we have a mother who is able to hand us autentically inspired books with the authority of Christ that we can read them at free will and come to the knowledge and love of our Saviour Jesus Christ through such reading of the Inspired Word. You have this same confidence, but you don't attribute it to the Bride of Christ. Instead, you attribute it to.. I don't know.. who do you attribute the canon of Scripture you have right now to? Anyone in particular?

You're obviously not that familiar with the Davidic Covenant, so I encourage you to study up on it a little bit more and let me know what you think about the OT/NT parallels.

I just finished my Old Testament final exam in Dr. Scott Hahn's ( http://www.scotthahn.com ) Principles of Biblical Studies I: Old Testament class, and I am thankful beyond comparison for the wisdom and insight of this former anti-Catholic Protestant Scripture Scholar. He's taught me exegetical skills that I will be able to share with all people: Catholic, Protestant, non-Christian.. for a long time to come.

God bless you,

Carson

[ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

ONENESS · Dec 12, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>poikilotherm,
Sounds to me like you might add some interesting observations to a thread on the Inquisition.
"the": Hey, I cannot call anyone :the Everlasting Father. But I do want to respond to your post. I'm wondering why you think we don't obey Ac 2,38. Why do you think that we don't repent? Aren't baptized? Haven't received the Holy Spirit? I would say to you that I have repented, been baptized and have received the Holy spirit. So why do you seem to think otherwise?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont want to judge you but let me say this. I firmly believe that one must do just as Peter said,

We all agree on Repenting and what it is and how we do it.

But the baptisim is where we differ. I believe one must be buried in water in the NAME OF JESUS .

And I know that when someone receives the Holy Ghost they will speak in tongues. Just as everyone else in the book of acts.

And I knwo that most Catholics and other rhelms of religion do not belive that.

I am not saying that you are wrong b.c it is not my place but i am saying that I believe a certain way and I stand on that.

God bless
Brian

DHK · Dec 12, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Carson Weber:
If you are familiar with the Davidic Kingdom, you will recognize that the New and Everlasting Covenant is an extension of the Davidic Covenant; Christ is the last of a long line of messiahs who fulfills the Davidic Kingdom-Covenant begun by Solomon.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I already adressed your Davidic Kingdom/Catholic myth. What you just said is one of the gravest errors or heresies that I have ever heard. "Christ is the last of a long line of messiahs who fulfills the Davidic Kingdom..." Christ is the Messiah. He is the Lamb of God, slain before the foundation of the earth. He is the Rock. He is our only Saviour. Beside Him there is none other. How many gods do you believe in?
DHK

Carson Weber · Dec 12, 2001

Hi DHK,

I understand that my statement sounds out of order, but that's only if you do not understand what the Davidic Kingdom-Covenant entailed. The David Kings were all messiahs (sounds like "mahsheahk" in Hebrew), which means "anointed one" (Christos in Greek). Each Davidic King was anointed, which is what messiah means.

2 Sam 5:17 - "When the Philistines heard that David had been anointed king over Israel"

However, the Davidic Kings only partially fulfilled the Davidic Covenant made with David in 2 Samuel 7.

"And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever." (2 Sam 7:14)

The Davidic throne was left empty for 6 centuries, so we know that a partial-fulfillment means a partial-non-fulfillment. Only Jesus fulfills the covenant completely, but that doesn't mean that there weren't other messiahs before him.

Please don't be so rash in your judgement.

God bless,

Carson

poikilotherm · Dec 12, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by DHK:

I already adressed your Davidic Kingdom/Catholic myth. What you just said is one of the gravest errors or heresies that I have ever heard. "Christ is the last of a long line of messiahs who fulfills the Davidic Kingdom..." Christ is the Messiah. He is the Lamb of God, slain before the foundation of the earth. He is the Rock. He is our only Saviour. Beside Him there is none other. How many gods do you believe in?
DHK<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Point of information: The Hebrew word for "messiah" in no way necessarily implies divinity, nor even Davidic descent. It simply means a ruler that G-d has appointed for accomplishing his purpose. Note that Cyrus of Persia is also called the annointed (l'mashiachu).

Hi ho
poikilotherm

Pauline · Dec 12, 2001

"the" Brian,
We still need some better way to distinguish you from the other Brian.

Are you United Pentecostal. I've had two friends who were.

You're correct. I view Baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit very different from you.
Pauline

DHK · Dec 13, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Carson Weber:

I understand that my statement sounds out of order, but that's only if you do not understand what the Davidic Kingdom-Covenant entailed. The David Kings were all messiahs (sounds like "mahsheahk" in Hebrew), which means "anointed one" (Christos in Greek). Each Davidic King was anointed, which is what messiah means.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand what you are trying to say, Carson. Each king in the line of David was "anointed" as king. But that did not make them a messiah, even if the word means "anointed one." As far back as Adam and Eve, in Gen.3:15, they began to look for a Messiah, a Redeemer, a Deliverer, One was to come and redeem them from their sin. Genesis 3:15 is properly called the first "Messianic Promise." The Jews for a long time had been looking for the Messiah. When He finally came, they rejected Him. "When he came to his own, his own received him not." But when Andrew went to Simon, he said come and see, we have found the Messiah. He along with a few other faithful Jews, not only were expecting the Messiah, but accepted Him when He came. But He did not come to rule at that time. He will come at His second Coming and set up His Millennial Kingdom, where we, as believers in Christ, will rule with Him. Then will He fullfill the Davidic prophecy and occupy the throne of David. And His kingdom shall be forever.

DHK

ONENESS · Dec 13, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>"the" Brian,
We still need some better way to distinguish you from the other Brian.
Are you United Pentecostal. I've had two friends who were.

You're correct. I view Baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit very different from you.
Pauline
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cool you noticed. LOL. Yea I sure am. Where are you from?

Carson Weber · Dec 13, 2001

Hi DHK,

You wrote, "But that did not make them a messiah, even if the word means "anointed one.""

You shouldn't limit your scope. The Old Testament is full of what we call compenetration, which means that prophecies are partially fulfilled and then later fully fulfilled.

Of course, Jesus is the Messiah; I'm a Catholic, you must remember this.. my theology is not going to stray from my faith, which is the rock from which the rest of my theology, like water, flows. I've read the New Testament, so you must see that I understand the anticipation of the children of Judah and others in the diaspora in the days of Roman rule over all of Judah, Samaria, and Galilee.

When I say that Jesus is the last of a long line of messiahs, I'm saying that there are other messiahs and that he is the one messiah that fully fits the job description, but this does not make the title of l'mashiachu restricted to Jesus as poikilotherm pointed out above.

You wrote, "But He did not come to rule at that time. He will come at His second Coming and set up His Millennial Kingdom, where we, as believers in Christ, will rule with Him. Then will He fullfill the Davidic prophecy and occupy the throne of David. And His kingdom shall be forever."

I'm an amillenialist, so I believe that God's Kingdom and his thousand year (which is symbolic) reign is occurring right now. The Church is the Kingdom over which Jesus rules as the Davidic King/Messiah with the Church Triumphant in heaven while the seed of this Kingdom on Earth is still growing into its fullness with the Church Militant on Earth. The Kingdom will be brought into its consummation at the Second Coming, when the person and face of the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, will truly be revealed to us.

God bless,

Carson

DHK

Who is the Rock?

WPutnam <img src =/2122.jpg>

WPutnam <img src =/2122.jpg>

Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

Pauline New Member

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

poikilotherm New Member

Chemnitz New Member

ONENESS New Member

poikilotherm New Member

Pauline New Member

Pauline New Member

Carson Weber <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

ONENESS New Member

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

Carson Weber <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

poikilotherm New Member

Pauline New Member

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

ONENESS New Member

Carson Weber <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

Useful Searches

Who is the Rock?

WPutnam <img src =/2122.jpg>

WPutnam <img src =/2122.jpg>

Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

Pauline New Member

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

poikilotherm New Member

Chemnitz New Member

ONENESS New Member

poikilotherm New Member

Pauline New Member

Pauline New Member

Carson Weber <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

ONENESS New Member

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

Carson Weber <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

poikilotherm New Member

Pauline New Member

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

ONENESS New Member

Carson Weber <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">