The Catholic Church can't be THE Church because...

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes, I need a step/step direction for quoting.

Back to history class: Constantine the Great, 4th century Czar of Rome, born to pagan parents, died a pagan, says he has a divine vision. He favors a religious group some call Christian. He moves his government and religion to Constantinople (Istanbul, Turkey today) in his lifetime. Now we have East and West. What was this relationship in the next 700 years? Are we saying the big schism did not occur until 1054? What was the substance of this schism?

I visited, circa 1975 A.D., an Eastern Orthodox meeting house in Antokya, Turkey, near the birthplace of Saul of Tarsus. The only difference I noted between East and West was more icons and bones of dead men--in the East--it certainly was an awesome sight. What this has to do with true, undefiled religion is not readily apparent.

Selah,

Got to toil in the vineyard.

Selah,

Bro. James

Actually, this is not fact it is speculation that Constantine died a pagan. We know he was baptised by a follower of Arius. but that doesn't necissarily mean he didn't believe in Jesus. There are statements he made that seem contrary. It is speculation not fact.

 

[mrtumnus]

And yes, some monastic’s, especially on Mount Athos would say that the Patriarchate of Rome is usurped by heretics.

From what I have read of late, they are saying the same thing about their own EO Ecumenical Patriarch. It started when Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I and Pope Paul VI rescinded the 1054 mutual excommunications in the 1970s and continues today with their displeasure that the current Ecumenical Patriarch has actually prayed with the Pope, as praying with other Christians is viewed by them as heresy. Some of their letters are pretty scathing.

 

[mrtumnus]

Annsni, I'm curious where you got this information because I have never heard of this. Everything I have read says the apocryphal books were written in and around Alexandria during the last two centuries B.C., and they were an integral part of the LXX.

Me too.

The thing that I always find interesting in these discussions....

All Christians accept the NT canon and that the Holy Spirit not only guided the writing of the inspired texts but also guided those in the 4th century who ultimately made the decisions regarding the inclusion or exclusion of individual texts.

These same councils are who determined the books included in the LXX were canonical as well. So are we to believe that the Holy Spirit guided them in truth in the canonization of the NT, but allowed them to err in the canonization of the OT?

It is true that these books were removed by the Jews from their canon in the 2nd century, at the same council I believe that denied the divinity of Christ. My understanding is that some of the Hebrew texts were not quite so transparent in regard to the prophecies surrounding Christ, and their option to revert to the Hebrew texts was part of the of their attempt to discredit Christianity.

At any rate, why would one accept the decision of a Jewish council that denies the divinity of Christ in terms of what is canonical in the OT as opposed to the Christian council they believe correctly canonized the NT?

 

[Bro. James]

Actually, this is not fact it is speculation that Constantine died a pagan. We know he was baptised by a follower of Arius. but that doesn't necissarily mean he didn't believe in Jesus. There are statements he made that seem contrary. It is speculation not fact.

Are we saying our arguments are based on speculation? That certainly seems a strange way to describe the Church that Jesus is building. By the way, it can be shown that some pagans have a baptismal rite. This is the problem I have with East and West--they are riddled with paganistic practices--the traditions, with such practices condoned by the "holy fathers". There is something rotten in Rome and Constantinople.

There is a scriptural baptism.

Back to work,

Shalom,

Bro. James

 

[Bro. James]

From what I have read of late, they are saying the same thing about their own EO Ecumenical Patriarch. It started when Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I and Pope Paul VI rescinded the 1054 mutual excommunications in the 1970s and continues today with their outrage that the current Ecumenical Patriarch has actually prayed with the Pope, as praying with other Christians is viewed by them as heresy. Some of their letters are pretty scathing.

Mutual excommunications--sounds a lot like the exploits of Henry VIII and the Archbishop of Canterbury. The head of the monarchy is still a pope/queen mother.

Where does all of this fit in terms of Mt.16:16 and 28:20? All of these guys cannot be right. They could all be wrong.
By whose authority are these things done? If the originator of all of this is a usurper, anything born from it is usurped.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Agnus_Dei]

From what I have read of late, they are saying the same thing about their own EO Ecumenical Patriarch. It started when Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I and Pope Paul VI rescinded the 1054 mutual excommunications in the 1970s and continues today with their displeasure that the current Ecumenical Patriarch has actually prayed with the Pope, as praying with other Christians is viewed by them as heresy. Some of their letters are pretty scathing.

Yep, many are still smarting from the sting of what transpired as the Latin Crusaders were on their way to Jerusalem, and you’d be hard press to find one Roman Catholic Parish in all of Greece.

Make no mistake though, we and the Orthodox East owe a lot to the Latin West and her Knights, if it weren’t for them, Europe would have been swept away by Islam and you can’t really blame the Bishop of Rome either. He had to recruit who he could to fight, but again, many high ranking authorities in the Roman Church didn’t like the Greeks and the same goes for the Greeks towards the Latin’s and bad Blood still exist.

On a side note: The Eastern Churches faired better under Moslem rule than they did under Latin rule, when they were liberated.

Personally, I don’t see the issue of “praying” together and yes, discussions need to be ongoing and I commend both for doing such, but you didn’t see a sharing in the Eucharist and you won’t.

My opinion is there will never be a total reconciliation. That would mean the West would have to recant many of their dogma’s that were developed after the spilt to become united with the other 4 Patriarchates and that’s not going to happen…too much pride is at stake.

In XC
-

 

[mrtumnus]

Mutual excommunications--sounds a lot like the exploits of Henry VIII and the Archbishop of Canterbury. The head of the monarchy is still a pope/queen mother.

Where does all of this fit in terms of Mt.16:16 and 28:20? All of these guys cannot be right. They could all be wrong.
By whose authority are these things done? If the originator of all of this is a usurper, anything born from it is usurped.

Selah,

Bro. James

From a Catholic perspective how it fits in the context of Matthew 16:19 is that Peter was separated frequently and often in Scripture from his initial meeting with Jesus when Christ gave him the name "Cephas" and it culminates here and in John 21. God does not rename individuals in Scripture without significant intent. Abraham from Abram, who became the father of Judaism. Israel from Jacob, who became the father of the 12 tribes and the nation of Israel. Cephas (rock) from Simon -- to become the rock upon which he would build his church.

Matthew 16:19 has many points. First, Peter receives a divine revelation directly from the Father. I am not aware of this occurring with any of the other apostles but could be wrong about that. Jesus then affirms the "renaming" that occurred at their first meeting that Peter is indeed 'rock' and he will build his church upon this rock. He then gave to Peter alone the "keys to the kingdom". This is a reference to Isaiah 22 which exemplifies the practice among the Jewish Kings (whose kingship is a foreshadowing of Christ) of a 'prime minister' who singularly holds the keys of the kingdom and is responsible for its management while the king is away.

Peter's role is affirmed throughout Scripture in many ways, but most particularly in noting that after the resurrection Christ appeared to Peter first and alone before he appeared to all of the apostles together, and in John 21 where he commissions Peter alone with the role of shepherd -- to feed and tend his sheep.

So in terms of authority -- we would say 'look for the keys' that are maintained in what was given Peter and his successors to act in the role of chief shepherd while the king is away.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Are we saying our arguments are based on speculation? That certainly seems a strange way to describe the Church that Jesus is building. By the way, it can be shown that some pagans have a baptismal rite. This is the problem I have with East and West--they are riddled with paganistic practices--the traditions, with such practices condoned by the "holy fathers". There is something rotten in Rome and Constantinople.

There is a scriptural baptism.

Back to work,

Shalom,

Bro. James

If your argument is that Constantine was a pagan. Yes it is speculation. There are things that would make you think so however there are things that would make you think not. Especially if you actually read the writings from the 1st eccuminical council. I have read some of them. However, Constantine did not establish the Roman Catholic Church. He created a Forum, probably on the advice of his representative the Bishop of Cordoba, where the Bishops actually made the dission. A decision btw that was already in force from Antioch also Facilitated by the Bishop of Cordoba on his way to the emperor. The Emperor Actually just wanted the church to not argue about doctrine but resolve to agree. Alexander and Arius though were determined to press their own agenda and the other bishops at that time wanted to settle matters once and for all. They did with the forum Constantine started. The real sticky issue at the first eccumenical council was the celebration of the Pasch Rome and Alexandria celebrated it based on their own calculations and many of the eastern churches did it the sunday after passover.

 

[mrtumnus]

Yep, many are still smarting from the sting of what transpired as the Latin Crusaders were on their way to Jerusalem, and you’d be hard press to find one Roman Catholic Parish in all of Greece.

Make no mistake though, we and the Orthodox East owe a lot to the Latin West and her Knights, if it weren’t for them, Europe would have been swept away by Islam and you can’t really blame the Bishop of Rome either. He had to recruit who he could to fight, but again, many high ranking authorities in the Roman Church didn’t like the Greeks and the same goes for the Greeks towards the Latin’s and bad Blood still exist.

On a side note: The Eastern Churches faired better under Moslem rule than they did under Latin rule, when they were liberated.

Personally, I don’t see the issue of “praying” together and yes, discussions need to be ongoing and I commend both for doing such, but you didn’t see a sharing in the Eucharist and you won’t.

My opinion is there will never be a total reconciliation. That would mean the West would have to recant many of their dogma’s that were developed after the spilt to become united with the other 4 Patriarchates and that’s not going to happen…too much pride is at stake.

In XC
-

I would be interested in some supporting documentation on your side note. As many Orthodox as I converse with it has never been expressed. My OO friend says that what few Orthodox are willing to admit is that their own disunity allowed them to be conquered by the Muslims. And their view regarding the 4 Patriarchates is quite different as well -- they have the direct lineage of Alexandria and Antioch -- Jerusalem and Constantinople were both added afterwards plus replacements for the original 2 out of 3, which are now the OO church.

I guess I am more of an optimist than you in that I believe the winds of the Holy Spirit are blowing and will blow over all pride. Lots of time, certainly. What we see as taking forever is not the perspective of God I think.

And in fairness to the Pope, it is a little harder to control things, especially in the time where travel took ages and communication was nonexistence for years even. The sacking of Constantinople was not authorized or sanctioned by the Pope; excommunications did occur. And I thankful you recognize that without the Crusades, Islam was rapidly taking over Europe. Christians living under Muslim rule were not allowed to practice their faith in many parts of the world. All of which still sounds strangely familiar.

 

[peterotto]

Catholics will say Grace has saved you and you can believe a natural result is works. Now it wasn't that hard now was it?

What must a person do to receive Grace from the Roman Catholic Church?


To receive Grace from the Roman Catholic Church, you first need to be a memeber, and particpate in the sacraments. The Roman Catholic Church dispenses Grace through it's sacraments. So to get it, one must perform faith plus works BEFORE they can receive the Grace it dispenses. Not only that, they must do so in a continuing basis. You can twist your words all you want, it does not change the fact one must do works to receive Grace from the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[peterotto]

are you a Roman Catholic?
I believe you are..

Sorry your wrong. When Paul spoke about the scriptures they were talking about the LXX because that was the one in use.

That maybe true, but what you fail to realize, the LXX version Paul used may not be the ones we have today. Each LXX version we have are different in some way. Some have books others do not.

Do you believe all the books in the LXX are Scripture? If so which LXX?

The Roman Catholic Church did not officially declare what was Scripture until the Council of Trent. This is just laughable.
They did not know what was Scripture for 1500 years. I guess the Holy Spirit was doing a poor job guiding the "ONE TRUE CHURCH".
And even then they still had it wrong. lol.

 

[DHK]

From a Catholic perspective how it fits in the context of Matthew 16:19 is that Peter was separated frequently and often in Scripture from his initial meeting with Jesus when Christ gave him the name "Cephas" and it culminates here and in John 21. God does not rename individuals in Scripture without significant intent. Abraham from Abram, who became the father of Judaism. Israel from Jacob, who became the father of the 12 tribes and the nation of Israel. Cephas (rock) from Simon -- to become the rock upon which he would build his church.

Most often he was called petros, meaning a lttles stone. That is the way that he was referred to in Mat.16:19. It was in contrast to petra, the actual word that Jesus used when he said "Thou art petros (Peter), and upon this petra (rock) will I build my church (ekklesia--assembly). Christ promised that He would build his church on a massive rock, that rock being Himself, the chief corner stone. Petr would be as a pebble, a small stoone in the building of it. It was a play on words. The petra (great rock) was a possible reference to Peter's testimony, but not Peter himself. The foundation is always Christ--consistently all throughout Scripture. The Bible does not contradict itself.

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

Matthew 16:19 has many points. First, Peter receives a divine revelation directly from the Father. I am not aware of this occurring with any of the other apostles but could be wrong about that.[/quote]
The Apostle Paul had more divine revelation given to him probably more than all the other apostles put together.
The Apostle John had more wonderful and awesome divine revelation, as he was transported right to heaven and was told to record those things that will shortly come to pass.
Peter received divine revelation when he saw a sheet coming down with all kinds of animals in it; and the vision was repeated three times. The Lord spoke to him in an audible voice.
The entire NT was written by the apostles or their close associates. They all received divine revelation. We hold in our hands the divine revelation of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit because the Apostles received it.

Jesus then affirms the "renaming" that occurred at their first meeting that Peter is indeed 'rock' and he will build his church upon this rock.

As explained he did no such thing. This is your false theology that you are reading into Scripture without doing much serious Bible study.

He then gave to Peter alone the "keys to the kingdom".

No he didn't. He gave the keys of the kingdom to all the apostles, not just Peter. The keys to the kingdom I also have. The keys to the kingdom is simply the gospel. Without the gospel you cannot enter the kingdom. What did Christ say:

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
--Being born again; that was the KEY to getting into the kingdom of God.

This is a reference to Isaiah 22 which exemplifies the practice among the Jewish Kings (whose kingship is a foreshadowing of Christ) of a 'prime minister' who singularly holds the keys of the kingdom and is responsible for its management while the king is away.

You are reading into Scripture things that are not there. You are trying in vain to push your own religion. It is not there.

Peter's role is affirmed throughout Scripture in many ways, but most particularly in noting that Christ appeared to Peter first and alone before he appeared to all of the apostles together, and in John 21 where he commissions Peter alone with the role of shepherd -- to feed and tend his sheep.

Ye so err not knowing the Sciptures, nor the power of God.
Jesus appeared to Mary Magdelene first of all.
He then appeared to the two on their way to Emmaus.
Just before he appeared to the twelve he was seen of Peter.
He then appeared to the twelve in the upper room when Thomas was present.
He then appeared again to them when Thomas was present.

Peter may have been the first to the empty tomb, but Peter was NOT the first one to see him. (1Cor.15:4,5)
--Get your facts straight.

So in terms of authority -- we would say 'look for the keys' that are maintained in what was given Peter and his successors to act in the role of chief shepherd while the king is away.

There were no special keys given to Peter that were not given to the other apostles.
There was no succession. It is not taught in the Bible.
Every pastor is a shepherd. That is what the word pastor means. It has nothing to do with being a king. In fact it is an abuse of the word.

Your entire post is filled with misinformation, information that you have received from Catholic sources and seem to be somewhat indoctrinated by them.

 

[DHK]

And in fairness to the Pope, it is a little harder to control things, especially in the time where travel took ages and communication was nonexistence for years even. The sacking of Constantinople was not authorized or sanctioned by the Pope; excommunications did occur. And I thankful you recognize that without the Crusades, Islam was rapidly taking over Europe. Christians living under Muslim rule were not allowed to practice their faith in many parts of the world. All of which still sounds strangely familiar.

And this is an excuse to have a Crusade against the Albigenses, a God-fearing people, believers in the Lord, people who did nothing but mind their own business in serving God (rather than the Pope) as Baptists do today. The Crusades were to exterminate the Albigenses as well. Kind people they were back then weren't they? Monsters, yes! Christians, NO!

 

[mrtumnus]

Most often he was called petros, meaning a lttles stone. That is the way that he was referred to in Mat.16:19. It was in contrast to petra, the actual word that Jesus used when he said "Thou art petros (Peter), and upon this petra (rock) will I build my church (ekklesia--assembly). Christ promised that He would build his church on a massive rock, that rock being Himself, the chief corner stone. Petr would be as a pebble, a small stoone in the building of it. It was a play on words. The petra (great rock) was a possible reference to Peter's testimony, but not Peter himself. The foundation is always Christ--consistently all throughout Scripture. The Bible does not contradict itself.

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

In the Greek translation he is called Peter. However, viritually all scholars agree that Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek. The name he gave to Peter is Cephas, which does not mean 'little stone'. Cephas is actually preserved in the Greek translation in a couple of places.

The petra/petros is indeed part of the Greek translation. But since Christ named Peter 'Cephas' (and this does not mean 'little rock' in Aramaic), to use the diffentiation in this way is not consistent with the Aramaic language Christ would have used. It also fails to recognize that Greek is a romance language which assigns gender to nouns. The noun for rock (petra) is feminine. For the Greek writer of Scripture it would have been unthinkable to call the name Peter "Petra" as this is a woman's name.

There are quite a few Protestant Bible scholars who do not agree with you that this is a play on words, but that Christ really meant Peter is the rock. This does not contradict Christ being the chief cornerstone, anymore than God contradicted himself when he said that "he himself would look after his sheep" and then placed David over them as 'one shepherd, my servant David'.

What do you propose was the significance of the changing of Simon's name to Peter? Do you disagree that when God changes someone's name is it to signify something monumentous?

 

[mrtumnus]

No he didn't. He gave the keys of the kingdom to all the apostles, not just Peter. The keys to the kingdom I also have. The keys to the kingdom is simply the gospel. Without the gospel you cannot enter the kingdom. What did Christ say:

Sorry, but the Gospel records he gave the keys to Peter, not all the apostles.

17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Jesus does give the other apostles the authority to bind and loose after the resurrection but there are no mention of the 'keys'. They were given only to Peter.

To not recognize the significance of the keys in light of what the "keys of the kingdom" meant to those who see Jesus as the fulfillment of the Jewish kings neglects the role of the OT in foreshadowing the kingship of Christ. I've seen Protestant commentaries which also tie this back to Isaiah 22, where one steward receives the keys for the management of the kingdom.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I would be interested in some supporting documentation on your side note. As many Orthodox as I converse with it has never been expressed. My OO friend says that what few Orthodox are willing to admit is that their own disunity allowed them to be conquered by the Muslims. And their view regarding the 4 Patriarchates is quite different as well -- they have the direct lineage of Alexandria and Antioch -- Jerusalem and Constantinople were both added afterwards plus replacements for the original 2 out of 3, which are now the OO church.

Well, I think you are correct regarding one of those patriarchates--Alexandria. It is true that the original succession is basically found in the Coptic Church, while the Byzantine emperor set up a pro-Chalcedonian replacement. If I'm not mistaken, however, the reverse was the case in Antioch--the original succession more or less stayed in the Chalcedonian camp while there was an alternate Jacobite patriarchate set up later on in the 6th century. (But I'd be happy to see documentation to the contrary if I'm wrong)

 

[Doubting Thomas]

In the Greek translation he is called Peter. However, viritually all scholars agree that Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek. The name he gave to Peter is Cephas, which does not mean 'little stone'. Cephas is actually preserved in the Greek translation in a couple of places.

The petra/petros is indeed part of the Greek translation. But since Christ named Peter 'Cephas' (and this does not mean 'little rock' in Aramaic), to use the diffentiation in this way is not consistent with the Aramaic language Christ would have used.

And wasn't Matthew's Gospel originally written in Aramaic anyway?

It also fails to recognize that Greek is a romance language which assigns gender to nouns. The noun for rock (petra) is feminine. For the Greek writer of Scripture it would have been unthinkable to call the name Peter "Petra" as this is a woman's name.

Huh...good point, I haven't thought about it from that angle before.

There are quite a few Protestant Bible scholars who do not agree with you that this is a play on words, but that Christ really meant Peter is the rock.

I'm Anglican, but I don't have any particular problem believing that in Matthew 16, Christ was referring to building on Peter (though Church Fathers were divided--some thought the Rock was Peter; some, Peter's confession/faith; some, Christ; and some, more than one of the above), particularly since we know elsewhere that the Church is built on all of the Apostles (Eph 2:19-20; Rev 21:14)

 

[mrtumnus]

Ye so err not knowing the Sciptures, nor the power of God.
Jesus appeared to Mary Magdelene first of all.
He then appeared to the two on their way to Emmaus.
Just before he appeared to the twelve he was seen of Peter.
He then appeared to the twelve in the upper room when Thomas was present.
He then appeared again to them when Thomas was present.

Peter may have been the first to the empty tomb, but Peter was NOT the first one to see him. (1Cor.15:4,5)
--Get your facts straight.

.

My fact as stated is that Jesus appeared to Peter alone before he appeared to the other apostles as confirmed by Paul. This is one of the many separations of Peter from the other apostles which any honest scholar cannot ignore. Peter is mentioned more times in scripture than all the other apostles combined.

Peter is consistently listed first among the names of apostles.

Peter is the first to confess the divinity of Christ.

Peter alone is told he had come to understand the divinity of Christ by a special revelation from the Father.

Peter alone receives the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

Peter alone receives a new name – Rock, upon which Jesus says he will build his church.

Peter alone is told by Jesus to tend and feed his sheep. This is after Jesus has asked him if he loves him more than he does the disciples.

When the tax collector comes for Jesus’ taxes, he goes to Peter, not Jesus. Jesus tells Peter where to find a coin (mouth of a fish) and uses this single coin to pay the taxes of both Peter and Jesus.

Peter, no one else, many times speaks on behalf of the apostles.

At the least supper, Jesus prays only for Peter individually, and is told that when he has turned back (from denying Christ) he is to strengthen his brothers.

Peter alone is who Jesus holds accountable when he, James and John are sleeping in the garden.

In Luke’s Gospel none of the others believe the women that Jesus is risen. Peter alone goes to the tomb to see.

In John’s Gospel both Peter and John run to the tomb. John outruns Peter, but waits for Peter to allow him to enter the tomb first.

When the apostles see Jesus from the shore after the resurrection, only Jesus leaves the boat to run to the shore to meet him.

Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas.

Peter is the first to speak for the apostles and the first to preach the Gospel after Pentecost.

Peter works the first healing of the apostles.

Peter alone is shown in scripture where people are healed by his shadow.

Paul spent 15 days alone with Peter durig his ministry “Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother.”

Peter validates that the writings of Paul are correct.

Peter is often isolated from the rest of the apostles in scripture, unlike anyone else. Why is he specifically mentioned instead of just one of the apostles? Where else do you see another apostle mentioned like this? Examples:

When Mary Magdalene finds the empty tomb, the angels tells her to go tell Peter and the disciples.

Pauls asks “Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?

Paul says that “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.


Please pick another apostle and compile a similar list or where they are isolated in a similar fashion.

 

[DHK]

In the Greek translation he is called Peter. However, viritually all scholars agree that Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek. The name he gave to Peter is Cephas, which does not mean 'little stone'. Cephas is actually preserved in the Greek translation in a couple of places.

--"Virtually all scholars agree"? Hardly a chance! Very few of them in fact. Most of them either liberals or RCC.
Either way the NT is inspired in the Greek. It is the Greek one must work with. No other language is used in the NT except in rare occasions when John makes reference to some Hebrew phrases, but always gives the translation of them. The NT is written and inspired in Greek manuscripts of which we have over 5,000 extant copies today, none of which are Aramaic. God did not inspire Aramaic. It is only your opinion that he was speaking Aramaic. That can't even be proven as Greek was the universal language of the day. You are brain-washed by RCC theologians and have swallowed their lies hook, line and sinker. The common language of the day was Greek and not Aramaic, and thus the LXX, which was the Hebrew OT written in Greek not Aramaic. Your argument is against yourself. Peter means little stone.

The petra/petros is indeed part of the Greek translation. But since Christ named Peter 'Cephas' (and this does not mean 'little rock' in Aramaic), to use the diffentiation in this way is not consistent with the Aramaic language Christ would have used. It also fails to recognize that Greek is a romance language which assigns gender to nouns. The noun for rock (petra) is feminine. For the Greek writer of Scripture it would have been unthinkable to call the name Peter "Petra" as this is a woman's name.

The point is moot. Christ used petra/petros in Mat.16:18. There was no mention of Cephas in that text. One must go by what the text says. It was a play on words. But it was also a theological truth that Christ was teaching. Christ was the rock. It was on Christ alone that he would build his church, and on none other. If your church is built on Peter it is a pagan church.
There are quite a few Protestant Bible scholars who do not agree with you that this is a play on words, but that Christ really meant Peter is the rock.[/quote]
In the Greek he is not called a rock in comparison to the rock that Jesus refers to himself. He is not petra.

This does not contradict Christ being the chief cornerstone, anymore than God contradicted himself when he said that "he himself would look after his sheep" and then placed David over them as 'one shepherd, my servant David'.

But it does. Peter would be a shepherd, as Christ is the Chief Shepherd.
Peter would be a stone of the building, as Christ is the chief cornerstone.

What do you propose was the significance of the changing of Simon's name to Peter? Do you disagree that when God changes someone's name is it to signify something monumentous?

Because he would be one of the building blocks of the church. But he would not be that massive cornerstone as the word petra implies.
Jesus changed many of the apostles names.

 

[mrtumnus]

are you a Roman Catholic?
I believe you are..


That maybe true, but what you fail to realize, the LXX version Paul used may not be the ones we have today. Each LXX version we have are different in some way. Some have books others do not.

Do you believe all the books in the LXX are Scripture? If so which LXX?

The Roman Catholic Church did not officially declare what was Scripture until the Council of Trent. This is just laughable.
They did not know what was Scripture for 1500 years. I guess the Holy Spirit was doing a poor job guiding the "ONE TRUE CHURCH".
And even then they still had it wrong. lol.

The Catholic church affirmed the canon that had been in place since the 4th century and declared it 'closed' at the Council of Trent. If you research the 4th century councils you will see that the canon of Scripture defined there is the same one in use by the Catholic church today.

One might wonder how one could believe that the Bible only correcty came into existence 1500 years after Christ?