-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Who is the Rock?
- Thread starter Helen
- Start date
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi S. Baptist,
You wrote, "The "Church" could only be build on a "rock" that paid for their sins, Was that Peter or Jesus???"
Where does Scripture say that the Church can only be built on a rock that pays for man's sin? I've read the New Testament, and I don't recall that passage.
I do recall Jesus telling Peter that he was going to build his Church on "this Rock", who is Peter according to Protestant Scripture scholars and the logical outcome of a thorough knowledge of the Davidic Kingdom.
God bless,
Carson
[ December 10, 2001: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
You wrote, "The "Church" could only be build on a "rock" that paid for their sins, Was that Peter or Jesus???"
Where does Scripture say that the Church can only be built on a rock that pays for man's sin? I've read the New Testament, and I don't recall that passage.
I do recall Jesus telling Peter that he was going to build his Church on "this Rock", who is Peter according to Protestant Scripture scholars and the logical outcome of a thorough knowledge of the Davidic Kingdom.
God bless,
Carson
[ December 10, 2001: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi S. Baptist,
You wrote, "The "Church" could only be build on a "rock" that paid for their sins, Was that Peter or Jesus???"
Where does Scripture say that the Church can only be built on a rock that pays for man's sin? I've read the New Testament, and I don't recall that passage.
I do recall Jesus telling Peter that he was going to build his Church on "this Rock", who is Peter according to Protestant Scripture scholars and the logical outcome of a thorough knowledge of the Davidic Kingdom.[ December 10, 2001: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I fight this all the time, Carson. "Rock" is the perfect metaphor of some atribute, such as stength, unchangeability, steadfastness, unchanging, strong, etc., anc certainly Christ was all of that.
Therefore, others have to ponder why Christ would use that same metaphoric reference to a mere human in Simon, now Peter (Rock, Kepha, you name it.)
When one uses a metaphor to describe one individual, does not mean that you cannot use the same metaphor on another.
Jesus changed Simon's name to "Rock!!!"
There is no getting around it! And at the same time, had the audacity to actually build His church upon him (Peter, who else?)
A mere human, who later on in the same chapter, Jesus says to him, "get behind me, Satan" and what is worse, Peter denied him three times!
Yet, can you imagine the total humility of Peter when Christ addressed him in John 21:15-17? "Feed my sheep."
Can you imagine the tears that must have come into Peter's eyes as Christ told him that?
Sorry, Carson, I'm "preaching to the choir," but others should consider this as they read what I say here...
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!
Hi S. Baptist,
You wrote, "The "Church" could only be build on a "rock" that paid for their sins, Was that Peter or Jesus???"
Where does Scripture say that the Church can only be built on a rock that pays for man's sin? I've read the New Testament, and I don't recall that passage.
I do recall Jesus telling Peter that he was going to build his Church on "this Rock", who is Peter according to Protestant Scripture scholars and the logical outcome of a thorough knowledge of the Davidic Kingdom.[ December 10, 2001: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I fight this all the time, Carson. "Rock" is the perfect metaphor of some atribute, such as stength, unchangeability, steadfastness, unchanging, strong, etc., anc certainly Christ was all of that.
Therefore, others have to ponder why Christ would use that same metaphoric reference to a mere human in Simon, now Peter (Rock, Kepha, you name it.)
When one uses a metaphor to describe one individual, does not mean that you cannot use the same metaphor on another.
Jesus changed Simon's name to "Rock!!!"
There is no getting around it! And at the same time, had the audacity to actually build His church upon him (Peter, who else?)
A mere human, who later on in the same chapter, Jesus says to him, "get behind me, Satan" and what is worse, Peter denied him three times!
Yet, can you imagine the total humility of Peter when Christ addressed him in John 21:15-17? "Feed my sheep."
Can you imagine the tears that must have come into Peter's eyes as Christ told him that?
Sorry, Carson, I'm "preaching to the choir," but others should consider this as they read what I say here...
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!
Some response to several posts: I am in italics.
snip early sarcasm
"born again", comes from Jesus' words to Nicodemus when he spoke of baptism.
Jesus was not talking about baptism in John 3. He was talking about a spiritual rebirth that takes place spiritually. It has nothing to do with any physical rite. Jesus explained Himself very clearly when, in the very next line, He says that 'flesh gives birth to flesh.' That is the water birth of the line before it. "Spirit gives birth to spirit" is being born of the Spirit. Verse 6, in typical Hebrew manner, is the parallel of verse 5. This was a very common method of teaching and you will find it is one of the primary devices used in Hebrew poetry as well. Jesus was quite clear in His explanation.
In the long run (referring to Justin), it matters far more what Jesus taught than what any human says about what He taught. And His words are very clear.
You [Helen] 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.
And believe in the Catholic church, and accept the infallibility of the Pope, and….
No 'ands' are in the Bible. Nor, and I notice you ignored my reference to Romans 7:7-11, it is not necessary for a child to be baptized. Baptism is an act of obedience after salvation, not of salvation. Paul actually makes this very clear in Romans 8:8-9. Verse 8 states that if one is controlled by the sinful nature (which all are before salvation, see Genesis 8:21), there is nothing that person can do to please God. This is an echo of Isaiah:64:6. That means if an unsaved person is baptized, it means nothing to God. In verse 9, Paul states that those who are controlled by the Spirit are not controlled by the sinful nature, and that all who belong to Christ have the Holy Spirit. That means they are saved. So baptism certainly did not save them! They couldn't get baptized and have it mean anything before rebirth in the Spirit and once the Holy Spirit was in them, they certainly did not need to be baptized to be saved, as they were saved already! Baptism in water is simply an obedience and a symbol of dying in Christ. Nothing more, but, certainly, nothing less.
You see Helen, as Christians, we believe in this thing called Original Sin because we believe in the Word of God.
I don't care how snide you get, Carson. You will find that Paul, in Romans 7, says that without the law sin is dead. Yes the sin nature is there, but the person is not separated from God by it because no volitional sin has yet been committed by a baby. A baby does not know the law. And without the law, sin does not have the power to kill spiritually, or separate a person from God. Paul says that once he was alive apart from the law. Now, unless you believe in reincarnation, that means he was spiritually alive once in THIS LIFE. "Apart from the law" means he did not know the law. He explains that very clearly using covetousness as an example. Read the passage. A person cannot be born again until he has died spiritually (notice that Genesis 8:21 refers to childhood, not babyhood!) and no baby and no person incapable of understanding the law CAN die spiritually. This does not mean they do not have a sin nature; it means God does not hold them responsible for it, for they cannot control it. Are they then covered by Christ? Absolutely. In the Old Testament, in the Torah, you will find one of the sacrifices was for unintentional/unknown sins. In Hebrews you will find that Christ was the one sacrifice for all. No other sacrifice needed. Therefore He was/is also the sacrifice for unknown sins. That covers the babies. That covers sin nature which is unaware of the law, thus depriving sin of its power to kill spiritually. It's all there. Not in the commentaries, but clearly there right in the Bible.
You [Helen] 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.
However, I noticed that you prayed one of the creeds (essentially) in your baptismal renewal. One of the lines in it states that Christ is now seated at the right hand of the Father.
Therefore the bread and wine do NOT become his body and blood! He is NOT on this earth in ANY form. He is with the Father. You stated so yourself. It is the Holy Spirit who is here indwelling those who belong to Christ.
I wonder if you are really thinking about some of what you are saying…
Of course I pray the rosary! I love to meditate upon the life of my LORD and Saviour Jesus. Don't you?
Not nearly as much as I enjoy time spent with Him in prayer. Now, when you prayed the Rosary you were praying to Mary. I'll start a thread with a close look at the Rosary when I am done with this.
You're mistaken. Jesus didn't speak Greek. He spoke Aramaic and named Simon "Kepha."
Regardless of what language Jesus may or may not have spoken in, Matthew was an eyewitness, and he wrote in Greek. He makes a distinction between the two words, and this distinction holds up throughout the New Testament among all the writers - it is not 'confined' to poetry. That is why I looked up every instance of its use in the Bible for you and wrote them down in the last post! Nor is the word confused with 'lithos' by the NT writers, which I also pointed out. Christ is the Rock, and the only Rock. Peter, as Peter himself states, is simply a living stone like the rest of us who belong to Christ.
You [Helen] 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.
Manmade traditions? I was taking what Peter said in his letter and applying it to what Christ said. That is not a manmade tradition.
You want manmade traditions? That is what the RC church is built on! The immaculage conception of Mary, the infallibility of the Pope, -- the list is pretty long.
You [Helen] 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.
I was referring to Acts and Romans. Acts was written BY a Gentile and Romans was written TO them. And yet nowhere in either - where any Old Testament covenant would not be expected to be known - is there mention of the special status of Peter. On the contrary, he is simply one of the Apostles. And if the Davidic covenant is so important, why do we see nothing of it in the letter to the Hebrews? There is nowhere, in short, in any of the explanatory or correction writings of the New Testament ANYTHING which indicates that anyone in the early church would have agreed with the status the Roman Catholic church has given Peter.
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.
Let's see, I think I am the one using Scripture to explain my points. You have only used men and Catholic teachings. So your insult aside, I'll stick with the Bible, thanks.
from: WPutnam
Helen: See what you think: http://www.ldolphin.org/birth.html
I'll do that later after I write this,
So did you read it?
but I have two theories as why we celeberate on Dec 25th:
I'll wait until after you have read the actual research, OK? Let me know what you think of that article. It is not "Protestant." It is pretty solid research by someone who has studied in the related fields.
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!
The honest truth is that few things make me angrier than that sort of propagation of what John McArthur rightly called 'cheap grace.' Magic words and emotions have nothing to do with being born again. How does one know that one has a new heart? Because EVERYTHING in your personality has ended up changing! And you keep changing, because, as Paul wrote in Philippians 1:6, God is faithful to complete the work he has started in you. When I look back on my 'before', there is no comparison. I am stunned with what God has done.
And yes, I know you were disheartened by what happened after an emotional experience and some magic words. That is because nothing had changed. And nothing will change, no matter what words a priest says or how many rites you partake in or anything else, until it's just you and God and your heart bows down in total shame and you ask Him to take you and make you HIS. You don't need special words. You don't need any rites. You need to allow Him to put you to death and give you a new life. And you will know it when it happens. Some people get an immediate knowledge. I didn't. But as the weeks went on and I saw what was happening to me and my new hunger for the Bible (man does not live by bread alone….), I realized God had accepted me and made me His and that I had a new life in Him. In other words, being born again is not always connected with a feeling. But it sure is real.
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.
Theoretically that's true, but you will notice if you read the first post in this thread that God says clearly and plainly that HE is the ONLY Rock! So that is NOT a name that would be given someone else.
Please keep in mind as well that Matthew quoted Jesus. Matthew wrote in Greek. It is very possible that Jesus used those precise Greek words when speaking to Peter and the disciples, and that that is why they understood immediately what Jesus was saying, rather than misunderstanding about the term used. Peter certainly understood as we can see from the second chapter of his first epistle.
Not a physical church?
No, not at all. His Kingdom is NOT of this world. And His Church is most certainly part of His Kingdom, for the Church is His bride.
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!
Take a closer look, please.
1. Jesus' church is built upon HIMSELF as the chief cornerstone. The Apostles together are the foundation, as we are being built up like living stones. But Peter is not any more special than any other Apostle. He knew that. They knew that.
2. The keys of the kingdom are the gospel message, and Peter presented it so powerfully on Pentecost! The key to something is what helps you understand it, not what shuts you out of something. Only God can judge the heart of a man. Peter never had authority to do that, although he, like others through time, have had the word from God about something God had decided, such as with Ananias and Sapphira. With Pentecost the kingdom doors were thrown wide open to all believers. This is how Peter used those 'keys'! He opened up the meaning of the Messiah and the crucifixion and the resurrection to all his people, and it was later carried to the whole world.
3. If you look at the 'binding and loosing' in every place where it is used, you will never see it referring to binding or loosing people. That is the point I was trying to make. Yes, the Apostles - all of them - had special and privileged powers in the expression of the Holy Spirit in order to confirm their message. They could announce what God had bound and loosed, and they had that special insight, but the judgment of people was never Peter's or any of theirs. God, and God alone is the Judge of men.
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!
Peter is the one who had denied Christ, and Christ was restoring him. If you look at the words Peter uses with Christ in the Greek you will notice something striking. Watch:
John 21:15, Jesus says, "Simon, son of John (notice Christ did not call him Peter…
, do you truly love me (agapao) me more than these?"
Simon responds, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love (phileo) you."
The second time Jesus asks him, Jesus again uses the term 'agapeo', which is a reference to the most holy level of love, if you will - the love God has for man. Jesus is asking Simon if Simon Peter loved Him the way God loved Simon Peter. Both time Simon Peter responds with the word "phileo" instead, which is a reference to brotherly love, not holy love. Finally, on the third time, Jesus uses 'phileo' and Simon responds in kind with 'phileo.' It seems Peter had learned his lesson about sticking his foot in his mouth as squarely and completely as he had before. This is not, then, a 'commissioning' of Peter in the sense that the Roman Catholic church has taught, but rather a restoration of Peter to the body of Apostles after Peter's denial of Christ on the eve of the trial and before the crucifixion.
"Feed my sheep; feed my lambs" is what they were all commissioned to do - share the gospel. Tell the world about Jesus. Share the Word of God with a hungry world! It is still our commission as servants of Christ.
He says this to Peter only, and not to the others.
That is because Peter was the only one to verbally deny Him. And Peter denied Jesus three times. Thus there were three times the restoration question was asked.
Peter is in charge, and there is ample evidence of it in scripture...
Peter was certainly one of the main leaders in the church in Jerusalem, but evidently not elsewhere. Paul was the one who took the Gospel to the world outside of Judaism, and Paul was the one who publicly corrected Peter. Peter was a leader, but Christ was the authority.
Tell me what book I should read, please...
The Bible. All of it. No commentaries or marginal notes or anything. Just the text itself, cover to cover in 2002 (3-4 chapters a day does it easily). Only the 66 undisputed books, OK? Not anything in the Apocrypha. And please read the New King James, or the New International Version, or any of the modern conservative translations. Any of them will do. If you will promise me to read the entire thing, I will buy the book you have asked me to buy and read it, OK?
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".
It isn't my 'doctrine.' It is something I noticed reading the Bible this year. I try to read it cover to cover every year. I thought it was really interesting. It was the first time I had noticed the age references in that light.
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.
First of all, that was only for the Jewish, or Israelite people, as the people of God. It has nothing to do with sin, repentance, or salvation. Secondly, please consider God's words in Jeremiah 9:25-26: "The days are coming, " declares the Lord, "when I will punish all who are circumcised only in the flesh - Egypt, Judah, Edom, Ammon, Moab, and all who live in the desert in distant places. For all these nations are really uncircumcised, and even the whole house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart."
And then Paul says clearly to the church at Corinth that circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing (1 Cor. 7:19). He then says simply and clearly that keeping God's commands is what counts. And THAT takes us straight back to the law, knowledge of which brings sin the power to spiritually kill (Romans 7:7-11). I urge you to see if I have taken anything out of context or made up anything here. Circumcision in the flesh was only a sign of the covenant of the law. In Christ we are no longer under the law.
And, because God seems to understand that teenage brains are in the process of being re-wired (and actually, that is physiologically true!), He does not seem to hold them responsible for spiritual decisions before the age of 20. That, at least, is what it seems to indicate when one reads the books of Exodus - Deuteronomy.
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.
OK, I have a serious question here - this is not being asked flippantly, OK? How do we KNOW that the pagans did not get it from early believers? We can only go back so far, and what little research I am aware of often points to something that started off pure and then got corrupted - not something that started off pagan and then got co-opted.
from S. Baptist :
Maybe you should ask,
Which "Rock" was it that "died for their sins"??
The "Church" could only be build on a "rock" that paid for their sins, Was that Peter or Jesus???
1Co 10:4 and that Rock was Christ.
Amen, and thank you.
-----------
Edited to insert a word at Helen's request
[ December 10, 2001: Message edited by: Administrator ]
snip early sarcasm
"born again", comes from Jesus' words to Nicodemus when he spoke of baptism.
Jesus was not talking about baptism in John 3. He was talking about a spiritual rebirth that takes place spiritually. It has nothing to do with any physical rite. Jesus explained Himself very clearly when, in the very next line, He says that 'flesh gives birth to flesh.' That is the water birth of the line before it. "Spirit gives birth to spirit" is being born of the Spirit. Verse 6, in typical Hebrew manner, is the parallel of verse 5. This was a very common method of teaching and you will find it is one of the primary devices used in Hebrew poetry as well. Jesus was quite clear in His explanation.
In the long run (referring to Justin), it matters far more what Jesus taught than what any human says about what He taught. And His words are very clear.
You [Helen] 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.
And believe in the Catholic church, and accept the infallibility of the Pope, and….
No 'ands' are in the Bible. Nor, and I notice you ignored my reference to Romans 7:7-11, it is not necessary for a child to be baptized. Baptism is an act of obedience after salvation, not of salvation. Paul actually makes this very clear in Romans 8:8-9. Verse 8 states that if one is controlled by the sinful nature (which all are before salvation, see Genesis 8:21), there is nothing that person can do to please God. This is an echo of Isaiah:64:6. That means if an unsaved person is baptized, it means nothing to God. In verse 9, Paul states that those who are controlled by the Spirit are not controlled by the sinful nature, and that all who belong to Christ have the Holy Spirit. That means they are saved. So baptism certainly did not save them! They couldn't get baptized and have it mean anything before rebirth in the Spirit and once the Holy Spirit was in them, they certainly did not need to be baptized to be saved, as they were saved already! Baptism in water is simply an obedience and a symbol of dying in Christ. Nothing more, but, certainly, nothing less.
You see Helen, as Christians, we believe in this thing called Original Sin because we believe in the Word of God.
I don't care how snide you get, Carson. You will find that Paul, in Romans 7, says that without the law sin is dead. Yes the sin nature is there, but the person is not separated from God by it because no volitional sin has yet been committed by a baby. A baby does not know the law. And without the law, sin does not have the power to kill spiritually, or separate a person from God. Paul says that once he was alive apart from the law. Now, unless you believe in reincarnation, that means he was spiritually alive once in THIS LIFE. "Apart from the law" means he did not know the law. He explains that very clearly using covetousness as an example. Read the passage. A person cannot be born again until he has died spiritually (notice that Genesis 8:21 refers to childhood, not babyhood!) and no baby and no person incapable of understanding the law CAN die spiritually. This does not mean they do not have a sin nature; it means God does not hold them responsible for it, for they cannot control it. Are they then covered by Christ? Absolutely. In the Old Testament, in the Torah, you will find one of the sacrifices was for unintentional/unknown sins. In Hebrews you will find that Christ was the one sacrifice for all. No other sacrifice needed. Therefore He was/is also the sacrifice for unknown sins. That covers the babies. That covers sin nature which is unaware of the law, thus depriving sin of its power to kill spiritually. It's all there. Not in the commentaries, but clearly there right in the Bible.
You [Helen] 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.
However, I noticed that you prayed one of the creeds (essentially) in your baptismal renewal. One of the lines in it states that Christ is now seated at the right hand of the Father.
Therefore the bread and wine do NOT become his body and blood! He is NOT on this earth in ANY form. He is with the Father. You stated so yourself. It is the Holy Spirit who is here indwelling those who belong to Christ.
I wonder if you are really thinking about some of what you are saying…
Of course I pray the rosary! I love to meditate upon the life of my LORD and Saviour Jesus. Don't you?
Not nearly as much as I enjoy time spent with Him in prayer. Now, when you prayed the Rosary you were praying to Mary. I'll start a thread with a close look at the Rosary when I am done with this.
You're mistaken. Jesus didn't speak Greek. He spoke Aramaic and named Simon "Kepha."
Regardless of what language Jesus may or may not have spoken in, Matthew was an eyewitness, and he wrote in Greek. He makes a distinction between the two words, and this distinction holds up throughout the New Testament among all the writers - it is not 'confined' to poetry. That is why I looked up every instance of its use in the Bible for you and wrote them down in the last post! Nor is the word confused with 'lithos' by the NT writers, which I also pointed out. Christ is the Rock, and the only Rock. Peter, as Peter himself states, is simply a living stone like the rest of us who belong to Christ.
You [Helen] 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.
Manmade traditions? I was taking what Peter said in his letter and applying it to what Christ said. That is not a manmade tradition.
You want manmade traditions? That is what the RC church is built on! The immaculage conception of Mary, the infallibility of the Pope, -- the list is pretty long.
You [Helen] 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.
I was referring to Acts and Romans. Acts was written BY a Gentile and Romans was written TO them. And yet nowhere in either - where any Old Testament covenant would not be expected to be known - is there mention of the special status of Peter. On the contrary, he is simply one of the Apostles. And if the Davidic covenant is so important, why do we see nothing of it in the letter to the Hebrews? There is nowhere, in short, in any of the explanatory or correction writings of the New Testament ANYTHING which indicates that anyone in the early church would have agreed with the status the Roman Catholic church has given Peter.
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.
Let's see, I think I am the one using Scripture to explain my points. You have only used men and Catholic teachings. So your insult aside, I'll stick with the Bible, thanks.
from: WPutnam
Helen: See what you think: http://www.ldolphin.org/birth.html
I'll do that later after I write this,
So did you read it?
but I have two theories as why we celeberate on Dec 25th:
I'll wait until after you have read the actual research, OK? Let me know what you think of that article. It is not "Protestant." It is pretty solid research by someone who has studied in the related fields.
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!
The honest truth is that few things make me angrier than that sort of propagation of what John McArthur rightly called 'cheap grace.' Magic words and emotions have nothing to do with being born again. How does one know that one has a new heart? Because EVERYTHING in your personality has ended up changing! And you keep changing, because, as Paul wrote in Philippians 1:6, God is faithful to complete the work he has started in you. When I look back on my 'before', there is no comparison. I am stunned with what God has done.
And yes, I know you were disheartened by what happened after an emotional experience and some magic words. That is because nothing had changed. And nothing will change, no matter what words a priest says or how many rites you partake in or anything else, until it's just you and God and your heart bows down in total shame and you ask Him to take you and make you HIS. You don't need special words. You don't need any rites. You need to allow Him to put you to death and give you a new life. And you will know it when it happens. Some people get an immediate knowledge. I didn't. But as the weeks went on and I saw what was happening to me and my new hunger for the Bible (man does not live by bread alone….), I realized God had accepted me and made me His and that I had a new life in Him. In other words, being born again is not always connected with a feeling. But it sure is real.
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.
Theoretically that's true, but you will notice if you read the first post in this thread that God says clearly and plainly that HE is the ONLY Rock! So that is NOT a name that would be given someone else.
Please keep in mind as well that Matthew quoted Jesus. Matthew wrote in Greek. It is very possible that Jesus used those precise Greek words when speaking to Peter and the disciples, and that that is why they understood immediately what Jesus was saying, rather than misunderstanding about the term used. Peter certainly understood as we can see from the second chapter of his first epistle.
Not a physical church?
No, not at all. His Kingdom is NOT of this world. And His Church is most certainly part of His Kingdom, for the Church is His bride.
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!
Take a closer look, please.
1. Jesus' church is built upon HIMSELF as the chief cornerstone. The Apostles together are the foundation, as we are being built up like living stones. But Peter is not any more special than any other Apostle. He knew that. They knew that.
2. The keys of the kingdom are the gospel message, and Peter presented it so powerfully on Pentecost! The key to something is what helps you understand it, not what shuts you out of something. Only God can judge the heart of a man. Peter never had authority to do that, although he, like others through time, have had the word from God about something God had decided, such as with Ananias and Sapphira. With Pentecost the kingdom doors were thrown wide open to all believers. This is how Peter used those 'keys'! He opened up the meaning of the Messiah and the crucifixion and the resurrection to all his people, and it was later carried to the whole world.
3. If you look at the 'binding and loosing' in every place where it is used, you will never see it referring to binding or loosing people. That is the point I was trying to make. Yes, the Apostles - all of them - had special and privileged powers in the expression of the Holy Spirit in order to confirm their message. They could announce what God had bound and loosed, and they had that special insight, but the judgment of people was never Peter's or any of theirs. God, and God alone is the Judge of men.
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!
Peter is the one who had denied Christ, and Christ was restoring him. If you look at the words Peter uses with Christ in the Greek you will notice something striking. Watch:
John 21:15, Jesus says, "Simon, son of John (notice Christ did not call him Peter…
, do you truly love me (agapao) me more than these?"Simon responds, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love (phileo) you."
The second time Jesus asks him, Jesus again uses the term 'agapeo', which is a reference to the most holy level of love, if you will - the love God has for man. Jesus is asking Simon if Simon Peter loved Him the way God loved Simon Peter. Both time Simon Peter responds with the word "phileo" instead, which is a reference to brotherly love, not holy love. Finally, on the third time, Jesus uses 'phileo' and Simon responds in kind with 'phileo.' It seems Peter had learned his lesson about sticking his foot in his mouth as squarely and completely as he had before. This is not, then, a 'commissioning' of Peter in the sense that the Roman Catholic church has taught, but rather a restoration of Peter to the body of Apostles after Peter's denial of Christ on the eve of the trial and before the crucifixion.
"Feed my sheep; feed my lambs" is what they were all commissioned to do - share the gospel. Tell the world about Jesus. Share the Word of God with a hungry world! It is still our commission as servants of Christ.
He says this to Peter only, and not to the others.
That is because Peter was the only one to verbally deny Him. And Peter denied Jesus three times. Thus there were three times the restoration question was asked.
Peter is in charge, and there is ample evidence of it in scripture...
Peter was certainly one of the main leaders in the church in Jerusalem, but evidently not elsewhere. Paul was the one who took the Gospel to the world outside of Judaism, and Paul was the one who publicly corrected Peter. Peter was a leader, but Christ was the authority.
Tell me what book I should read, please...
The Bible. All of it. No commentaries or marginal notes or anything. Just the text itself, cover to cover in 2002 (3-4 chapters a day does it easily). Only the 66 undisputed books, OK? Not anything in the Apocrypha. And please read the New King James, or the New International Version, or any of the modern conservative translations. Any of them will do. If you will promise me to read the entire thing, I will buy the book you have asked me to buy and read it, OK?
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".
It isn't my 'doctrine.' It is something I noticed reading the Bible this year. I try to read it cover to cover every year. I thought it was really interesting. It was the first time I had noticed the age references in that light.
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.
First of all, that was only for the Jewish, or Israelite people, as the people of God. It has nothing to do with sin, repentance, or salvation. Secondly, please consider God's words in Jeremiah 9:25-26: "The days are coming, " declares the Lord, "when I will punish all who are circumcised only in the flesh - Egypt, Judah, Edom, Ammon, Moab, and all who live in the desert in distant places. For all these nations are really uncircumcised, and even the whole house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart."
And then Paul says clearly to the church at Corinth that circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing (1 Cor. 7:19). He then says simply and clearly that keeping God's commands is what counts. And THAT takes us straight back to the law, knowledge of which brings sin the power to spiritually kill (Romans 7:7-11). I urge you to see if I have taken anything out of context or made up anything here. Circumcision in the flesh was only a sign of the covenant of the law. In Christ we are no longer under the law.
And, because God seems to understand that teenage brains are in the process of being re-wired (and actually, that is physiologically true!), He does not seem to hold them responsible for spiritual decisions before the age of 20. That, at least, is what it seems to indicate when one reads the books of Exodus - Deuteronomy.
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.
OK, I have a serious question here - this is not being asked flippantly, OK? How do we KNOW that the pagans did not get it from early believers? We can only go back so far, and what little research I am aware of often points to something that started off pure and then got corrupted - not something that started off pagan and then got co-opted.
from S. Baptist :
Maybe you should ask,
Which "Rock" was it that "died for their sins"??
The "Church" could only be build on a "rock" that paid for their sins, Was that Peter or Jesus???
1Co 10:4 and that Rock was Christ.
Amen, and thank you.
-----------
Edited to insert a word at Helen's request
[ December 10, 2001: Message edited by: Administrator ]
Hello all -
Assuming for a moment that the apostle Peter IS the rock to which Christ is referring in Matthew 16, where is the scriptural basis for this legacy being passed from man to man (or pope to pope if you prefer)after Peter passed away? The assertion being made here is that Christ himself appointed Peter the foundation so where then are the tenements for heirs to that appointment?
- Clint
By the way Helen, watching from the wings all along. Nice to have you down here in this forum.
Assuming for a moment that the apostle Peter IS the rock to which Christ is referring in Matthew 16, where is the scriptural basis for this legacy being passed from man to man (or pope to pope if you prefer)after Peter passed away? The assertion being made here is that Christ himself appointed Peter the foundation so where then are the tenements for heirs to that appointment?
- Clint
By the way Helen, watching from the wings all along. Nice to have you down here in this forum.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And then Paul says clearly to the church at Corinth that circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing (1 Cor. 7:19). He then says simply and clearly that keeping God's commands is what counts. And THAT takes us straight back to the law, knowledge of which brings sin the power to spiritually kill (Romans 7:7-11). I urge you to see if I have taken anything out of context or made up anything here. Circumcision in the flesh was only a sign of the covenant of the law. In Christ we are no longer under the law.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I strongly urge you to reread Matt 5:17-20. Plus, according to your reasoning God should have commanded that the circumsision occur at age 20. You missed my point, my point was that God does not recognize any age that once somebody exceeds such age they are now accountable. This idea that teenagers and children are incapable of deciding anything is societal mumbojumbo. You may also want to re-evalutate your faith cause it sounds to me like you don't think that God is all powerful by denying that the Holy Spirit can spark faith in an infant. Particularly when we already have Biblical evidence Lk 1:41. Obviously the Holy Spirit had created faith in the fetal John. He wasn't even born yet and he could believe.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I strongly urge you to reread Matt 5:17-20. Plus, according to your reasoning God should have commanded that the circumsision occur at age 20. You missed my point, my point was that God does not recognize any age that once somebody exceeds such age they are now accountable. This idea that teenagers and children are incapable of deciding anything is societal mumbojumbo. You may also want to re-evalutate your faith cause it sounds to me like you don't think that God is all powerful by denying that the Holy Spirit can spark faith in an infant. Particularly when we already have Biblical evidence Lk 1:41. Obviously the Holy Spirit had created faith in the fetal John. He wasn't even born yet and he could believe.
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Godmetal,
I read a study done by Cardinal Ratzinger back before he was the prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith entitled "The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood," and from what I can remember, agape is that love of Christians ordered towards the world and one another whereas philadelphia is love directed within the brotherhood of Christians.
God bless,
Carson
I read a study done by Cardinal Ratzinger back before he was the prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith entitled "The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood," and from what I can remember, agape is that love of Christians ordered towards the world and one another whereas philadelphia is love directed within the brotherhood of Christians.
God bless,
Carson
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Clint,
You asked, "Assuming for a moment that the apostle Peter IS the rock to which Christ is referring in Matthew 16, where is the scriptural basis for this legacy being passed from man to man (or pope to pope if you prefer)after Peter passed away? The assertion being made here is that Christ himself appointed Peter the foundation so where then are the tenements for heirs to that appointment?"
If you are familiar with the Davidic Kingdom, you will recognize that the New and Everlasting Covenant is an extension of the Davidic Covenant.
King David was the King of the International Kingdom/Family of God and Jesus is the Eternal King of the Eternal International Kingdom/Family (Household) of God.
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."
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 (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. 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."
This Biblical truth is to Catholic theologians like the ABC's are to an English major, yet you will not hear this outside of the Catholic Church because, well, this means that the Catholic Church is headed by Jesus' very own authority.
God bless,
Carson
You asked, "Assuming for a moment that the apostle Peter IS the rock to which Christ is referring in Matthew 16, where is the scriptural basis for this legacy being passed from man to man (or pope to pope if you prefer)after Peter passed away? The assertion being made here is that Christ himself appointed Peter the foundation so where then are the tenements for heirs to that appointment?"
If you are familiar with the Davidic Kingdom, you will recognize that the New and Everlasting Covenant is an extension of the Davidic Covenant.
King David was the King of the International Kingdom/Family of God and Jesus is the Eternal King of the Eternal International Kingdom/Family (Household) of God.
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."
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 (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. 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."
This Biblical truth is to Catholic theologians like the ABC's are to an English major, yet you will not hear this outside of the Catholic Church because, well, this means that the Catholic Church is headed by Jesus' very own authority.
God bless,
Carson
Helen replied:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>See what you think: http://www.ldolphin.org/birth.html[/quote]
And I previously replied: I'll do that later after I write this,
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So did you read it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Indeed I did, in fact, I printed it out for reference as I write this…
I previously said: but I have two theories as why we celeberate on Dec 25th:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'll wait until after you have read the actual research, OK? Let me know what you think of that article. It is not "Protestant." It is pretty solid research by someone who has studied in the related fields.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It was a very interesting article, seemingly well researched well beyond much of what I have read in the past. It concentrated mostly on what the Star of Bethlehem was, but does give a plausible case that the birth occurred in the fall. I recall reading that as well somewhere. I also see agreement as to why December 25th came to be the date Christ's birth is celebrated today.
But where are you going with this? As I recall in my previous one or two posts, I commented that December 25th fell on the old pagan celebration of Saturnalia. Was it you that asserted that the Catholic Church is encumbered with paganistic elements? This paper I read does not make such an assertion other then Dec. 25 does fall on the old pagan holiday. Is that one of the pagan elements, Helen? If not, provide some and we can discuss them.
The paper on the Christmas Star was interesting, but what were you trying to prove with it?
I previously said: 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!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The honest truth is that few things make me angrier than that sort of propagation of what John McArthur rightly called 'cheap grace.' Magic words and emotions have nothing to do with being born again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And here we can agree! Although at the time, I surely thought I was really saved. I saw nothing cheap about it at all!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> How does one know that one has a new heart? Because EVERYTHING in your personality has ended up changing! And you keep changing, because, as Paul wrote in Philippians 1:6, God is faithful to complete the work he has started in you. When I look back on my 'before', there is no comparison. I am stunned with what God has done.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's wonderful, Helen! I believe I had a similar feeling when I converted to Catholicism!
But now, what about this "new heart" we receive? Can it be soiled with further sin that will return us to a state even worse then before?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And yes, I know you were disheartened by what happened after an emotional experience and some magic words. That is because nothing had changed. And nothing will change, no matter what words a priest says or how many rites you partake in or anything else, until it's just you and God and your heart bows down in total shame and you ask Him to take you and make you HIS. You don't need special words. You don't need any rites. You need to allow Him to put you to death and give you a new life. And you will know it when it happens. Some people get an immediate knowledge. I didn't. But as the weeks went on and I saw what was happening to me and my new hunger for the Bible (man does not live by bread alone….), I realized God had accepted me and made me His and that I had a new life in Him. In other words, being born again is not always connected with a feeling. But it sure is real<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First of all, this initial experience was in the Church of the Nazarene, not in a Catholic Church. I was also baptized by a Methodist Navy Chaplain and when the validity of that baptism was doubted, when I came into the Catholic Faith, I was baptized "conditionally," but this gets into the salvific nature of baptism. Yet, when that was done in my conversion, I did feel exhilarated and right back upon cloud nine did I climb!
Now, what "magic words" do you think the Catholic priest (also a Navy chaplain) used in my case? As he baptized me, he said "(if you are not already baptized), then I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the holy Spirit" which is the formula Christ gave in Matthew 28:19.
The rest of your comments I can relate to, growing in my faith as time went on, stumbling here and there, a time or two, but I got up, brushed myself off and continued down the path started in that new Faith for me. And some of the old "feeling" remains, Helen, especially when I receive Jesus Christ at Mass in the holy Eucharist!
I previously said:
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 somewhere in scripture, does not mean Jesus cannot use the same metaphor on some one else.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Theoretically that's true, but you will notice if you read the first post in this thread that God says clearly and plainly that HE is the ONLY Rock! So that is NOT a name that would be given someone else.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do you agree that Christ is God? (The second person in the Holy Trinity.) If so, to take what you say here strictly is to have God violate His own declaration! Of course, Christ is the only rock in that it was from His Divine Son that salvation comes. Call God the Big Kahuna Rock if you wish, but the same metaphor of Rock is given to Simon now Peter. Also, "only Rock" is not a name we give to God. In fact, God does not say His name is Rock (that I know of.) But we are certain in Matthew 16:18 that Jesus does in fact change Simon's name to ROCK. We continue to call God, GOD (or I AM WHO AM) and His Divine Son, JESUS.
I can say all day long, "Jesus is the rock" or "God is the rock," or even "Helen is a rock" (as a compliment in your steadfastness, for example) but only Simon is actually renamed ROCK.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Please keep in mind as well that Matthew quoted Jesus. Matthew wrote in Greek. It is very possible that Jesus used those precise Greek words when speaking to Peter and the disciples, and that that is why they understood immediately what Jesus was saying, rather than misunderstanding about the term used. Peter certainly understood as we can see from the second chapter of his first epistle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is my understanding the some scholars believe Matthew originally wrote his gospel in Aramaic, and then later in Greek (no prove of it, only scholarly speculation) but that is really not the point. I am not a Greek scholar, most certainly not of Greek grammar, but a transliteration back to what Christ had to say, with actual words, were "You are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my church…" And when one were to write this in Greek, by the rules of Greek grammar, which has gender distinctions for ROCK, Matthew simply had to conform to those grammar rules and write "You are Petros (masculine) and upon this petra (feminine) I will build my church…"
A more complete analysis is given in the book:
JESUS, PETER & THE KEYS
by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, David Hess
ISBN: 1-882972-54-6
(I recommended this book a message or two back)
I previously said:
Not a physical church?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No, not at all. His Kingdom is NOT of this world. And His Church is most certainly part of His Kingdom, for the Church is His bride.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Helen, you are getting too mystical on me here, as it is obvious that we must have a physical church if that same church has to power of the "keys of the kingdom," the powers to "bind and loose," that it can further demonstrate further powers given to the apostles in John 20:22-23, culminating in the final command to "make disciples of all nations" in Matthew 28:19. An invisible church does not canonize scriptures as was done in the 3rd and 4th centuries by councils of this same church. And further, an invisible church cannot teach the gospel to all nations, etc.
It is obvious that Christ established a physical and visible church here on earth:
He specifically selected 12 men to form a core of that church - the first "clergy" if you will.
He established it specifically in Matthew 16:18, promising that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" and, through Peter, gave the "keys of the kingdom" of awesome authority. To exercise authority, the church must be visible.
I previously said:
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>Take a closer look, please.
Jesus' church is built upon HIMSELF as the chief cornerstone. The Apostles together are the foundation, as we are being built up like living stones. But Peter is not any more special than any other Apostle. He knew that. They knew that.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Documentation please, Helen. Christ being the "chief cornerstone" is not the same "stone" as applied to Simon now renamed Peter (ROCK) in Matthew 16:18! You statement flies in the face of the evidence of this important "charter text" of the establishment of His church!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. The keys of the kingdom are the gospel message, and Peter presented it so powerfully on Pentecost! The key to something is what helps you understand it, not what shuts you out of something. Only God can judge the heart of a man. Peter never had authority to do that, although he, like others through time, have had the word from God about something God had decided, such as with Ananias and Sapphira. With Pentecost the kingdom doors were thrown wide open to all believers. This is how Peter used those 'keys'! He opened up the meaning of the Messiah and the crucifixion and the resurrection to all his people, and it was later carried to the whole world.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again, documentation please, Helen!
Is not "keys" likewise a metaphor, Helen? If so, what is it a good metaphor for? I will give you the Jewish example of how they consider the metaphor "keys" in Isaiah 22:22…
I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder;
when he opens, no one will shut, when he shuts,
no one will open.
What is the "key" metaphor referring to here? AUTHORITY!
To say that the "keys of the kingdom" are the gospel message it cut from whole cloth, Helen!
Even in the face of the following statement, "whatsoever you bind…loose," which amplifies what authority, those same "keys" include, can you still claim that the "keys" are the "gospel message"?
Now certainly, the gospel message is related to the "keys" but in an authoritative way. In other words, with the "keys," Peter can preach the gospel with authority and, I might add, with infallibility.
And no, the "keys" do not give Peter any authority to judge the hearts of men - that is something that we can both agree is reserved to God when we all come before Him in judgment. But by those "keys," he can rule and decide the disposition of individuals and their status in the church. Even the apostles, besides Peter, can do that as we see in Matt. 18:18. Not only did Peter display this authority with Ananias and Sapphira, but with Simon as well (Acts 8:23)
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3. If you look at the 'binding and loosing' in every place where it is used, you will never see it referring to binding or loosing people. That is the point I was trying to make. Yes, the Apostles - all of them - had special and privileged powers in the expression of the Holy Spirit in order to confirm their message. They could announce what God had bound and loosed, and they had that special insight, but the judgment of people was never Peter's or any of theirs. God, and God alone is the Judge of men.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Helen, read the context of Matthew 18:18 and see what is going on here. I suggest you read from about verse 15 concerning a brother who sins without reconciliation and what they can do with such a brother if he refuses to recant and be once again, reconciled with the church.
I previously said:
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 Protestants miss, the final commissioning of Peter and the lead authority in His church!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Peter is the one who had denied Christ, and Christ was restoring him. If you look at the words Peter uses with Christ in the Greek you will notice something striking. Watch:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Helen, be aware of something many people miss; while it is true that Peter denied Him three times, notice that it was only Peter who had the fortitude and the guts to come that close to the court where Christ was being tried!
Where were the other disciples and apostles, Helen?
Scattered, like the cowards they were, to the hills!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>John 21:15, Jesus says, "Simon, son of John (notice Christ did not call him Peter… , do you truly love me (agapao) me more than these?"
……(snip to reduce message size)….
"Feed my sheep; feed my lambs" is what they were all commissioned to do - share the gospel. Tell the world about Jesus. Share the Word of God with a hungry world! It is still our commission as servants of Christ.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah, Helen, reread what I previously said:
(Previous statement) He says this to Peter only, and not to the others.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That is because Peter was the only one to verbally deny Him. And Peter denied Jesus three times. Thus there were three times the restoration question was asked.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is certainly part of it, Helen, but again, the other apostles are not around. Only to Peter is he commanded to "feed my sheep." Now, where was the "restoration process" for the rest of the apostles? (including Peter, that would now be numbered as 10 with Judas now dead.)
Now, I happen to believe that they did indeed, reconcile with Jesus. I also happen to believe that Peter went through this humbling experience for a purpose, Helen. First, Peter was told before hand that he would deny Jesus 3 times. Not one word do we see Jesus wondering about the other cowards that ran to the hills! Peter was a rash individual, always sticking his nose into things! And you know what? Christ is always putting him down! Not one time do you see Christ rebuking the others; only Peter. Did you ever wonder why?
Look at a company of Army recruits (they could also be Navy, where I spent 30 years) and guess which ones in that group are most probably candidates for leadership roles? Would it be the quiet and reticent individual who is always following others, not taking the initiative on things? Or would it be the loud mouth, the guy who sticks his nose in things, even getting into trouble as he tries to do things others shy away from?
You know where I am going here, don't you, Helen.
Jesus had Peter in mind all the time! Peter walked on the water (and almost sank), while the others watched, got in trouble as he complained to Jesus about this business of him dying, with a resounding "get thee behind me, Satan!" (Matt 16:22-23) And more astounding is the fact that this scene occurs only a few verses away from Jesus changing his name to ROCK, building His church upon him, and giving him all those wonderful "keys"! ) I could go on with other occasions.
What is going on here, Helen?
Jesus is preparing him for the leadership role he is to give to him! A leadership role that finally culminates in John 28:15-17!
Now, let's go back to the time when Christ was arrested, as I want to give a cameo of the leadership role, Peter is to play. You probably have read this before, but it is worth repeating here:
Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that our own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers. (Luke 22:31-32) (Bolding emphasis mine.)
Of course, two more verses show were Christ predicts that Peter will deny Him thrice!
But what is important here is what Christ tells Peter what he must do to strengthen his brothers (the other apostles, of course) who, after all, ran to the hills like the total cowards they were! Peter's denial is profound, but his brothers sins are even worse!
Now, let us go back and note who the "sheep" were in John 28:15-17. Is it not obvious that the first "sheep" he must feed are his weaker brothers? They abandoned Christ entirely, running to the hills, nary to be found in their cowardly behavior! And of course, nourishing them back to the faith, other "sheep" are you and I and all of Christendom!
I previously said:
Peter is in charge, and there is ample evidence of it in scripture...
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Peter was certainly one of the main leaders in the church in Jerusalem, but evidently not elsewhere. Paul was the one who took the Gospel to the world outside of Judaism, and Paul was the one who publicly corrected Peter. Peter was a leader, but Christ was the authority.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Paul was a great leader in and of himself, no one will deny that, but it was also Paul who conferred with Peter for advice and consent. (Gal. 1:18) and, interestingly, later (in Gal 2:11-14) rebukes Peter! Why is this written anyway, Helen? What is so significant for "showing-up" Peter for an error of judgment if not for the fact that he was the leader of them, not simply one of them! "I opposed Cephas (note the Aramaic name, Helen) to his face" simply indicates that Paul is not fearful of "telling the king he is wearing no clothes" and calling him out on a mistake. If anything, it emphasizes the primacy of Peter, not disprove it.
As for Paul being the only apostle to take the gospel outside of the Judaic world, I would simply say, "Good for Paul!" It was precisely for this reason Jesus probably called him down from his horse! Paul preceded Peter to Rome as well, Helen, or do you disbelieve Peter ever went there? (Another topic we can discuss.)
Finally, there is no doubt that Christ is the final authority in all things! After all, He is God, the founder of His own church and the Divine Son, the Second Person in the Holy Trinity. It's a given, Helen!
But this does not take away the authority, Jesus Himself gives to Peter and His own church! Peter and his successors are always subordinate to Christ, helen! That is why the pope is called The Vicar of Christ.
What is a "vicar," Helen? He is the second in command here on earth, (Christ in heaven is always the first.)
I previously said:
Tell me what book I should read, please...
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Bible. All of it. No commentaries or marginal notes or anything. Just the text itself, cover to cover in 2002 (3-4 chapters a day does it easily). Only the 66 undisputed books, OK? Not anything in the Apocrypha. And please read the New King James, or the New International Version, or any of the modern conservative translations. Any of them will do. If you will promise me to read the entire thing, I will buy the book you have asked me to buy and read it, OK?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I should have seen that coming!
I have at least six English translations of the Bible.
I do read them, Helen, but not in the regimen you suggest.
The deuterocanonicals (you call them "apocrypha") have been duly declared as a part of inspired scripture from at least three church councils in the 3rd/4th centuries by the only "authority" around that could do that ("keys of the kingdom," remember, Helen?)
Finally, the deal you are attempting to set-up in my simple recommendation of the book I spoke of is simply a put-off that would never be consumated. You see, I could claim to read the entire bible and you would simply not believe it! How could I prove such to you anyway?
So, if you don't want to get and read that book, fine.
I will simply continue to read the Bible, in what versions I have (including the KJV) will continue as I have always done…
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)
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>See what you think: http://www.ldolphin.org/birth.html[/quote]
And I previously replied: I'll do that later after I write this,
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So did you read it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Indeed I did, in fact, I printed it out for reference as I write this…
I previously said: but I have two theories as why we celeberate on Dec 25th:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'll wait until after you have read the actual research, OK? Let me know what you think of that article. It is not "Protestant." It is pretty solid research by someone who has studied in the related fields.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It was a very interesting article, seemingly well researched well beyond much of what I have read in the past. It concentrated mostly on what the Star of Bethlehem was, but does give a plausible case that the birth occurred in the fall. I recall reading that as well somewhere. I also see agreement as to why December 25th came to be the date Christ's birth is celebrated today.
But where are you going with this? As I recall in my previous one or two posts, I commented that December 25th fell on the old pagan celebration of Saturnalia. Was it you that asserted that the Catholic Church is encumbered with paganistic elements? This paper I read does not make such an assertion other then Dec. 25 does fall on the old pagan holiday. Is that one of the pagan elements, Helen? If not, provide some and we can discuss them.
The paper on the Christmas Star was interesting, but what were you trying to prove with it?
I previously said: 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!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The honest truth is that few things make me angrier than that sort of propagation of what John McArthur rightly called 'cheap grace.' Magic words and emotions have nothing to do with being born again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And here we can agree! Although at the time, I surely thought I was really saved. I saw nothing cheap about it at all!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> How does one know that one has a new heart? Because EVERYTHING in your personality has ended up changing! And you keep changing, because, as Paul wrote in Philippians 1:6, God is faithful to complete the work he has started in you. When I look back on my 'before', there is no comparison. I am stunned with what God has done.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's wonderful, Helen! I believe I had a similar feeling when I converted to Catholicism!
But now, what about this "new heart" we receive? Can it be soiled with further sin that will return us to a state even worse then before?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And yes, I know you were disheartened by what happened after an emotional experience and some magic words. That is because nothing had changed. And nothing will change, no matter what words a priest says or how many rites you partake in or anything else, until it's just you and God and your heart bows down in total shame and you ask Him to take you and make you HIS. You don't need special words. You don't need any rites. You need to allow Him to put you to death and give you a new life. And you will know it when it happens. Some people get an immediate knowledge. I didn't. But as the weeks went on and I saw what was happening to me and my new hunger for the Bible (man does not live by bread alone….), I realized God had accepted me and made me His and that I had a new life in Him. In other words, being born again is not always connected with a feeling. But it sure is real<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First of all, this initial experience was in the Church of the Nazarene, not in a Catholic Church. I was also baptized by a Methodist Navy Chaplain and when the validity of that baptism was doubted, when I came into the Catholic Faith, I was baptized "conditionally," but this gets into the salvific nature of baptism. Yet, when that was done in my conversion, I did feel exhilarated and right back upon cloud nine did I climb!
Now, what "magic words" do you think the Catholic priest (also a Navy chaplain) used in my case? As he baptized me, he said "(if you are not already baptized), then I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the holy Spirit" which is the formula Christ gave in Matthew 28:19.
The rest of your comments I can relate to, growing in my faith as time went on, stumbling here and there, a time or two, but I got up, brushed myself off and continued down the path started in that new Faith for me. And some of the old "feeling" remains, Helen, especially when I receive Jesus Christ at Mass in the holy Eucharist!
I previously said:
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 somewhere in scripture, does not mean Jesus cannot use the same metaphor on some one else.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Theoretically that's true, but you will notice if you read the first post in this thread that God says clearly and plainly that HE is the ONLY Rock! So that is NOT a name that would be given someone else.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do you agree that Christ is God? (The second person in the Holy Trinity.) If so, to take what you say here strictly is to have God violate His own declaration! Of course, Christ is the only rock in that it was from His Divine Son that salvation comes. Call God the Big Kahuna Rock if you wish, but the same metaphor of Rock is given to Simon now Peter. Also, "only Rock" is not a name we give to God. In fact, God does not say His name is Rock (that I know of.) But we are certain in Matthew 16:18 that Jesus does in fact change Simon's name to ROCK. We continue to call God, GOD (or I AM WHO AM) and His Divine Son, JESUS.
I can say all day long, "Jesus is the rock" or "God is the rock," or even "Helen is a rock" (as a compliment in your steadfastness, for example) but only Simon is actually renamed ROCK.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Please keep in mind as well that Matthew quoted Jesus. Matthew wrote in Greek. It is very possible that Jesus used those precise Greek words when speaking to Peter and the disciples, and that that is why they understood immediately what Jesus was saying, rather than misunderstanding about the term used. Peter certainly understood as we can see from the second chapter of his first epistle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is my understanding the some scholars believe Matthew originally wrote his gospel in Aramaic, and then later in Greek (no prove of it, only scholarly speculation) but that is really not the point. I am not a Greek scholar, most certainly not of Greek grammar, but a transliteration back to what Christ had to say, with actual words, were "You are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my church…" And when one were to write this in Greek, by the rules of Greek grammar, which has gender distinctions for ROCK, Matthew simply had to conform to those grammar rules and write "You are Petros (masculine) and upon this petra (feminine) I will build my church…"
A more complete analysis is given in the book:
JESUS, PETER & THE KEYS
by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, David Hess
ISBN: 1-882972-54-6
(I recommended this book a message or two back)
I previously said:
Not a physical church?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No, not at all. His Kingdom is NOT of this world. And His Church is most certainly part of His Kingdom, for the Church is His bride.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Helen, you are getting too mystical on me here, as it is obvious that we must have a physical church if that same church has to power of the "keys of the kingdom," the powers to "bind and loose," that it can further demonstrate further powers given to the apostles in John 20:22-23, culminating in the final command to "make disciples of all nations" in Matthew 28:19. An invisible church does not canonize scriptures as was done in the 3rd and 4th centuries by councils of this same church. And further, an invisible church cannot teach the gospel to all nations, etc.
It is obvious that Christ established a physical and visible church here on earth:
He specifically selected 12 men to form a core of that church - the first "clergy" if you will.
He established it specifically in Matthew 16:18, promising that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" and, through Peter, gave the "keys of the kingdom" of awesome authority. To exercise authority, the church must be visible.
I previously said:
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>Take a closer look, please.
Jesus' church is built upon HIMSELF as the chief cornerstone. The Apostles together are the foundation, as we are being built up like living stones. But Peter is not any more special than any other Apostle. He knew that. They knew that.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Documentation please, Helen. Christ being the "chief cornerstone" is not the same "stone" as applied to Simon now renamed Peter (ROCK) in Matthew 16:18! You statement flies in the face of the evidence of this important "charter text" of the establishment of His church!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. The keys of the kingdom are the gospel message, and Peter presented it so powerfully on Pentecost! The key to something is what helps you understand it, not what shuts you out of something. Only God can judge the heart of a man. Peter never had authority to do that, although he, like others through time, have had the word from God about something God had decided, such as with Ananias and Sapphira. With Pentecost the kingdom doors were thrown wide open to all believers. This is how Peter used those 'keys'! He opened up the meaning of the Messiah and the crucifixion and the resurrection to all his people, and it was later carried to the whole world.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again, documentation please, Helen!
Is not "keys" likewise a metaphor, Helen? If so, what is it a good metaphor for? I will give you the Jewish example of how they consider the metaphor "keys" in Isaiah 22:22…
I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder;
when he opens, no one will shut, when he shuts,
no one will open.
What is the "key" metaphor referring to here? AUTHORITY!
To say that the "keys of the kingdom" are the gospel message it cut from whole cloth, Helen!
Even in the face of the following statement, "whatsoever you bind…loose," which amplifies what authority, those same "keys" include, can you still claim that the "keys" are the "gospel message"?
Now certainly, the gospel message is related to the "keys" but in an authoritative way. In other words, with the "keys," Peter can preach the gospel with authority and, I might add, with infallibility.
And no, the "keys" do not give Peter any authority to judge the hearts of men - that is something that we can both agree is reserved to God when we all come before Him in judgment. But by those "keys," he can rule and decide the disposition of individuals and their status in the church. Even the apostles, besides Peter, can do that as we see in Matt. 18:18. Not only did Peter display this authority with Ananias and Sapphira, but with Simon as well (Acts 8:23)
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3. If you look at the 'binding and loosing' in every place where it is used, you will never see it referring to binding or loosing people. That is the point I was trying to make. Yes, the Apostles - all of them - had special and privileged powers in the expression of the Holy Spirit in order to confirm their message. They could announce what God had bound and loosed, and they had that special insight, but the judgment of people was never Peter's or any of theirs. God, and God alone is the Judge of men.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Helen, read the context of Matthew 18:18 and see what is going on here. I suggest you read from about verse 15 concerning a brother who sins without reconciliation and what they can do with such a brother if he refuses to recant and be once again, reconciled with the church.
I previously said:
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 Protestants miss, the final commissioning of Peter and the lead authority in His church!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Peter is the one who had denied Christ, and Christ was restoring him. If you look at the words Peter uses with Christ in the Greek you will notice something striking. Watch:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Helen, be aware of something many people miss; while it is true that Peter denied Him three times, notice that it was only Peter who had the fortitude and the guts to come that close to the court where Christ was being tried!
Where were the other disciples and apostles, Helen?
Scattered, like the cowards they were, to the hills!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>John 21:15, Jesus says, "Simon, son of John (notice Christ did not call him Peter… , do you truly love me (agapao) me more than these?"
……(snip to reduce message size)….
"Feed my sheep; feed my lambs" is what they were all commissioned to do - share the gospel. Tell the world about Jesus. Share the Word of God with a hungry world! It is still our commission as servants of Christ.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah, Helen, reread what I previously said:
(Previous statement) He says this to Peter only, and not to the others.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That is because Peter was the only one to verbally deny Him. And Peter denied Jesus three times. Thus there were three times the restoration question was asked.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is certainly part of it, Helen, but again, the other apostles are not around. Only to Peter is he commanded to "feed my sheep." Now, where was the "restoration process" for the rest of the apostles? (including Peter, that would now be numbered as 10 with Judas now dead.)
Now, I happen to believe that they did indeed, reconcile with Jesus. I also happen to believe that Peter went through this humbling experience for a purpose, Helen. First, Peter was told before hand that he would deny Jesus 3 times. Not one word do we see Jesus wondering about the other cowards that ran to the hills! Peter was a rash individual, always sticking his nose into things! And you know what? Christ is always putting him down! Not one time do you see Christ rebuking the others; only Peter. Did you ever wonder why?
Look at a company of Army recruits (they could also be Navy, where I spent 30 years) and guess which ones in that group are most probably candidates for leadership roles? Would it be the quiet and reticent individual who is always following others, not taking the initiative on things? Or would it be the loud mouth, the guy who sticks his nose in things, even getting into trouble as he tries to do things others shy away from?
You know where I am going here, don't you, Helen.
Jesus had Peter in mind all the time! Peter walked on the water (and almost sank), while the others watched, got in trouble as he complained to Jesus about this business of him dying, with a resounding "get thee behind me, Satan!" (Matt 16:22-23) And more astounding is the fact that this scene occurs only a few verses away from Jesus changing his name to ROCK, building His church upon him, and giving him all those wonderful "keys"! ) I could go on with other occasions.
What is going on here, Helen?
Jesus is preparing him for the leadership role he is to give to him! A leadership role that finally culminates in John 28:15-17!
Now, let's go back to the time when Christ was arrested, as I want to give a cameo of the leadership role, Peter is to play. You probably have read this before, but it is worth repeating here:
Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that our own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers. (Luke 22:31-32) (Bolding emphasis mine.)
Of course, two more verses show were Christ predicts that Peter will deny Him thrice!
But what is important here is what Christ tells Peter what he must do to strengthen his brothers (the other apostles, of course) who, after all, ran to the hills like the total cowards they were! Peter's denial is profound, but his brothers sins are even worse!
Now, let us go back and note who the "sheep" were in John 28:15-17. Is it not obvious that the first "sheep" he must feed are his weaker brothers? They abandoned Christ entirely, running to the hills, nary to be found in their cowardly behavior! And of course, nourishing them back to the faith, other "sheep" are you and I and all of Christendom!
I previously said:
Peter is in charge, and there is ample evidence of it in scripture...
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Peter was certainly one of the main leaders in the church in Jerusalem, but evidently not elsewhere. Paul was the one who took the Gospel to the world outside of Judaism, and Paul was the one who publicly corrected Peter. Peter was a leader, but Christ was the authority.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Paul was a great leader in and of himself, no one will deny that, but it was also Paul who conferred with Peter for advice and consent. (Gal. 1:18) and, interestingly, later (in Gal 2:11-14) rebukes Peter! Why is this written anyway, Helen? What is so significant for "showing-up" Peter for an error of judgment if not for the fact that he was the leader of them, not simply one of them! "I opposed Cephas (note the Aramaic name, Helen) to his face" simply indicates that Paul is not fearful of "telling the king he is wearing no clothes" and calling him out on a mistake. If anything, it emphasizes the primacy of Peter, not disprove it.
As for Paul being the only apostle to take the gospel outside of the Judaic world, I would simply say, "Good for Paul!" It was precisely for this reason Jesus probably called him down from his horse! Paul preceded Peter to Rome as well, Helen, or do you disbelieve Peter ever went there? (Another topic we can discuss.)
Finally, there is no doubt that Christ is the final authority in all things! After all, He is God, the founder of His own church and the Divine Son, the Second Person in the Holy Trinity. It's a given, Helen!
But this does not take away the authority, Jesus Himself gives to Peter and His own church! Peter and his successors are always subordinate to Christ, helen! That is why the pope is called The Vicar of Christ.
What is a "vicar," Helen? He is the second in command here on earth, (Christ in heaven is always the first.)
I previously said:
Tell me what book I should read, please...
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Bible. All of it. No commentaries or marginal notes or anything. Just the text itself, cover to cover in 2002 (3-4 chapters a day does it easily). Only the 66 undisputed books, OK? Not anything in the Apocrypha. And please read the New King James, or the New International Version, or any of the modern conservative translations. Any of them will do. If you will promise me to read the entire thing, I will buy the book you have asked me to buy and read it, OK?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I should have seen that coming!
I have at least six English translations of the Bible.
I do read them, Helen, but not in the regimen you suggest.
The deuterocanonicals (you call them "apocrypha") have been duly declared as a part of inspired scripture from at least three church councils in the 3rd/4th centuries by the only "authority" around that could do that ("keys of the kingdom," remember, Helen?)
Finally, the deal you are attempting to set-up in my simple recommendation of the book I spoke of is simply a put-off that would never be consumated. You see, I could claim to read the entire bible and you would simply not believe it! How could I prove such to you anyway?
So, if you don't want to get and read that book, fine.
I will simply continue to read the Bible, in what versions I have (including the KJV) will continue as I have always done…
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)
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
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.
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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
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.Bill,
Papias (c. 140 A.D.) testifies that Matthew first wrote his gospel in the Hebrew tongue.
The Hebrew tongue for a long time before Christ's time on earth and after was Aramaic.
Papias wrote five volumes about the Church. So that's where we get documentation for Matthew being written in Aramaic.
According to a footnote on page 73 of Upon This Rock by Sephen Ray: Protestant A. Cleveland Coxe, D.D., wrote that Papias was a friend of St. John the Apostle, an associate of Polycarp and of others who had seen the Lord. Papias, Bishop of Hieropolis, lived from c. A.D. 60-130. He is quoted in Eusebius. Irenaeus wrote about Papias as an authority in Against Heresies.
Papias declared himself commited to truth and to carefully passing it on. He wanted what came from the Lord Himself.
Papias was a well-known and trusted witness to the authenticity of the gospels of Matthew and Mark. If I remember right, he also testified to the authenticity of Luke and John too but I don't have any resource at hand to document that.
Pauline
Papias (c. 140 A.D.) testifies that Matthew first wrote his gospel in the Hebrew tongue.
The Hebrew tongue for a long time before Christ's time on earth and after was Aramaic.
Papias wrote five volumes about the Church. So that's where we get documentation for Matthew being written in Aramaic.
According to a footnote on page 73 of Upon This Rock by Sephen Ray: Protestant A. Cleveland Coxe, D.D., wrote that Papias was a friend of St. John the Apostle, an associate of Polycarp and of others who had seen the Lord. Papias, Bishop of Hieropolis, lived from c. A.D. 60-130. He is quoted in Eusebius. Irenaeus wrote about Papias as an authority in Against Heresies.
Papias declared himself commited to truth and to carefully passing it on. He wanted what came from the Lord Himself.
Papias was a well-known and trusted witness to the authenticity of the gospels of Matthew and Mark. If I remember right, he also testified to the authenticity of Luke and John too but I don't have any resource at hand to document that.
Pauline
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pauline:
Papias (c. 140 A.D.) testifies that Matthew first wrote his gospel in the Hebrew tongue.
The Hebrew tongue for a long time before Christ's time on earth and after was Aramaic.
Papias wrote five volumes about the Church. So that's where we get documentation for Matthew being written in Aramaic.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's really a moot point Pauline. The New Testament, including Mattew was inscripturated in the Koine Greek. They are the manuscripts that are inspired. They are the only ones, that as the Word of God, we have need to go to. What the Holy Spirit has intended us to know is contained in the Greek, not in any dubious, unfound, unknown Aramaic manuscript.
DHK
Papias (c. 140 A.D.) testifies that Matthew first wrote his gospel in the Hebrew tongue.
The Hebrew tongue for a long time before Christ's time on earth and after was Aramaic.
Papias wrote five volumes about the Church. So that's where we get documentation for Matthew being written in Aramaic.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's really a moot point Pauline. The New Testament, including Mattew was inscripturated in the Koine Greek. They are the manuscripts that are inspired. They are the only ones, that as the Word of God, we have need to go to. What the Holy Spirit has intended us to know is contained in the Greek, not in any dubious, unfound, unknown Aramaic manuscript.
DHK
DHK,
You've come up with this thought before, that the Gospel of Matthew, as written by Matthew, was not inspired -- but rather only the Greek translation of it. That's not even logical nor is it fitting for Christian view to discount the original writing of a gospel by an apostle.
Furthermore, Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic. So you still have evidence showing that when Jesus named Simon "Peter" He really did (1) change his name and, (2) call him "Rock" which was previously a name reserved for God.
Neither you nor Helen have ever dealt with these facts. I think you just want them to go away, instead of facing the questions straight on and coming up with plausible explanations for them: Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Peter (Rock)? And what did a name change signify in the cases of Abraham and Jacob? Why did Jesus make only Peter the shepherd over His flock? Why did Jesus give only Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, which meant Peter was made His chief steward? And why did Peter act as spokesman, head of the Church (such as in the case of Ananius and Sapphira)? Why did the early Christians carry out their ill and lay them so as to have Peter's shadow fall on them?
Why did God give Peter revelations that He gave no one else?
Pauline
You've come up with this thought before, that the Gospel of Matthew, as written by Matthew, was not inspired -- but rather only the Greek translation of it. That's not even logical nor is it fitting for Christian view to discount the original writing of a gospel by an apostle.
Furthermore, Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic. So you still have evidence showing that when Jesus named Simon "Peter" He really did (1) change his name and, (2) call him "Rock" which was previously a name reserved for God.
Neither you nor Helen have ever dealt with these facts. I think you just want them to go away, instead of facing the questions straight on and coming up with plausible explanations for them: Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Peter (Rock)? And what did a name change signify in the cases of Abraham and Jacob? Why did Jesus make only Peter the shepherd over His flock? Why did Jesus give only Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, which meant Peter was made His chief steward? And why did Peter act as spokesman, head of the Church (such as in the case of Ananius and Sapphira)? Why did the early Christians carry out their ill and lay them so as to have Peter's shadow fall on them?
Why did God give Peter revelations that He gave no one else?
Pauline
Pauline
Who has not dealt with facts?
FACT #1. God has inspired and preserved His Word, in the Hebrew Old Testament, and in Greek New Testament.
FACT #2. Aramaic being a common language among the Jews is totally irrelevant to the Gospel of Matthew, as it is not in the inspired Canon of Scripture. Deal with the Word of God!
FACT #3 You have no evidence that even if an earlier manuscript was written in Aramaic, that Jesus was speaking in Aramaic. He spoke for the benefit of all. He spoke the common language of all. Koine Greek is just that, Common Greek. It was the universal language of the time.
FACT #4. He did not change his name to rock, he called him "stone," referring to Himself, petra, as the chief cornerstone, that massive rock, the very foundation of our faith. (1Cor.3:11; 10:4; Eph.2:20)
FACT #5. The name changes in Abraham and Jacob are explained in Genesis. They have nothing to do with Peter.
FACT #6. Peter was not the only shepherd. That is pure Roman Catholic myth. Study Scripture. Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
---All of the Ephesian elders (pastors) are considered as shepherds here, and are commanded to oversee the flock and feed the church. This was Paul's command, not Peter's. Did Peter lose his keys?
FACT #7 The keys to the kingdom of Heaven have no reference to being a chief steward. Rightly divide the Word of Truth! The keys to the kingdom of Heaven is the key of knowledge, that is the gospel, and it is a key that every Apostle had, and every apostle preached.
Rom.1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
FACT #8 Peter did not act as spokesman for the church. When a church council convened, as in Acts 15, you find that it was James, the pastor of the church in Jerusalem, that makes the final decision, not Peter. Peter's role was secondary.
Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
In Galatians Peter is sharply rebuked for his error by Paul.
FACT #9 Why did all the Apostles have the gift of signs and miracles. Read of Philip's account in Samaria and the wonders that he did there. How did he leave the Ethiopian eunuch? How was Paul able to raise up Eutychas, and have such power over Elymas?
FACT #10 Why did God give Paul revelations that he gave no one else (caught up to the third heaven). Why did God give John revelations that he gave no one else (ever read the Book of Revelation?)
DEAL WITH THE FACTS!
DHK
Who has not dealt with facts?
FACT #1. God has inspired and preserved His Word, in the Hebrew Old Testament, and in Greek New Testament.
FACT #2. Aramaic being a common language among the Jews is totally irrelevant to the Gospel of Matthew, as it is not in the inspired Canon of Scripture. Deal with the Word of God!
FACT #3 You have no evidence that even if an earlier manuscript was written in Aramaic, that Jesus was speaking in Aramaic. He spoke for the benefit of all. He spoke the common language of all. Koine Greek is just that, Common Greek. It was the universal language of the time.
FACT #4. He did not change his name to rock, he called him "stone," referring to Himself, petra, as the chief cornerstone, that massive rock, the very foundation of our faith. (1Cor.3:11; 10:4; Eph.2:20)
FACT #5. The name changes in Abraham and Jacob are explained in Genesis. They have nothing to do with Peter.
FACT #6. Peter was not the only shepherd. That is pure Roman Catholic myth. Study Scripture. Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
---All of the Ephesian elders (pastors) are considered as shepherds here, and are commanded to oversee the flock and feed the church. This was Paul's command, not Peter's. Did Peter lose his keys?
FACT #7 The keys to the kingdom of Heaven have no reference to being a chief steward. Rightly divide the Word of Truth! The keys to the kingdom of Heaven is the key of knowledge, that is the gospel, and it is a key that every Apostle had, and every apostle preached.
Rom.1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
FACT #8 Peter did not act as spokesman for the church. When a church council convened, as in Acts 15, you find that it was James, the pastor of the church in Jerusalem, that makes the final decision, not Peter. Peter's role was secondary.
Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
In Galatians Peter is sharply rebuked for his error by Paul.
FACT #9 Why did all the Apostles have the gift of signs and miracles. Read of Philip's account in Samaria and the wonders that he did there. How did he leave the Ethiopian eunuch? How was Paul able to raise up Eutychas, and have such power over Elymas?
FACT #10 Why did God give Paul revelations that he gave no one else (caught up to the third heaven). Why did God give John revelations that he gave no one else (ever read the Book of Revelation?)
DEAL WITH THE FACTS!
DHK
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DHK:
Pauline
Who has not dealt with facts?....
FACT #8 Peter did not act as spokesman for the church. When a church council convened, as in Acts 15, you find that it was James, the pastor of the church in Jerusalem, that makes the final decision, not Peter. Peter's role was secondary.
Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
DHK<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is the typical Protestant "James as Pope" nonsense. (When they're not elevating Paul to the papacy, that is.)
So, James made the decision, was in charge, with both Peter and Paul sitting right there?
I think not.
First, it wasn't James' decision which made the Council binding. It was the ENTIRE Council itself AND the Holy Spirit! "It is the decision of the Holy Spirit, and ours to...." Acts 15:28 NAB. It wasn't just James.
Second, although many Catholics see James in a kind of supervisory role* because he was monarchial Bishop of Jerusalem, I'm not so sure. Rather, I wonder if the purpose of James' speech wasn't meant to disavow any association with the Judaizing party (of which some apparently thought he was the head.)
________________
* But no Cathlic, to my knowledge, believes that James "made the decision." That was first Peter and the Council as a whole.
Pauline
Who has not dealt with facts?....
FACT #8 Peter did not act as spokesman for the church. When a church council convened, as in Acts 15, you find that it was James, the pastor of the church in Jerusalem, that makes the final decision, not Peter. Peter's role was secondary.
Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
DHK<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is the typical Protestant "James as Pope" nonsense. (When they're not elevating Paul to the papacy, that is.)
So, James made the decision, was in charge, with both Peter and Paul sitting right there?
I think not.
First, it wasn't James' decision which made the Council binding. It was the ENTIRE Council itself AND the Holy Spirit! "It is the decision of the Holy Spirit, and ours to...." Acts 15:28 NAB. It wasn't just James.
Second, although many Catholics see James in a kind of supervisory role* because he was monarchial Bishop of Jerusalem, I'm not so sure. Rather, I wonder if the purpose of James' speech wasn't meant to disavow any association with the Judaizing party (of which some apparently thought he was the head.)
________________
* But no Cathlic, to my knowledge, believes that James "made the decision." That was first Peter and the Council as a whole.
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi DHK,
Will you do two things for me?
Up above, I gave a post about the Davidic Kingdom. Will you please read it? It's pretty precise, so it should only take a moment.
After you do that, will you visit this short webpage? http://www.catholicoutlook.com/objpope3.html
After you do this, can you see where I'm coming from when I say that I believe the Pope is the Prime Minister of Jesus' Kingdom on Earth (which is the renewal and fulfillment of the Davidic Kingdom)?
Then, please tell me what you disagree with specifically concerning these two sources. Then, we can go from there.
God bless,
Carson
Will you do two things for me?
Up above, I gave a post about the Davidic Kingdom. Will you please read it? It's pretty precise, so it should only take a moment.
After you do that, will you visit this short webpage? http://www.catholicoutlook.com/objpope3.html
After you do this, can you see where I'm coming from when I say that I believe the Pope is the Prime Minister of Jesus' Kingdom on Earth (which is the renewal and fulfillment of the Davidic Kingdom)?
Then, please tell me what you disagree with specifically concerning these two sources. Then, we can go from there.
God bless,
Carson
CatholicConvert
New Member
Brother Carson --
I do hope he will read it. The covenantal information you are getting from Scott Hahn on the Davidic Kingdom is some of the best stuff out there right now. What a blessing that God made these promises to King David and gave them to the world.
Cordially in Christ,
Brother Ed
[ December 11, 2001: Message edited by: CatholicConvert ]
I do hope he will read it. The covenantal information you are getting from Scott Hahn on the Davidic Kingdom is some of the best stuff out there right now. What a blessing that God made these promises to King David and gave them to the world.
Cordially in Christ,
Brother Ed
[ December 11, 2001: Message edited by: CatholicConvert ]
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pauline:
Bill,
Papias (c. 140 A.D.) testifies that Matthew first wrote his gospel in the Hebrew tongue.
The Hebrew tongue for a long time before Christ's time on earth and after was Aramaic.
Papias wrote five volumes about the Church. So that's where we get documentation for Matthew being written in Aramaic.
According to a footnote on page 73 of Upon This Rock by Sephen Ray: Protestant A. Cleveland Coxe, D.D., wrote that Papias was a friend of St. John the Apostle, an associate of Polycarp and of others who had seen the Lord. Papias, Bishop of Hieropolis, lived from c. A.D. 60-130. He is quoted in Eusebius. Irenaeus wrote about Papias as an authority in Against Heresies.
Papias declared himself commited to truth and to carefully passing it on. He wanted what came from the Lord Himself.
Papias was a well-known and trusted witness to the authenticity of the gospels of Matthew and Mark. If I remember right, he also testified to the authenticity of Luke and John too but I don't have any resource at hand to document that.
Pauline<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think I have read of this before, and in any case, if indeed, Matthew wrote in Hebrew, I think the word for Rock is sur. In any case, there is no gender rendering, as is the case in Aramaic, therefore, in Aramaic, it is "...you are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my church.
In Hebrew, this would be, "...you are Sur and upon this sur I will build my church."
So the "Petros - Petra" argument as if Christ is speaking about "two different rocks" is rendered nonsense.
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]
Gee, I wish the administrators would give us a "review" option in this forum so we don't have to bounce back and forth in editing our messages!
[ December 11, 2001: Message edited by: WPutnam ]
Bill,
Papias (c. 140 A.D.) testifies that Matthew first wrote his gospel in the Hebrew tongue.
The Hebrew tongue for a long time before Christ's time on earth and after was Aramaic.
Papias wrote five volumes about the Church. So that's where we get documentation for Matthew being written in Aramaic.
According to a footnote on page 73 of Upon This Rock by Sephen Ray: Protestant A. Cleveland Coxe, D.D., wrote that Papias was a friend of St. John the Apostle, an associate of Polycarp and of others who had seen the Lord. Papias, Bishop of Hieropolis, lived from c. A.D. 60-130. He is quoted in Eusebius. Irenaeus wrote about Papias as an authority in Against Heresies.
Papias declared himself commited to truth and to carefully passing it on. He wanted what came from the Lord Himself.
Papias was a well-known and trusted witness to the authenticity of the gospels of Matthew and Mark. If I remember right, he also testified to the authenticity of Luke and John too but I don't have any resource at hand to document that.
Pauline<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think I have read of this before, and in any case, if indeed, Matthew wrote in Hebrew, I think the word for Rock is sur. In any case, there is no gender rendering, as is the case in Aramaic, therefore, in Aramaic, it is "...you are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my church.
In Hebrew, this would be, "...you are Sur and upon this sur I will build my church."
So the "Petros - Petra" argument as if Christ is speaking about "two different rocks" is rendered nonsense.
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]
Gee, I wish the administrators would give us a "review" option in this forum so we don't have to bounce back and forth in editing our messages!
[ December 11, 2001: Message edited by: WPutnam ]