 | Blogs > Tropical_Man > Mercy > Exposing Catholicism is not attacking Catholics |
|
|||
|
I am very sorry Lisa felt that way,among others; but no one was attacking her or any other person. The facts are that it is not Christian. That is all. It does not line up with scriptures and places the writings of Catholic men over the writings of the people of the Scriptures. The word of God says that the truth will set people free. Many Catholics that have never received Jesus Christ did not go to purgatory. The are going to eternal damnation. So where is the compassion in keeping quiet? Many people die in their sin without Christ because people keep quiet. I am not going to be quiet on subjects relevant to who Jesus Christ really is and what he really did. If people want to take that personal, then that is fine. I do not intend it to be personal. Claudia and I go back and forth alot, but it is not personal for me. I didnt go to Lisa's blog uring this pope crap because I know she is catholic. But the pope? I have no respect for his man made office. I make no bones about that. |
||
4/28/2008 7:13 pm |
I'm sorry but an attack on Catholicism is an attack on Catholics, since we are part of the Church and not seperate from it. We represent the Catholic faith, therefore if we do things that prove we love Christ and obey him only then that proves Catholics are Christians. Lets not forget Catholics existed before Protestants. It was the only Christian religion, so I doubt anyone can buy into your whackjob claims that Catholicism is not Christianity. Just trying to help your confused self out Dennis! =)
| ||
4/28/2008 7:28 pm |
Dennis, try this, perhaps it will give you a different perspective....everywhere the word Pope or Catholic appears in any of the blogs or statements that are anti insert the word Jesus or go even bigger and use God....would you be offended at all in the least? How much better could something be written to still get a point across.....IF......you or others are so worried about the eternal fate of Catholics or other religious individuals? What's the true purpose behind any of these anti blogs? The manner in which some have been written does not make a Catholic or any other religious person turn away and follow another religion. It doesn't even cause questioning of one's own faith. So therefore what's it's purpose? I will not tell you.....it's something you and others need to figure out for your own selves!! Ask God to reveal it to you and He will!! The facts are that it is not Christian. That is all. It does not line up with scriptures and places the writings of Catholic men over the writings of the people of the Scriptures. Christian.......hmmmmmm.....believing in God, Jesus, The Holy Spirit......how is that not being Christian? The word of God says that the truth will set people free. Many Catholics that have never received Jesus Christ did not go to purgatory. The are going to eternal damnation. What Catholic did not receive Jesus Christ???? We are baptized!!!! We receive Him!!! Sorry to say, Dennis, but your statement about purgatory makes no sense whatsoever. That's not the way it works.
| ||
4/29/2008 4:27 am |
Gordy...Following Jesus was not in the context of Christianity. Christianity began after Jesus gave atonement. Lisa what you just stated is aniother issue with Catholisism. The pope is not Jesus Christ. I do not have any inkling to "protect any denomenation because denomenations are not important. The truth is what is real matters. I have put up all the scriptural reasons that I need to. Catholics teach it is Jesus plus other things. That is very big, because the word of God teaches that what Jesus did was a completed work. They teach Mary can forgive sins. Thats total baloney. They teach praying to the dead, which is forbidden scripturally. They have images [idols] all over the place when the scriptures teach against that. The act of confession to Priests started when? the 12 century.1200 years after Jesus Christ. You have been lied to when Peter was proclaimed the first "Pope". Peter was sent to the Jews, Paul was sent to the gentiles. Peter was not even in Rome in the time period that Catholics teach. Catholicism is nothing more than another Mormonism. All of these things I have just listed is scriptural herecy
| ||
4/29/2008 4:28 am |
Lisa, Purgatory does not exist. Thats one of the major problems, along with the invented confession of sins.
| ||
4/29/2008 4:30 am |
and Catholic, Protestands were born the night Jesus died for them. Catholicism was an invention and a state run religion with the intention of ruling the world.
| ||
4/29/2008 7:10 am |
Dennis, if you're really looking for answers, Cathoholic is excellent! He absolutely understands the Catholic faith, teachings, and beliefs!! He is awesome!! He has a God given ability to express well!!! Catholics teach it is Jesus plus other things. That is very big, because the word of God teaches that what Jesus did was a completed work. Dennis, you can't just blurt out other things or what Jesus did is a complete work.....you must be specific.....I nor no one else can understand what you mean!! They teach Mary can forgive sins. Thats total baloney. Whoever told you that highly misinformed you!!! Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. So wrong!!! No Catholic would ever stand behind that!!!! They teach praying to the dead, which is forbidden scripturally. Are you referring to Angels and Saints? God made the Angles for us they are part of Him they are to protect us, and guide us! Explaining Saints is a little too difficult for me to explain, I'd leave that to Cathoholic if he'd be so kind or else, a Catholic website you'd find the answer.....but it's a lengthy read!! They have images [idols] all over the place when the scriptures teach against that. You're too vague here....don't know to what you're referring. The act of confession to Priests started when? the 12 century.1200 years after Jesus Christ. You have been lied to when Peter was proclaimed the first "Pope". Peter was sent to the Jews, Paul was sent to the gentiles. Peter was not even in Rome in the time period that Catholics teach. Catholicism is nothing more than another Mormonism. All of these things I have just listed is scriptural herecy Dennis, I don't argue scripture or doctrine....there are too many things I do not know, or do not understand.....and neither do you.....no one does!!!.....I live for God do good works and try hard to keep on the path He has for me.
| ||
4/29/2008 3:06 pm |
Catholic does not understand. He thinks everyone else is wrong when they point out the obvious things catholicism teaches that is wrong. He is pretty lost when it comes to all of that. What Jesus did on the cross. His death totally reconsiled mankind to God. He died one time for the sin of mankind. No other thing need ever be done to add to this. Yet Catholicism adds to this in penance and in confession which strangely started 12 centuries later(conferssion) Before Jesus gave his life and ended the old covenant, only the Jews had a relationship with God. Also, mankind could go directly to God as the veil leading to the holy of holies was torn. A place only certain priests could go before. The word of God proclaims that all of us are priests and prophets in our own hiome. Because of what Jesus did in giving of his life as atonement. Yet Catholicism still has Priests and for some reason they do confession? We need no Priests. All curses were broken on the cross to the born again believer to receive Christ. The Law was done away with to the born again believer, and right and wrong is written on the born again believers heart. All of our needs are now met accrording to the riches and Glory in Christ Jesus. Christs Glory was the cross. Because of the Cross our heritage is blessing. We are not to live under laws but rather abide in Christ by him living through us. Not a third party. priests in the old testament law were married. Yet Catholicism seeks to place people in a holy position within. The word says there is none Holy yet one, and that was Jesus himself.
| ||
4/29/2008 3:13 pm |
Lisa you said "They teach Mary can forgive sins. Thats total baloney. Whoever told you that highly misinformed you!!! Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. So wrong!!! No Catholic would ever stand behind that!!!! Here is the answer to that.... I am not trying to be mean but this is exactly what is stated in the Writings of the Catholic Church. Their words, not mine. And Lisa these are the exact reasons that Catholicism is heretical. Mary in Salvation: "O Mary, co-redemptrix of the human race..." (This begins a standard prayer repeated during the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary, at the Crowning of Thorns, third decade of the rosary, "To be said on the Sundays in Lent and all Tuesdays and Fridays" From "With Mary to Jesus," by Fr. Theodore Zaremba. OFM (Franciscan Printery, 1954) Nihil Obstat, M Grajewski, OFM; Imprimi Potest, Fr. T Kalinowski, OFM; Nihil Obstat, JA Schulien, STD; Imprimatur, AG Meyer, Archiepiscopus Milwaukiensis, Aug 16, 1954. Note: The introduction to this book says: "The indulgenced prayers contained herein are from the latest official edidtion of the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, a compilation of prayers and devotions enriched with indulgences by the authority of the Holy See." Mary, "by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation.... " Catechism, para 969 "'...Holy Church honors the Blessed Mary, Mother of God, with a special love. She is inseparably linked with the saving work of her Son. In her the Church admires and exalts the most excellent fruit of redemption ....'[SC 103.]" Catechism, para 1172 "O woman blessed among women, thou art the honor of the human race, the salvation of our people." St. Bernardine of Siena "With what words shall we celebrate Mary's virgin-dignity? With what spiriutal song or word shall we honor her ...? By her means are we called sons and heirs of the kingdom of Christ. All who become lovers of her shall enjoy the grace of angels." St. Gregory Thaumaturgus "Holy Mary, deliver us from the pains of hell." 300 days indulgence, Raccolta, 301 "Mary's role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. 'This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to his death'; [LG 57] it is made manifest above all at the hour of his Passion: Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross. There she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother's heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her: to be given, by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross, as a mother to his disciple, with these words: 'Woman, behold your son.' [LG 58; cf. Jn 19:26-27]" Catechism, 964 "The Virgin Mary 'co-operated through free faith and obedience in human salvation' (LG 56). She uttered her yes 'in the name of all human nature' (St. Thomas Aquinas, S Th III, 30, 1). By her obedience she became the new Eve, mother of the living." Catechism, 511 "It is impossible for a client of Mary, who is faithful in honoring and recommending himself to her to be lost. Those (sinful) clients who with a sincere desire to amend, are faithful in honoring and recommending themselves to the Mother of God -- it is, I say, morally impossible that such as these should be lost." St. Alphonsus "As it is impossible for one who is not devoted to Mary, and consequently not protected by her, to be saved, so it is impossible for one who recommends himself to her, and consequently is beloved by her to be lost." St. Anselm "He who neglects the service of the blessed Virgin will die in his sins." St. Bonaventure "For no one lady all-holy is saved except through thee." Prayer of St. Germanus of Constantinople "The Pillar is Mary who saved the world by her faith ('Blessed art thou that hast believed' ... leads on unerringly those who call her blessed...')" The Official Handbook of the Legion of Mary, by Concilium Legionis Mariae (1959), p 66, Nihil Obstat: Michael L. Dempsey, S.T.D., Imprimi Potest: Joannes Carolus, Archbishop of Dublin, March 25, 1953 [Note: A letter, posted in the foreword, from Pius XI to the Legion of Mary 16th Sept., 1933, states his approval thus: "We give a very speical blessing to this beautiful and holy work...The Blessed Virgin ... co-operates in our Redemption, for it was under the Cross that she became our mother."] "... she is the channel of every grace which Jesus Christ has won. We receive nothing which we do not owe to a positive intervention on her part..." Ibid, p 12 "He has set in her the fullness of all good; in such manner that all we have of hope, all of grace, all of salvation, all--I say and let us doubt it not--flows to us from her." St. Bernard: Sermo de Aquaeductu, Ibid, p 12 Contrarily here is what the word of God Says: Jesus alone is our Redeemer; he alone bought us with his blood. Jesus is the only Savior, the only Way to God: Isaiah 43:11 "... beside me there is no saviour." Hosea 13:4 "... there is no saviour besides me." John 14:6 "... I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 10:1, 2, 9 "... He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.... I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved ..." Acts 4:12 "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." 1 Timothy 2:5, 6 "For there is ... one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all ..." Psalm 61:2 "Only in God is my soul at rest: from him comes my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation."
| ||
 4/29/2008 3:54 pm |
History reveals that Catholicism is a mixture of paganism and Christianity. Rome and Christianity merged under Constantine. Catholicism is a synchronized religion and has its roots in Roman paganism. The Catholic church has been historically responsible for the murder of myriads of people, preached false doctrines contrary to scriptures, and continues to spread their false religion. God calls the Catholic Church the Harlot of Babylon in the book of revelations and he exhorts all true born again Christians to COME OUT OF HER!!! Isaiah 42:8 " I am the Lord; that is my name! And My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to graven images."
| ||
4/29/2008 3:57 pm |
Oh by the way Dennis, it was the Protestant reformers who preached the just shall live by faith in Jesus Christ....led by guess who??? Martin Luther. Isaiah 42:8 " I am the Lord; that is my name! And My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to graven images."
| ||
4/29/2008 4:17 pm |
I can agree with that. It was formed for political reasons
| ||
4/29/2008 5:17 pm |
No we arent going to pay dearly. Thats ridiculous
| ||
4/29/2008 5:30 pm |
Dennis, some of the statements you've listed have been taken out of context! The Blessed Mother is an intercessor.....that's it!! Case closed!! And as far as Cathoholic goes....I, of course, would highly disagree....I'm impressed with him as he states the truth as to what I've been taught and know of the Catholic faith....I trust his knowledge!!
| ||
4/29/2008 7:13 pm |
For what it's worth- No one today is a "christian" in the way they were back then... We have no concept of what following Jesus teachings even are. They did. And they did quite well back then. Men messed it up. Beginning with Peter, Paul and the others. Jesus was correct. IT WOULD ALL TURN INTO "THE BLIND LEADING THE BLIND". How could it not? God wanted it that way. We would judge ourselves and others unmercifully- saving HIM from doing it. And so it truly is. gordy Your opinion is interesting but honestly I think it seems to be contradictory to what the Bible actually says. Jesus never says that the Church he established would turn into the blind leading the blind, I have no idea where Jesus ever says that in scripture. However, the Bible does say the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of truth, which we can rely upon to teach truth. It's in 1 Timothy 3:15. The Apostles made sure that the teachings of truth would be kept and maintained by the Church even until the end of the world. Since Christ said he would be with his Church (Yes an actual organization with hierchy and Priests and Bishops and not just a collection of like minded believers).
| ||
4/29/2008 7:25 pm |
Catholic does not understand. He thinks everyone else is wrong when they point out the obvious things catholicism teaches that is wrong. He is pretty lost when it comes to all of that. What Jesus did on the cross. His death totally reconsiled mankind to God. He died one time for the sin of mankind. No other thing need ever be done to add to this. Yet Catholicism adds to this in penance and in confession which strangely started 12 centuries later(conferssion) Before Jesus gave his life and ended the old covenant, only the Jews had a relationship with God. Also, mankind could go directly to God as the veil leading to the holy of holies was torn. A place only certain priests could go before. The word of God proclaims that all of us are priests and prophets in our own hiome. Because of what Jesus did in giving of his life as atonement. Yet Catholicism still has Priests and for some reason they do confession? We need no Priests. All curses were broken on the cross to the born again believer to receive Christ. The Law was done away with to the born again believer, and right and wrong is written on the born again believers heart. All of our needs are now met accrording to the riches and Glory in Christ Jesus. Christs Glory was the cross. Because of the Cross our heritage is blessing. We are not to live under laws but rather abide in Christ by him living through us. Not a third party. priests in the old testament law were married. Yet Catholicism seeks to place people in a holy position within. The word says there is none Holy yet one, and that was Jesus himself. I don't think everything Protestants believe are wrong. I merely believe their is one Church not 500,000 divided Churches. Catholics always confess their sins directly to God. You could understand all the Catholics doctrines if you really wanted to. But all you ever do is choose not to grow as a person. Lets not forget, your basing your New Testament canon off the decision of Catholic Councils Dennis. The Bibles canon was based on the councils of the early centuries of the Church. The Catholic Church does not teach Mary can forgive sins. You have posted this on your blog many times, and it is simply a lie. I am a practicing Catholic and I know for a fact Catholics teach forgiveness always comes through Christ. Not Mary. Thats silly and your embarassing yourself by saying that bro. Just trying to help you out. Catholics do not teach praying to the dead. The saints are not dead they are alive in Christ. God says that he is a God of the living, not of the dead. How can you say any of the Apostles are dead when they have life everlasting with Jesus Christ? Think on some of the silly things you say. Yes Jesus completed his work, but your work is not completed yet. This notion that Christ is going to do it all for you is silly. Clearly Christians have to comply with Christs salvation otherwise they will not have any of it. Doing good works is essential towards going to Heaven, since Christ says that Christians are told to do good works. That isn't a suggestion, thats pretty much an order. Anyway hope that helps you out. Oh and yes, Jesus gave Apostles authority to forgive sins, so confession is a very biblical idea. Also the bible says Christians must confess their sins to one another. I'd throw the verse out, but your so frightened by what the bible says I doubt you'd confront the truth. John 20:23 "Whosoever sins you forgive they are forgiven, whosoever sins you do not forgive are not forgiven" Yes, the Apostles had authority to cast out demons, and forgive men their sins. Not on their own authority, but Jesus Christ himself. Think on those things and pray. Keep an open mind not close minded one.
| ||
4/29/2008 7:41 pm |
Dennis, I back up all that Cathoholic says!!! This is what I know and believe as well!!! I told you he's excellent!! 
| ||
4/29/2008 8:22 pm |
I'm sorry but an attack on Catholicism is an attack on Catholics, since we are part of the Church and not seperate from it. We represent the Catholic faith, therefore if we do things that prove we love Christ and obey him only then that proves Catholics are Christians. Lets not forget Catholics existed before Protestants. It was the only Christian religion, so I doubt anyone can buy into your whackjob claims that Catholicism is not Christianity. Just trying to help your confused self out Dennis! =) I am a free Christian thinker, "I will fight for your right to be wrong!" << S.G. Tallentyre
| ||
4/29/2008 8:24 pm |
Gordy...Following Jesus was not in the context of Christianity. Christianity began after Jesus gave atonement. Lisa what you just stated is aniother issue with Catholisism. The pope is not Jesus Christ. I do not have any inkling to "protect any denomenation because denomenations are not important. The truth is what is real matters. I have put up all the scriptural reasons that I need to. Catholics teach it is Jesus plus other things. That is very big, because the word of God teaches that what Jesus did was a completed work. They teach Mary can forgive sins. Thats total baloney. They teach praying to the dead, which is forbidden scripturally. They have images [idols] all over the place when the scriptures teach against that. The act of confession to Priests started when? the 12 century.1200 years after Jesus Christ. You have been lied to when Peter was proclaimed the first "Pope". Peter was sent to the Jews, Paul was sent to the gentiles. Peter was not even in Rome in the time period that Catholics teach. Catholicism is nothing more than another Mormonism. All of these things I have just listed is scriptural herecy Ummm, but ONLY those sins committed against her, NOT against anyone else. Just like all the rest of us can forgive sins against us. I am a free Christian thinker, "I will fight for your right to be wrong!" << S.G. Tallentyre
| ||
4/29/2008 8:32 pm |
Let's not forget Christians existed before Catholicism (unless you include Babylonianism/Chaldeanism...if those are words...heh). Christianity was Catholicism. It didn't start calling itself Catholic until after heresies started to arise such as Gnosticism. Christianity had leadership and that leadership was the early Catholic Bishops. (I have no idea how anyone can claim the early Church was just "Christian" and "sort of looked Catholic but really wasn't!" The early Christians practiced Catholic beliefs, thats why the evidence is overwhelming that it was indeed the Catholic Church. This whole notion that Catholicism was a movement within Christianity, and not the Christian movement itself is silly. Christ called Peter the rock on whom the Church would be built. Hence why it must be the Catholic Church, which has a line of succesion that can be traced back to Peter himself.
| ||
4/29/2008 10:31 pm |
Cathoholic, No Peter is not the rock, Jesus is the rock. Classic Greek authors (before the New Testament was written) treat the words PETROS and PETRA as two different words. Peter means "PETROS" which is a stone which can by turned over, hence, a movable stone. Petra, a large massive rock, a large boulder, a foundation stone. PETRA is used 16 times in the Greek New Testament: Of those times it is translated in the Peshitta Syriac 9 times by the word SHU`A' , 6 times by the word KE'PHA' and 1 time by the Hebrew root word 'ABENA' Of the ten times PETRA is used in the Gospels it is translated: 7 times by the word SHU`A' (Mt.7:24, 25; Mk.15:46; Lk 6:48[2x];8:6, 13) 3 times by the word KE'PHA' (Mt.16:18; 27:51; 27:60) Of the three times KE'PHA' is used to translate PETRA in the Gospels: [1] in Mt. 27:60 the parallel passage in Mark's gospel (Mark 15:46) more correctly uses SHU`A' to translate PETRA. [2] in Mt. 27:51 the word KE'PHA' is used to describe the rocks (plural) which were broken at the earthquake when Christ died (and hence, these rocks became movable). [3] the other passage is Mt. 16:18 where KE'PHA' is used to translate both PETROS and PETRA. In all other places in the Gospels the Greek word PETRA is translated by the Syriac word SHU`A', meaning "a massive rock." KE'PHA' is used in the Syriac N.T. as the translation of both the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS. The Greek word LITHOS, which means "a stone" (generally of a size which could be picked up or moved) is ALWAYS translated by the Syriac word KE'PHA'. As LITHOS in classical Greek is the common prose word for "a stone" (see the quote from Liddle and Scott's Lexicon, above) and PETROS is more common in poetry, this shows that the definition of KE'PHA' as "a stone" is correct. The Syriac KE'PHA' is equivalent to the Greek LITHOS, a movable stone. KE'PHA' IS ALWAYS USED TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD LITHOS. SHU'A IS THE MORE USUAL AND CORRECT SYRIAC WORD TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD PETRA. KE'PHA IS A MOVABLE STONE = LITHOS / PETROS. SHU'A IS A MASSIVE ROCK = PETRA. The Syriac word SHU`A' is NEVER used to translate the Greek word LITHOS. Because a LITHOS is NOT a large massive rock, but a SHU`A' is. The Syriac KE'PHA' is correctly used to translate the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS because these are movable stones. 9. The fact that the Greek text of the New Testament uses two separate Greek words in the passage [Matthew 16:18] indicates that any underlying Aramaic/Syriac original (if there was one, AND THIS IS FAR FROM PROVEN) also must have used two separate words. Conclusion a. A reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac of the passage would properly be: "You are KE'PHA' (a movable stone) and upon this SHU`A' (a large massive rock) I will build my church." This is in exact correspondence to the original inspired Greek text: "You are PETROS (a movable stone) and upon this PETRA (a large massive rock) I will build my church." b. The Peshitta Syriac New Testament text, at least in its extant Manuscripts, mistranslated the passage in Matthew 16:18, incorrectly using the Syriac word KE'PHA' for both Greek words PETROS and PETRA. c. The Church of Rome bases its doctrine of Peter being the Rock upon which the Church is built on this mistranslation and/or a falsely reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac original, ignoring the distinctions in the Aramaic language. d. The Greek text does not teach that Peter is the rock. The rock is either Peter's confession of Christ, or Christ Himself, in Peter's answer to Jesus' earlier question "Who do men say that I the Son of man am?" Isaiah 42:8 " I am the Lord; that is my name! And My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to graven images."
| ||
4/29/2008 11:14 pm |
Cathoholic, No Peter is not the rock, Jesus is the rock. Classic Greek authors (before the New Testament was written) treat the words PETROS and PETRA as two different words. Peter means "PETROS" which is a stone which can by turned over, hence, a movable stone. Petra, a large massive rock, a large boulder, a foundation stone. PETRA is used 16 times in the Greek New Testament: Of those times it is translated in the Peshitta Syriac 9 times by the word SHU`A' , 6 times by the word KE'PHA' and 1 time by the Hebrew root word 'ABENA' Of the ten times PETRA is used in the Gospels it is translated: 7 times by the word SHU`A' (Mt.7:24, 25; Mk.15:46; Lk 6:48[2x];8:6, 13) 3 times by the word KE'PHA' (Mt.16:18; 27:51; 27:60) Of the three times KE'PHA' is used to translate PETRA in the Gospels: [1] in Mt. 27:60 the parallel passage in Mark's gospel (Mark 15:46) more correctly uses SHU`A' to translate PETRA. [2] in Mt. 27:51 the word KE'PHA' is used to describe the rocks (plural) which were broken at the earthquake when Christ died (and hence, these rocks became movable). [3] the other passage is Mt. 16:18 where KE'PHA' is used to translate both PETROS and PETRA. In all other places in the Gospels the Greek word PETRA is translated by the Syriac word SHU`A', meaning "a massive rock." KE'PHA' is used in the Syriac N.T. as the translation of both the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS. The Greek word LITHOS, which means "a stone" (generally of a size which could be picked up or moved) is ALWAYS translated by the Syriac word KE'PHA'. As LITHOS in classical Greek is the common prose word for "a stone" (see the quote from Liddle and Scott's Lexicon, above) and PETROS is more common in poetry, this shows that the definition of KE'PHA' as "a stone" is correct. The Syriac KE'PHA' is equivalent to the Greek LITHOS, a movable stone. KE'PHA' IS ALWAYS USED TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD LITHOS. SHU'A IS THE MORE USUAL AND CORRECT SYRIAC WORD TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD PETRA. KE'PHA IS A MOVABLE STONE = LITHOS / PETROS. SHU'A IS A MASSIVE ROCK = PETRA. The Syriac word SHU`A' is NEVER used to translate the Greek word LITHOS. Because a LITHOS is NOT a large massive rock, but a SHU`A' is. The Syriac KE'PHA' is correctly used to translate the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS because these are movable stones. 9. The fact that the Greek text of the New Testament uses two separate Greek words in the passage [Matthew 16:18] indicates that any underlying Aramaic/Syriac original (if there was one, AND THIS IS FAR FROM PROVEN) also must have used two separate words. Conclusion a. A reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac of the passage would properly be: "You are KE'PHA' (a movable stone) and upon this SHU`A' (a large massive rock) I will build my church." This is in exact correspondence to the original inspired Greek text: "You are PETROS (a movable stone) and upon this PETRA (a large massive rock) I will build my church." b. The Peshitta Syriac New Testament text, at least in its extant Manuscripts, mistranslated the passage in Matthew 16:18, incorrectly using the Syriac word KE'PHA' for both Greek words PETROS and PETRA. c. The Church of Rome bases its doctrine of Peter being the Rock upon which the Church is built on this mistranslation and/or a falsely reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac original, ignoring the distinctions in the Aramaic language. d. The Greek text does not teach that Peter is the rock. The rock is either Peter's confession of Christ, or Christ Himself, in Peter's answer to Jesus' earlier question "Who do men say that I the Son of man am?" This is an extremely worn out weak argument. You really should update your anti-Catholic sources since even the most intelligent scholars (Protestants among them) know for a fact Jesus calls Peter the Rock on whom he would build the Church. Also Sweet Honey, you need to realize that both Jesus and Peter can be called the rock. If you notice in scripture a word can have more then one meaning. 2 Sam. 22:2-3, 32, 47; 23:3; Psalm 18:2,31,46; 19:4; 28:1; 42:9; 62:2,6,7; 89:26; 94:22; 144:1-2 - in these verses, God is also called "rock." Hence, from these verses, non-Catholics often argue that God, and not Peter, is the rock that Jesus is referring to in Matt. 16:18. This argument not only ignores the plain meaning of the applicable texts, but also assumes words used in Scripture can only have one meaning. This, of course, is not true. For example: 1 Cor. 3:11 - Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock. These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church. Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is "petra", that "Petros" actually means "a small rock", and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus' blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used "Kepha," not "evna." Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter. Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the "small rock," he would have used "lithos" which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!). Matt. 16:18 - also, in quoting "on this rock," the Scriptures use the Greek construction "tautee tee" which means on "this" rock; on "this same" rock; or on "this very" rock. "Tautee tee" is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.” The Greek text is a translation of Jesus' words, which were actually spoken in Aramaic. Aramaic only had one word for rock, kephas (which is why Peter is often called Cephas in the Bible). The word Kephas in Aramaic means "huge rock." The Aramaic word for "little stone" is "evna," and Peter was not called "Evna" or "Envas" or anything like that. In Aramaic, Jesus said "You are Peter (Kephas) and upon this rock (kephas) I will build my Church." The metaphor worked well in Aramaic where nouns are neither feminine or masculine, but in Greek, the noun "rock" was feminine, and therefore unsuitable as a name for Peter. So the Aramaic word Kephas was translated to the masculine name Petros when it referred to Peter, and to the feminine noun petra when it referred to the rock. In ancient Koine Greek, petra and petros were total synonyms, unlike modern Attic Greek and unlike Ionic Greek which was about 400 year before Christ. I think it's fairly obvious your argument is not only in-accurate it simply falls apart when compared with the teachings of the early Church Fathers. (Believe me Sweet Honey you don't wanna know what the Early Church Fathers say since they completely contradict your personal teaching that Peter is not the rock on whom Christ built the Church) God bless!
| ||
4/29/2008 11:21 pm |
Christ is the foundation and cornerstone of the church.
| ||
4/30/2008 3:50 am |
Christ is the foundation and cornerstone of the church. If you read my post you will see that Christ conferred this distinction upon Peter as well. A word can have more then one meaning as I cited in my earlier post. This does not rob Christ of his place, it merely demonstrates the unity of the Church further when Christ calls Peter the rock on whom the Church would be built. If you read my post you will find the bible flat out says the Apostles are the foundation of the Church, this does not in anyway contradict Christ also being that foundation.
| ||
4/30/2008 4:02 am |
amen
| ||
4/30/2008 4:07 am |
Catholic gets beat up on this stuff all the time. Peter was given to lead the Jews conversion to Christ, yet Catholics say he was the first pope. Paul, was to lead the gentiles which if there was any truth to the legacy of Pope, would have been the first one. Its one big lie after another in the catholic church. I feel sorry for the people deceived. Its witchcraft. Further proof? Confession started in the 12th century AD. Where is the truth in that? It took 1200 years to realize that you had to confess to a Priest? Thats a sloppy job by the Holy Spirit if that were true. Instead it is one of a linage of lies perpatrated on people.
| ||
4/30/2008 5:26 am |
lets break down a few things such as Purgatory: Does Purgatory Deny the Sufficiency of Christ's Sacrifice? According to the Handbook for Today's Catholic, page 47, "If you die in the love of God but possess any stains of sin, such stains are cleansed away in a purifying process called purgatory. These stains of sin are primarily the temporal punishment due to venial or mortal sins already forgiven but for which sufficient penance was not done during your lifetime." The Catholic Catechism, paragraph 1030, says that purgatory is for "All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation, but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven." Among the many doctrines that Catholicism claims to be derived through Sacred Tradition, purgatory is one of the most interesting and puzzling, particularly to a Protestant. In light of the Pauline doctrine of justification by grace through faith, how is it possible that an afterlife cleansing through punishment is necessary for a Christian who has trusted in Jesus to cleanse him from all His sins? Wasn't Jesus' punishment for our transgressions sufficient? Didn't He take our place in that He suffered our death? It would seem that the words of Christ, "It is finished," (John 19:30) do not mean that the cleansing of our souls was completed on the cross. Of course, Roman Catholic doctrine states that eternal life is bestowed upon the one who receives baptism (Catechism, par. 1265 - 1266, 1992). It is the stains of the sins committed after baptism and not removed through penance, good works, prayers, the Mass, etc., that are removed in the fires of purgatory (Handbook for Today's Catholic, page 47). In light of the doctrine of justification by faith (Rom. 5:1; Rom. 4:5; Rom. 9:30; Acts 13:39; Gal. 2:16), where Jesus bore all of our sins, purgatory would seem to have no theologically justifiable right to exist. But the Bible alone is not appealed to by Catholic theologians in support of Purgatory. By far, the main support for Purgatory is found in the Catholic doctrine of Sacred Tradition. Nevertheless, what does the Bible say about justification, punishment, and our sins? What is justification by faith? To justify means acquit, declare righteous, the opposite of condemn. It means to not be guilty of breaking the Law and to be deemed as righteous by the standard of the Law. God gave the Law, i.e, the 10 Commandments. The Law is a reflection of God's character and it is a perfect standard of righteousness which no one can keep. Since no one is able to keep God's Law, no one can be justified by the Law (Rom. 3:20). There is, therefore, none righteous (Rom. 3:10-12). This is the problem of all people. We have all broken God's Law and are in need of justification, of being declared righteous in God's sight. This can only be done through the Messiah, our sin bearer. Jesus is the one who took our place on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24), became sin on our behalf (2 Cor. 5:21), and turned away the wrath of God from us (Rom. 5:9) by being a propitiation (1 John 2:2) that turned away the wrath of God. He was punished in our place. Therefore, Jesus was our substitution. The righteous work of Christ is imputed to the believer by grace (Titus 3  ) and through faith (Rom. 5:1). This justification is a legal action on the part of God reckoning the believer as having satisfied the Law all of the Law.It necessarily follows that to be justified in God's eyes, is to be fully justified. It is not part of the Law that must be satisfied, but all of it. Perfection is the standard. Likewise, it is not part of our sins that were born by Christ, but all of them. This justification includes all of the sins of the believer (past, present, and future), or else we could not be justified. What does the Catholic Catechism Say? The Catholic Catechism (paragraphs 1990-1992) says, "Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God's merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals"...."Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ..." and "...justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy." Of particular interest is the reference that "justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith." There are many verses in the Bible that deal with baptism and putting on Christ (Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:1-11). This paper is not intended to discuss the nature of baptism. Nevertheless, I strongly affirm that baptism is a covenant sign for the believer who is already justified by faith and for the children of believers who are under the covenant headship of the family. Baptism is not what justifies a person. Rather, Justification is a gift by His grace through Jesus (Rom. 3:24) Justification is by grace (Titus 3 ) Justification is by faith (Rom. 3:28; 5:1; Gal. 3:24) Justification is by Jesus' blood (Rom. 5:9). Justification is in the name of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 6:11). Justification is not equated with baptism, but with grace, faith, and the blood of Jesus. Jesus said, "It is finished," (John 19:30) Jesus bore our sins in His body, paid the penalty for them, and died. He said, "It is finished." In Greek, the phrase, "It is finished" is one word, tetelestai. In ancient Greek papyri, in texts that were receipts for taxes, when a debt was paid in full, the word tetelestai was written on the document. This meant that the debt had been paid in full. In other words, Jesus had finished the work of atonement. But not only atonement (to make amends, to make right), but also of propitiation (turning away God's wrath). He had fully paid the debt invoked by the sinner. There was nothing more to be done... It was finished. Yet, the doctrine of Purgatory, in effect, is saying that we must suffer in purgatory for sins not covered by baptism and not covered by the cross. It is to say that the work of Christ is not finished and that there are things we must do to complete the sacrificial, cleansing work of Christ. This amounts to earning heaven by our good works, albeit a work of suffering. Additionally, the doctrine of Purgatory implies that a person must atone for his own sins. It implies that the person must do more than what the Law of God requires of him. This is called supererogation. When Jesus said, "It is finished," all that was necessary in the atonement was concluded and all in Christ were justified. We cannot complete or add to Christ's work through our suffering. Purgatory is not only unnecessary, but it contradicts God's word. Matt Slick
| ||
4/30/2008 5:29 am |
Roman Catholicism, the Bible, and Tradition One of the great differences between Protestant and Catholic doctrine is in the area of Tradition. The Protestant church maintains that the Bible alone is intended by God to be the source of doctrinal truth (2 Tim. 3:16). The Catholic Church, however, says, "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God . . ." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 97. Note, all citations in this article are from this Catechism). The Catholic Church reasons thusly: 1. "The apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority.'" (Paragraph 77) 2. "This living transmission, accomplished through the Holy Spirit, is called tradition..." (Par. 7  3. "Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence" (Par. 82). Within the Catholic scope of Tradition, many doctrines have been "revealed" to the Church over the centuries. For example, there is the veneration of Mary, her immaculate conception and her bodily assumption into heaven. There is also the Apocrypha, transubstantiation, praying to saints, the confessional, penance, purgatory, and more. Protestantism as a whole differs with Catholicism in these additions. Tradition in the Bible The Bible speaks about tradition. Some verses speak for tradition and others speak against it. Of course, the contexts are different and carry different meanings. For example: For Against 2 Thess. 3:6, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us." Matt. 15:3-6, "And He answered and said to them, 'And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, Honor your father and mother, and, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death 5But you say, Whoever shall say to his father or mother, Anything of mine you might have been helped by has been given to God, 6he is not to honor his father or his mother. And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition." 2 Thess. 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." Mark 7:8-9, "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men. 9He was also saying to them, You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition." 1 Cor. 11:2, "Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you." Col. 2:8, "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." In the discussions regarding Tradition between Protestants and Catholics, both sets of scriptures are often quoted in order to establish their respective positions. The Protestants often quote Matt. 15:3-6 in opposition to Sacred Tradition. In an appeal to be biblical, many Catholic apologists cite 2 Thess. 2:15 to validate their position on Sacred Tradition. Unfortunately, this amounts to using the Word of God against itself. Clearly, God's word is not contradictory. Rather, it is our understanding that is in error. The Bible is for tradition where it supports the teachings of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) and is consistent with biblical revelation. Yet, it is against tradition when it "transgresses the commands of God" (Matt. 15:3). By Jesus' own words, tradition is not to transgress or contradict the commands of God. In other words, it should be in harmony with biblical teaching and not oppose it in any way. Though the Catholic Church officially states that Sacred Tradition should not and does not contradict Scripture, Protestants see much of the teaching from this Sacred Tradition as doing just that. It isn't enough for the Catholic to say that their church is the true church, that they have the apostolic tradition, that they hold the keys to the truth, and that they have revealed doctrines consistent with biblical revelation. Likewise, it isn't enough for a Protestant to pass judgment upon Catholic doctrines simply because they are Catholic and are derived via Sacred Tradition. Are Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition Really Equal? To me, it is not enough to simply say that Sacred Tradition is equal to Scripture based upon the decree of the Catholic Magisterium. Like any spiritual teaching, I must compare it to the Bible. Jesus' own words in Matt. 15:3 lend support for myself and many non-Catholics to subject the fruit of Sacred Tradition to the pruning of God's word. In other words, do the teachings of the Catholic Church that are derived through tradition transgress the commands of God? Of course, the Catholic will say that they do not. When Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees in Matt. 15:1-6, He reprimanded them for not understanding God's word. They were appealing to the tradition of the elders, those who had passed down oral and written tradition. Jesus, on the other hand, exposed their error by citing scripture. Please take note of what He said in Matt. 15:1-6. "Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem, saying, 2'Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.' 3And He answered and said to them, 'And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4'For God said, "Honor your father and mother," and, "He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death."5'But you say, "Whoever shall say to his father or mother, 'Anything of mine you might have been helped by has been given to God,' 6he is not to honor his father or his mother." And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.'" Whatever might be said about this passage, at least one thing must be observed: The tradition of the religious leaders was subject to the Word of God. Are the religious leaders of the Catholic Church exempt from subjection to the Word of God? And likewise, is their Sacred Tradition also exempt? I think not. Where the Protestants would interpret Tradition in light of Scripture, it seems that the Catholic Church does the opposite. Consider the following, "The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it. 1. 'Be especially attentive to the content and unity of the whole Scripture.'. . . 2. 'Read the Scripture within the living Tradition of the whole Church.' . . . 3. 'Be attentive to the analogy of faith.'" (Par. 111, 112, 13, 114). It is number 2 that is the main concern here. What does it mean to read Scripture "within the living Tradition of the whole Church?" If Scripture is "within the living Tradition," then Tradition encompasses Scripture. In other words, it is the tradition of the Church that interprets Scripture. This is in contradiction to the Word of God spoken by Jesus in Matt. 15:1-6. Some object and say that the Pharisees didn't have apostolic authority and succession that was ordained by the apostles as does the Catholic Church and, therefore, Matt. 15:1-6 cannot be used to nullify Sacred Tradition. But the issue in Matt. 15:1-6 is not succession of authority but the traditions of men being used in opposition to the truth of the Word of God. Essentially, the Pharisees were seeing the Word of God "within" their sacred tradition. Jesus, in contrast to this, cited the Word of God to judge their traditions. The apostles, likewise, continuously admonished their people to check their teaching against the Scripture (Acts 17:11), thereby substantiating the position that even what they taught was subject to God's Word. After all, no doctrinal teaching should contradict biblical revelation and the Sacred Word of God was and is the final authority in all things spiritual. The Catholic Church's position and teaching as based on Sacred Tradition are no different. They must be compared to Scripture. My desire in writing this is not to alienate Catholics nor belittle their beliefs. I believe that there are some Catholics who love the Lord and are saved. But I would like to add that I believe it is in spite of official Roman Catholic doctrine. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that the Catholic Church has added teachings that are not consistent with biblical revelation. If you are a Catholic, I hope my words do not offend you. Rather, I hope and pray that you would consider what this site has to say and compare it with the Word of God.
| ||
4/30/2008 8:13 am |
I LOVE watching you try to manipulate the facts Dennis! =) Remember the time you accused Catholics of murdering Protestants and I pointed out that Protestants murdered Catholics too? But you totally ignored that little fact of history!? This is JUST like one of those times man! LOL Only this time you've found a very loooong winded way at doing it! You just keep using that Catholic New Testament Canon Dennis! I promise I won't tell anyone the Catholic Church put that together if you won't!!! It'll be our lil secret... 
| ||
4/30/2008 10:26 am |
Peter was a man...a moveable stone. Jesus Christ is the unshakable rock. Isaiah 51:1 Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock [whence] ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit [whence] ye are digged I Corinthians 10:1-12. Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and the Rock was Christ. Isaiah 42:8 " I am the Lord; that is my name! And My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to graven images."
| ||
4/30/2008 10:50 am |
Peter was a man...a moveable stone. Jesus Christ is the unshakable rock. Isaiah 51:1 Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock [whence] ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit [whence] ye are digged I Corinthians 10:1-12. Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and the Rock was Christ. Cmon sweetie don't make me qoute the early Church Fathers. It would only make your claim that Jesus was not the rock on whom Christ built the Church look silly. I'm trying to save you some face here.
| ||
4/30/2008 2:46 pm |
Catholic, until the word of God means more to you than the witchcraft written by Catholics, and it is witchcraft, then truth will always evade you. People have given many illustrations of how Mass is unGodly, Worship of Mary, Pope's are lied about; such as Peter being the first Pope which is scripturally proven wrong. Why bother answering you because you have this liberal mindset of brainwashing that everyone else is wrong when you are tore a new butthole by the scriptures versus the ant-Christ writings of Catholics.
| ||
4/30/2008 4:36 pm |
Cmon now man, the scriptures you use were all approved by the Catholic Church, if the Catholic Church is a cult I would stop using their New Testament canon lol....cmon now show some common sense.
| ||
4/30/2008 5:50 pm |
Christianity was Catholicism. It didn't start calling itself Catholic until after heresies started to arise such as Gnosticism. Christianity had leadership and that leadership was the early Catholic Bishops. (I have no idea how anyone can claim the early Church was just "Christian" and "sort of looked Catholic but really wasn't!" The early Christians practiced Catholic beliefs, thats why the evidence is overwhelming that it was indeed the Catholic Church. This whole notion that Catholicism was a movement within Christianity, and not the Christian movement itself is silly. Christ called Peter the rock on whom the Church would be built. Hence why it must be the Catholic Church, which has a line of succesion that can be traced back to Peter himself. Then I see you brushed her comments aside with a soft threat. Now in regards to our Bible being the Roman Catholic's work, well not actually: The Christians (pre-150AD) approved of those same books/letters of the Bible as being inspired by God and the others not approved as not being inspired by Him. But they did it on an individual church basis for each book/letters (rather than for all the books/letters). I am a free Christian thinker, "I will fight for your right to be wrong!" << S.G. Tallentyre
| ||
4/30/2008 5:57 pm |
If peter is the rock then why do most follow the teachings of Paul? Peter and Paul did not preach the same gospel.
| ||
4/30/2008 6:36 pm |
Peter was sent to the Jews to help convert them. Paul was sent to the gentiles
| ||
4/30/2008 10:25 pm |
Sorry Merlin, you paint an image of the Church that is partially true but NOT quite the whole picture. While it's true that some Christian Churches *which were all Catholic Churches I might add since it was CATHOLIC monks that preserved the New Testament writings* did have different books which it was still debating over which ones were inspired, the ecumenical councils that took place in Carthage and Hippo overseen by the Pope did in fact determine the canon for the Bible which all Christians now follow today. It had nothing to do with a group of Christians that were not Catholic and not following the Pope. It was always believed by the early Church fathers that if you were in communion with the Holy See that you were following the one true Church Christ established. You see Merlin, people cannot just randomly start up their own Churches just because they feel like doing so, thats not how this works. Only one Church was established, with one set hierchy, therefore only one Church can be possible. Hope that helps! Oh! and I didn't sweet any of Sweet Honeys comments aside, I merely corrected her and pointed out that Jesus spoke Aramic. Kepha means stone. It doesn't mean little pebble. In the language Jesus spoke their was no word for "little rock". Also lets not forget Jesus says "You are Peter and upon this rock..." Whether a person is speaking Japanese, Greek, Spanish, English or God knows whatever language, a sentence that starts off with "YOU ARE" is not referring to the speaker, thats honestly grade school grammer and common sense. Jesus was not referring to himself as the rock in this passage and to try to explain that away is not only LAUGHABLE, but it's down right illogicial! I've never heard someone start a sentence off with "YOU ARE Damian and blah blah blah" listen to how non-sensical that sounds when Protestants say that must mean the speaker is taking about himself! If that doesn't make any sense to you why would that make any sense to me? LOL...
| ||
5/1/2008 1:05 am |
Yeah Catholic, every one elses opinion outside of yours is somehow skewered. Here is the clue. You are in a cult. Not us.
| ||
5/1/2008 7:31 am |
Sorry Merlin, you paint an image of the Church that is partially true but NOT quite the whole picture. While it's true that some Christian Churches *which were all Catholic Churches I might add since it was CATHOLIC monks that preserved the New Testament writings* did have different books which it was still debating over which ones were inspired, the ecumenical councils that took place in Carthage and Hippo overseen by the Pope did in fact determine the canon for the Bible which all Christians now follow today. It had nothing to do with a group of Christians that were not Catholic and not following the Pope. It was always believed by the early Church fathers that if you were in communion with the Holy See that you were following the one true Church Christ established. You see Merlin, people cannot just randomly start up their own Churches just because they feel like doing so, thats not how this works. Only one Church was established, with one set hierchy, therefore only one Church can be possible. Hope that helps! Oh! and I didn't sweet any of Sweet Honeys comments aside, I merely corrected her and pointed out that Jesus spoke Aramic. Kepha means stone. It doesn't mean little pebble. In the language Jesus spoke their was no word for "little rock". Also lets not forget Jesus says "You are Peter and upon this rock..." Whether a person is speaking Japanese, Greek, Spanish, English or God knows whatever language, a sentence that starts off with "YOU ARE" is not referring to the speaker, thats honestly grade school grammer and common sense. Jesus was not referring to himself as the rock in this passage and to try to explain that away is not only LAUGHABLE, but it's down right illogicial! I've never heard someone start a sentence off with "YOU ARE Damian and blah blah blah" listen to how non-sensical that sounds when Protestants say that must mean the speaker is taking about himself! If that doesn't make any sense to you why would that make any sense to me? LOL... I never said/hinted that people could just randomly start up their own churches just cuz they feel like doing so. There were many separated churches till about 300AD when Catholicism started by Emporer Constantine, which then forced its views on all the churches and on the rest of the Empire. Of course Jesus spoke Aramaic. I could debate you on the "rock" bit but I see you're set in your own ways on that subject. What I will instead debate on is that the context of what Jesus was saying to Peter is that the truth about who Jesus is, is the rock He was referring to. Do you know what that truth about Himself is? What is it? I am a free Christian thinker, "I will fight for your right to be wrong!" << S.G. Tallentyre
| ||
5/1/2008 10:56 am |
You sortof ignored my comments in your first paragraph. I never said/hinted that people could just randomly start up their own churches just cuz they feel like doing so. There were many separated churches till about 300AD when Catholicism started by Emporer Constantine, which then forced its views on all the churches and on the rest of the Empire. Of course Jesus spoke Aramaic. I could debate you on the "rock" bit but I see you're set in your own ways on that subject. What I will instead debate on is that the context of what Jesus was saying to Peter is that the truth about who Jesus is, is the rock He was referring to. Do you know what that truth about Himself is? What is it? You know Merlin, I can already tell by some of the things you say that your really out of touch with what actually took place in history. First of all, the Catholic Church was not started by Emperor Constantine. I have no idea why Protestants say this all the time (frankly Merlin I am a little disappointed that a man as intelligent as yourself could ever state something like that) But hey, nobodies is perfect and people do on occasion say things that are not accurate. I do not wish you to think that just because I know thats factually untrue that it has damaged your credibility with me on anything else you have to say. I also know what your trying to make as an argument. I'm sorry, Jesus did not build his Church on Peters confession. Jesus built his Church on people. Not a confession. Allow me to explain. (Yes I've this argument from Protestantism and I'll explain why it's wrong). Matt. 16:18-19 – to further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “you,” and I tell “you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith. So ONCE again to sum that up shortly since I know people have a habit of skipping over alot of this explanation. Peter says "You are the Christ" and Christ says to Peter "You are Kephas (rock)" In the same way Peter defines who Jesus is. Jesus defines who Peter is. I would like you to also know, that nobody in Christianity debated that Peter was the rock Jesus was referring to in this verse. Not even Martin Luther argued this. Remember, Protestantism came up with this argument 1,500 yrs after the Church understood the meanings of this verse. The Church always understood it, Protestantism merely distorted it. As I stated before. Peter being the rock on whom Christ built the Church does not in anyway take away from Christ also being the rock of the Church. Rather it demonstrates that Christ had built his Church on the foundation of the Apostles. Jesus changed Simons name to Rock. Not a "movable stone" or "pebble" as Sweet Honey was trying to insinuate.
| ||
5/1/2008 11:05 am |
I understand the need for people to look at the whole context of scripture. But their are times when the bible is very clear, and you really don't need the whole bible context in order to understand something that is said very plainly and very simply. I find people try to pull the context card a lot *not saying thats what your doing* but it does raise the question of, when exactly are you going to consider something to be "in context"? When it fits your interpretation? Because honestly, we can take the WHOLE context of anything the Bible says, or even things people do, and find ways to justify any interpretation of anything that way. For example Adolf Hitler said alot of bad things, but he occasionally did randomly nice things to people under his own authority. Bought them cars and things like that. It would be easy to say people are taking Hitlers speeches "Out of context" because we need to look at EVERYTHING he did to fully judge that the things he was saying were untrue. Do you sort of understand what I'm trying to articulate? That people play the context card and abuse it so much these. Maybe things do get taken out of context from time to time. However, that doesn't change the fact that people play the context card to say "WELL, maybe this one verse doesn't support my interpretation, but if we look at the WHOLE bible as a whole then it would support my interpretation!" Just food for thought.
| ||
5/1/2008 1:27 pm |
being aside from what the scripture clearly says is not even a question. That is why Catholicism is a pagan religion born out of babylon
| ||
5/8/2008 3:34 am |
|||
