Posted on 01/08/2024 1:18:20 PM PST by OneVike
Until now I have not shared my opinion of what I think of the many inherent ways the Catholic Church has misinterpreted Scripture throughout the years. I can no longer be silent on the subject, because it is one that the Catholic Church has used to teach heresy.
To begin with, the Catholic Church has been making a mockery of Scripture for many years. There are many beliefs the Catholic Church holds that I have problems with, but for now I will explain why they are wrong in their interpretation that Peter is the rock upon which Christ has built His church.
Jesus is the ONLY foundation which His church can and is built upon. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and we need to keep our eyes on him, not some man chosen by flawed men. We need not pay attention to what color of smoke is billowing from a building built by flawed men to learn who the voice of God will be, because we already know. We are to look to no one else as the foundation or the hope on which the church is built, but Jesus, The Son of God.
“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,”
(1 Corinthians 3:11)
When Peter answered Jesus by stating,
“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,”
(Matthew 16:16)
Jesus answered and said to him,
“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
(Matthew 16:17-18)
To begin with, when you look at the original wording of Matthew, it was written in Koinonia Greek, which was the language of the common man in the day of Christ. Koinonia Greek was what today’s modern American English is to everyone from America to Korea, the universal language spoken around the world. So when you look at the original language Matthew was written in you will see something that is not readily apparent. When Jesus said,
“…you are Peter [(πΠέτρος) (petros)] and upon this
Rock [(πέτρᾳ) (petra)] I will build My church…”
(Matthew 18a)
Greek nouns have genders, which is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word, “petros”, is masculine; “petra” is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as, “Petros.” But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine, “petros”, rather the feminine, “petra.”
A good example of this would be Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, where he refers to Jesus as the rock that followed the Israelites through the desert;
“and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were
drinking from a spiritual rock [(πέτρᾳ) (petras)] which
followed them; and the Rock [(πέτρᾳ) (petra)] was Christ.”
(1Corinthians 10:4)
It must be pointed out that in Peter’s 1st letter, he refers to Jesus as the “Rock”,
Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,
“Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will
by no means be put to shame.” (Isaiah 28:16)
Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,
“The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,” (Psalms 118:22)
“A stone of stumbling”
And
“a Rock of offense.” (Isaiah 8:14)
(1Peter 2:7-8)
So the word translated in this passage is not the same word as Peter, and nothing can be more wrong than to suppose Jesus meant Peter the person. It’s ludicrous to claim that Jesus would build HIS church upon a sinful flawed individual. HE emphatically stated HE would build it upon the “truth” of which Peter recognized. That truth being, “Jesus is The Christ, The Son of The Living God!” Something we know Peter himself understood by reading his first epistle, as I pointed out above.
Thus if Peter himself used the word, “petra” to refer to Jesus, then shouldn’t we? We can also see where Paul referred to Jesus as the rock, “petra”.
“Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a Rock of offense,
and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”
(Romans 9:33)
We also see the word, "Rock," used throughout the Old Testament to refer to GOD.
“The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just;
a God of faithfulness and without injustice.”
(Deuteronomy 32:4)
“The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer;
My God, my Rock, in whom I take refuge.”
(2 Samuel 22:2-3)
“And who is a Rock, except our God.”
(Psalms 18:31)
“Is there any God besides Me, or
is there any other Rock? I know of none.”
(Isaiah 44:8)
Finally, I challenge anyone to prove to me that, at any time in the Scriptures, GOD ever referred to any man as a rock. However, throughout Scriptures we are told about the perfection of the Rock which is Christ, not a sinful man named Peter. So why would Jesus build His church upon an unstable human who needs to be saved? He wouldn't, and He didn't. It should be obvious from the Word of God that the Rock Jesus was referring to was not Peter, but himself.
“For no man can lay a foundation other than the
one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,”
(1 Corinthians 3:11)
You are really confused.
Let me straighten you out.
The Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived without original sin. It has nothing to do with anybody’s virginity.
Why do you keep bouncing off the walls so much. I have knowledge of the Virgin Mary's birth of Jesus Christ.
I have never heard of the belief of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary created by Pope Pius IX in 1854 just to deify the Virgin Mary to provide emphasis and add gravitas to the Rosary, thus making his mark on the Roman Catholic World.
The only Immaculate Conception the world has seen is that of Jesus Christ.
You continue to call her, Virgin Mary, while at the same time doubting her virginity.
Do you know what a hypocrite is?
Except for Romulus and Remus, Horus, Dionysus, Ra….
Oh hell, too many.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births
Sure you have. You brought it up in your post #201.
Your attempts to deceive are obvious.
Even after re-naming him Peter Jesus several times calls him Simon. The name Peter aka rock came because of Simons saying Jesus is the Son of GOD. Only Jesus is the true rock as foretold as the cornerstone in the Old Testament. Simon’s name change came about because of what was revealed to him which he professed and Jesus being the rock upon which Jesus will build his church. The new temple is Christ living within man. The temple in Jerusalem was destroyed within a few decades. The Apostles, Disciples, Elders, and believers, would worship Jesus in spirit just as He told the woman at the well. In GOD Given calling to minister, a street preacher is no less of a preacher than a Pope or a Priest in a remote nation any less a preacher than one as an example Billy Graham was. All serve the same Lord.
You're really out there in left field now, higgmeister.
You just keeping digging a deeper hole with your ignorance of both Catholicism and of the Bible.
You don't even know the difference between "altar" and "alter".
"Altar" is mentioned in 356 verses in the Bible, yet it appears to be an unfamiliar word to you.
Did you ever read the Bible? Have you heard of St. Joseph and his response to Mary's pregnancy?
They were probably around, at least a few of them. They were not the focus of the story, and therefore not mentioned.
BTW, I know how old Jesus was. Please do not assume biblical ignorance because a person is not Roman Catholic.
I don’t believe I made the inference that Scripture contradicted itself, did I? I looked back at my post, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to. I was stating (simplified versiom) that if your beliefs cannot be confirmed with Scripture then your beliefs are wrong.
1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness.
God promises to cleanse us from ALL sin if we confess. And there are no conditions on whom we are to confess to.
Do you not believe what God tells us in the Bible that HHE is faithful and just and forgives ALL our sins if we confess?
Then how can you claim God gave men the ability to retain sins? Does their decision usurp God’s promise?
You're joking right? The whole account is in Eusebius, Book 5 Chapter 24, written around A.D. 320 but citing the original letters exchanged during the conflict that were still around. We've known all this for 1700 years.
Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Irenaeus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the "Lord's day" namely Easter. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom.You might say--"but it says the bishops rebuked him!" Yes. They absolutely did. But where on earth did he think he had that authority to excommunicate in the first place?
https://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/4208688/posts?page=179#179
et: “P.S. There are plenty of Protestants on this forum who will argue with you about the virginity of Mary.
Show us where anyone here has arguing about Mary being a virgin, that she wasn’t.
I have. Peter was an apostle not higher in rank than any other.
James led the Council at Jerusalem in Acts 15.
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
We are all living stones being built up into God's dwelling place.
Peter is not the only one.
Yet that does not substantiate the fact that the Roman Pope is the voice of GOD!
Lurk around the Catholic threads and you'll see exactly what we think of some of the stuff coming out of the Pope's mouth lately. Popes do and say stupid things all the time. Honorius I was anathematized by a later Pope and an Ecumenical Council for playing cute with the Monothelite heresy. I have a feeling Francis is going to share a similar fate.
Christ said to Peter "upon this Rock I will build MY Church." MY Church. Not Peter's Church. As Catholics we believe firmly that Peter and his successors had absolutely zero power to change anything instituted by Christ. Period. That's why we call the Pope the Vicar of Christ, as he acts only under the authority of a superior.
Now you guys clearly think the Popes HAVE changed Christ's teaching, and I get that. But understand--we don't think Popes have, and we don't even think Popes CAN. So at least argue with us from a correct understanding of our position. If any Catholic asserts a Pope can change the teaching of Christ, he is a heretic.
Excommunication is a control mechanism invented by Roman Catholics to deny salvation to anyone who does not hold to Catholic beliefs. Nothing like threatening eternal damnation to force compliance, is there?
No man or group of men has the authority or right to dictate another’s salvation either to impart it or remove it.
The Spirit gives life (John 6:63) and a person’s eternal destiny is decided by GOD, not man. Hanging the threat of eternal damnation for not submitting to a church’s authority is an abuse of power and was NEVER given to any men or church.
Church discipline as instructed by Jesus and Paul does NOT imply by default a loss of salvation. The only thing that condemns someone is not being joined with Jesus, not not being joined with a church.
Then there’s no point in having pope and since Jesus is building HIS church, then it’s not founded on Peter, but Himself.
So that also means that you all don’t have to take anything your popes say or ever said seriously.
Each man his own little pope. Just pick and choose Vatican 2, pre-Vatican 2, sedevacantists, Orthodox, SSPX and Latin mass traditionalists, or any one of the 22 other *rites* of Catholicism.
Lots of options for Catholics to choose from to pick and choose their favorite flavor of Catholicism.
Hmmm, then we can start out here, very basic and unequivocal.
Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.
So why did your church go and assign the title of *Father* to its priests and *Pope* to its head and insist on it being used by the laity?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.