Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mary: Mother of God?
What Does the Bible say? ^ | 01/11/2012 | Bro. Lev Humphries,

Posted on 01/11/2012 7:34:56 PM PST by RnMomof7

Mary: Mother of God?

This article is prompted by an ad in the Parade Magazine titled: "Mary Mother of God: What All Mankind Should Know." The offer was made for a free pamphlet entitled "Mary Mother of Jesus" with this explanation: "A clear, insightful pamphlet explains the importance of Mary and her role as Mother of God."

This is quite a claim, to say the least! Nowhere in the Bible is Mary said to be the mother of God. I touched on this subject in a series on "Mary Co-Redeemer with Christ" printed recently.

Question: If Mary is the Mother of God, Who, may I ask, is the Father of God? Does God have a Father, and if He does, Who is His Mother?

The phrase "Mother of God" originated in the Council of Ephesus, in the year 431 AD. It occurs in the Creed of Chalcedon, which was adopted by the council in 451 AD. This was the declaration given at that time: "Born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to the Manhood." The purpose of this statement originally was meant to emphasize the deity of Christ over against the teaching of the Nestorians whose teaching involved a dual-natured Jesus. Their teaching was that the person born of Mary was only a man who was then indwelt by God. The title "Mother of God" was used originally to counter this false doctrine. The doctrine now emphasizes the person of Mary rather than the deity of Jesus as God incarnate. Mary certainly did not give birth to God. In fact, Mary did not give birth to the divinity of Christ. Mary only gave birth to the humanity of Jesus. The only thing Jesus got from Mary was a body. Every Human Being has received a sinful nature from their parents with one exception: Jesus was not human. He was divine God in a flesh body. This is what Mary gave birth to. Read Hebrews 10:5 and Phil 2:5-11.

Please refer to Hebrews 10:5 where we see. "...Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me."

The body of Jesus was prepared by God. In Matthew 1:18, "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."

The divine nature of Jesus existed from before eternity, and this cannot be said of Mary Jesus never called her "mother". He called her "woman".

This doctrine deifies Mary and humanizes Jesus. Mary is presented as stronger that Christ, more mature and more powerful that Christ. Listen to this statement by Rome: "He came to us through Mary, and we must go to Him through her." The Bible plainly states that God is the Creator of all things. It is a blasphemous attack on the eternity of God to ever teach that He has a mother. Mary had other children who were normal, physical, sinful human beings. In the case of Jesus Christ, "His human nature had no father and His divine nature had no mother."

It is probably no coincidence that this false doctrine surrounding Mary was born in Ephesus. Please read Acts 19:11-41 and see that Ephesus had a problem with goddess worship. Her name was Diana, Gk. Artemis. You will not have to study very deep to find the similarities between the goddess Diana and the Roman Catholic goddess, Mary. It should be noted that the Mary of the 1st century and the Mary of the 20th century are not the same. Mary of the 1st century was the virgin who gave birth to the Messiah. Mary of the 20th century is a goddess created by the Roman Catholic Church. A simple comparison of what the Bible teaches about Mary and what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about her will reveal two different Marys. Mary is not the "Mother of God." If she were she would be GOD! There is only one true, eternal God. He was not born of a woman. Any teaching on any subject should be backed up by the word of God. If it cannot be supported by Scriptures, it is false doctrine.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion; Theology
KEYWORDS: blessedvirginmary; calvinismisdead; divinity; humanity; ignoranceisbliss; mariolatry; mary; motherofgod; nestorianheresy; nestorians; perpetualvirginity; theotokos
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,501-1,5501,551-1,6001,601-1,650 ... 1,751 next last
To: metmom
metmom, you might have to explain the difference between grammatical gender and sex before you go further. It's not a big deal in English but Greek is another story.
1,551 posted on 01/16/2012 12:54:41 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1549 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
What was all of that but just so much more justification For the desire to be preying on [so-called]heretics necks?

The Albigensian and Waldensians were simple Christians. There was no justification for killing them. It was a big fat worldly mistake.I pay no compliment to those whom celebrate (or would even repeat?) those type of mistakes.

The Lord's kingdom is not of this world. Missing that, is to miss a crucial truth.

Vengeance is the Lord's. It does not belong to men, though I must say there is much competition nowadays amongst those whom would take it upon themselves to "do God a favor" by killing others, in his name.

There is no shortage of those whom run to do so. They all have one thing in common. They congratulate themselves for doing it! That particular sickness, is most assuredly not of God.

1,552 posted on 01/16/2012 12:56:09 PM PST by BlueDragon (on'a $10 horse an' a $40 saddle I'm going up the trail with them longhorn cattle c'm uh ty-yi-yipy-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1521 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
"That is a very revealing example of private interpretation, or "wresting," while ostensibly being opposed to such. A clarification indeed."

Oh my goodness, are you saying that what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander?

Sorry, but you have no right to object to methods you yourself both advocate and routinely apply unless you're also claiming to be an infallible individual and as such, demand everyone accept your interpretation of Scripture as correct. So, are you saying that you are the infallible and the final authority on all interpretation of Scripture?

Have you changed your opinion in the last few hours and no longer agree with personal interpretation of Scripture, or are you saying that your advocacy of personal interpretation only applies to Scripture because the interpretation of Scripture isn't nearly as important as the interpretation of comments in a discussion forum?

If you have ceased to believe that each individual can listen to whatever voices pop into their head, call those voices the Holy Spirit, and then interpret Scripture accordingly, who do you say is the final authority when a question of interpretation arises? Or do you still advocate personal interpretation of Scripture but, if and only if you agree with the result of such personal interpretation?

Do you still think it's just fine for someone to slander Christians, Jesus Christ, Mary, all of the Apostles, and all Catholics who have ever lived, along with anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with their own personal interpretation of Scripture ?

People who advocate a given approach to Scripture or anything else but object to others using that exact same approach without the approval of the advocate are called either a hypocrite, or a relativist, or both. When such an individual is clearly very selective in when they object to the approach they advocate, they would qualify for being described as both a hypocrite and a relativist.

How about this clarification, do you agree with those who say both Christmas and Easter are pagan holidays, agree with those who believe it's wrong to have Church services on Sunday rather than Saturday, agree with those who say all sacred artwork is some sort of idolatry, and do you agree with those who believe the Catholic Pope is now or at some future time will be the prophet of the AntiChrist or the AntiChrist? Given your defense of those who espouse such things, clear all these questions up and then maybe we could discuss which other fantasies you may or may not have accepted from the Most High Self crowd and whether or not I've misunderstood something you've said. Until then, I'll I consider it axiomatic that any dog leaving worm infested samples around has worms.

When a member of The Invisible Church of the Most High Self starts "clearing up a few things" for anyone who doesn't agree with the Millerite and Russelite lies and fables, it's obvious where they're coming from. Particularly when such folks select a screen name near and dear to those who believe in, The Rapture of the Snowflakes Fantasy or some variant of threreof.

1,553 posted on 01/16/2012 12:57:19 PM PST by Rashputin (Obama stark, raving, mad, and even his security people know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1517 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
The Reformers granted Mary a blessedness among women, just as Scripture does.

In no way did the Reformers attribute to Mary the blasphemous sacrilege the RCC heaps on a simple Jewish girl who was graced by God to carry the Christ child to term. The RCC ignorantly ignores Christ's own words regarding Mary as Christ tells us believers are the equal of His mother.

As far as the quote goes, I'm happy you provided me the opportunity to repost it and correctly attribute it to the second greatest mind in history...

"Nay, rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God. We see that Christ treats almost as a matter of indifference that point on which the woman had set a high value. And undoubtedly what she supposed to be Mary's highest honor was far inferior to the other favors which she had received; for it was of vastly greater importance to be regenerated by the Spirit of God than to conceive Christ, according to the flesh, in her womb; to have Christ living spiritually within her than to suckle him with her breasts. In a word, the highest happiness and glory of the holy Virgin consisted in her being a member of his Son, so that the heavenly Father reckoned her in the number of new creatures." -- John Calvin, Commentary 32

1,554 posted on 01/16/2012 1:58:30 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1465 | View Replies]

To: phil413

Ping to 1,554 and Calvin’s Scriptural comment on Mary.


1,555 posted on 01/16/2012 2:07:11 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1554 | View Replies]

To: mitch5501

Thank you for your edifying input here. You are a blessing in more way than you know. God bless you!


1,556 posted on 01/16/2012 2:23:03 PM PST by boatbums (Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1511 | View Replies]

To: narses; Dr. Eckleburg
“Take note of this: no one should put his trust or confidence in the Mother of God or in her merits, for such trust is worthy of God alone and is the lofty service due only to him. Rather praise and thank God through Mary and the grace given her. Laud and love her simply as the one who, without merit, obtained such blessings from God, sheerly out of his mercy, as she herself testifies in the Magnificat.”[99]

“Therefore we should make the Hail Mary neither a prayer nor an invocation because it is improper to interpret the words beyond what they mean in themselves and beyond the meaning given them by the Holy Spirit.”[100]

“…her giving birth is blessed in that it was spared the curse upon all children of Eve who are conceived in sin and born to deserve death and damnation. Only the fruit of her body is blessed, and through this birth we are all blessed.”[101]

“…in the present no one speaks evil of this Mother and her Fruit as much as those who bless her with many rosaries and constantly mouth the Hail Mary. These, more than any others, speak evil against Christ’s word and faith in the worst way.[102]

“Therefore, notice that this Mother and her Fruit are blessed in a twofold way—bodily and spiritually. Bodily with lips and the words of the Hail Mary; such persons blaspheme and speak evil of her most dangerously. And spiritually [one blesses her] in one’s heart by praise and benediction for her child, Christ—for all his words, deeds, and sufferings. And no one does this except he who has the true Christian faith because without such faith no heart is good but is by nature stuffed full of evil speech and blasphemy against God and all his saints.”[103]

These quotes are from Luther’s brief explanation of the “Hail Mary” found in Luther’s Personal Prayer Book. http://tquid.sharpens.org/luther_mary2.htm#VII

1,557 posted on 01/16/2012 2:47:42 PM PST by boatbums (Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1512 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; caww; mitch5501
Philippians 3:19-21

Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

1,558 posted on 01/16/2012 2:53:00 PM PST by boatbums (Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1518 | View Replies]

To: Jvette
REading GOd's Word is "deflecting, dodging and producing a rabbit"? God calls it STUDY. 2 Tim. 2:15. Can you just not read Acts, Chapter 9 and BEGIN to form an understanding of what was going on? Or are you so dependant on man to answer your questions, you would rather just wait for an answer from me, so you can compare it to what your church says?

BTW: this is an important reason to read your Bible. The post I gave you saying the 12 stayed in Jerusalem was not correct. They stayed in ISRAEL, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, to the Jews. With the one exception being Cornelius. I apologize for saying Jerusalem and not Israel. I went back to God's Word and found the mistake. After Acts 28, when Israel is set aside, is not the point of the conversation here. We are talking about Acts, Chapter 1 through Acts, Chapter 28. And yes, Cornelius is VERY important. I believe you will find that it Acts 10. That would be after Acts 9, when Paul is saved. Which is a VERY important clue.

1,559 posted on 01/16/2012 3:23:37 PM PST by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing is for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1539 | View Replies]

To: jacknhoo; caww

Just like cherry picking these verses and so much other Scripture promotes error the RCC has fallen into?

John 20:22-23 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

John 6:53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

James 2:17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

1,560 posted on 01/16/2012 3:32:16 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1210 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; Iscool
Iscool:>>And now you invite us to a Catholic Caucus thread???<<

CynicalBear: Do the think we actually read them if we haven’t been told to stay out? LOL

Look but don't touch......

Like I'd waste my time reading a link to a thread I've been told I can't participate on.

I don't think so.

1,561 posted on 01/16/2012 3:35:17 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1217 | View Replies]

To: verga; Iscool; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; ...
And when Jesus seats you in the smoking sedction don't be surprised. Listen unless you can back up your thoughts about the Catholic Church with Primary sources don't bother commenting. and I mean real legitimate sources.

The Scripture that Iscool posted that the Catholic church claims it's responsible for because it claims it wrote it isn't a *real legitimate source*?

How telling.......

1,562 posted on 01/16/2012 3:47:29 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1219 | View Replies]

To: verga; CynicalBear
Can you ever answer a simple yes or no question with out going off on one of your tangents? Whe one of my students pulls this garbage you just know that he / she has painted themselves into a corner, so try it again.....

Was Peter named Rock by Jesus? This requires only a yes of no answer.

http://biblos.com/matthew/16-18.htm

Jesus said to Peter that he was a Petros (rock) and upon this petra (rock) He would build His church.

While in English both words are translated into *rock*, in the Greek it is more than obvious that the words are not the same.

Now, about that reading comprehension........

1,563 posted on 01/16/2012 4:02:00 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1221 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

GMTA!!!

LOL


1,564 posted on 01/16/2012 4:02:58 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1225 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

“Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see” (Rev 3:18)


1,565 posted on 01/16/2012 4:15:32 PM PST by mitch5501 (My guitar wants to kill your momma!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1558 | View Replies]

To: metmom

I don’t know Greek (perhaps you do) but if it’s anything like Latin, the same noun can take six different forms. For example, God is “Deus” in the nominative case, but in the genitive case it’s “Dei” as in Agnus Dei (Lamb of God) but still means the same. So I’m unconvinced - are you sure that that petros and petra are from different roots? Any Greek scholars out there? I’m just asking - not a rhetorical question.


1,566 posted on 01/16/2012 4:27:40 PM PST by phil413
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1563 | View Replies]

To: gghd; presently no screen name; CynicalBear; caww; boatbums; smvoice; RnMomof7
What is the name of your church?

The Bride of Christ

How many people are in your church?

An uncounted multitude of blood washed saints.

Why is there so much darkness?

John 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

We are all told to shine the light of Truth on the darkness in this world.

And we do when we post Scripture.

1,567 posted on 01/16/2012 4:37:35 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1248 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon
The Albigensian and Waldensians were simple Christians.

Neither simple nor Christian. They were leading true Christians astray. St. Paul was absolutely correct.

1,568 posted on 01/16/2012 4:44:00 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1552 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
The Reformers granted Mary a blessedness among women, just as Scripture does.

Isn't that gracious of them? Just imagine them deigning to grant Mary anything. What else might they grant? Let's see...

Luther granted wealth to himself. Calvin granted power to himself. Zwingli granted a military end to himself playing soldiers. What did they grant to you?

As far as the quote goes, I'm happy you provided me the opportunity to repost it and correctly attribute it to the second greatest mind in history...

Only the second greatest? Oh come now, are you granting that title to someone else?

1,569 posted on 01/16/2012 4:54:50 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1554 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Jesus said to Peter that he was a Petros (rock) and upon this petra (rock) He would build His church.

While in English both words are translated into *rock*, in the Greek it is more than obvious that the words are not the same.

Now, about that reading comprehension........

Exactly how many hours of Study do you in Koine (New Testament Greek) at the Graduate level and what grade did you receive in those classes.

I have two full semesters and received "A"s in both of them.

So yeah I will stack my reading comprehension against any of you prots.

1,570 posted on 01/16/2012 5:01:18 PM PST by verga (We get what we tolerate and increase that which we reward)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1563 | View Replies]

To: metmom; CynicalBear
GMTA!!!

Every time a protestant gives this quote they ALWAYS leave out the second half AFSD, And fools seldom differ.

1,571 posted on 01/16/2012 5:05:55 PM PST by verga (We get what we tolerate and increase that which we reward)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1564 | View Replies]

To: metmom
What is the name of your church?

The Bride of Christ

I'd hazard that it is Joe's Bar and House of Salvation (second floor). A far cry from the Church.

How many people are in your church?

An uncounted multitude of blood washed saints.

The only question is whether or not it is one hand or two.

We are all told to shine the light of Truth on the darkness in this world.

And we do when we post Scripture

The problem is when you guys post Scripture entirely unrelated to the posts in question.

1,572 posted on 01/16/2012 5:09:12 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1567 | View Replies]

Comment #1,573 Removed by Moderator

Comment #1,574 Removed by Moderator

To: metmom
How many people are in your church?

An uncounted multitude of blood washed saints.

And they sang a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation. (Rev. 5:9)

1,575 posted on 01/16/2012 5:23:46 PM PST by boatbums (Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1567 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; MarkBsnr
Both of you: Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
1,576 posted on 01/16/2012 8:40:08 PM PST by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: metmom
In that case Catholics might want to rethink *petra* as meaning Perter as well, since last I recall, Peter was a man.

If you stick to the Aramaic, it might be easier for you to understand. Cephas will do.

1,577 posted on 01/16/2012 8:58:30 PM PST by Al Hitan (Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1549 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

And the work of practical sanctification is done in this world in which we are tempted by power, pleasure and possessions.


1,578 posted on 01/16/2012 9:59:56 PM PST by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1558 | View Replies]

To: metmom
In that case Catholics might want to rethink *petra* as meaning Perter as well, since last I recall, Peter was a man.

There are an awful lot of Protestant scholars that disagree with your misinterpretatiopn of petros.

ALBERT BARNES

(NINETEENTH-CENTURY PRESBYTERIAN)

"The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion" [Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].

JOHN BROADUS

( NINETEENTH-CENTURY CALVINISTIC BAPTIST)

Two quotations from the same work Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.

But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, "Thou are kipho, and on this kipho". The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, "Thou are kepha, and on this kepha".... Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: "Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre"; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, "Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier." Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356

CRAIG L. BLOMBERG

( CONTEMPORARY BAPTIST)

"The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification" [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].

JOHN CALVIN

I grant that in Greek Peter(Peteros) and stone (Petra) mean the same thing, save that the first word is Attic[From the Attica region}, the second from the common tongue. New Testament Commentaries The Harmonies of the Gospels Matthew Mark, and Luke Vol. 2 Translated by T.H.L. Parker

J. KNOX CHAMBLIN

( CONTEMPORARY PRESBYTERIAN)

"By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself" ["Matthew" in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].

R. T. FRANCE

( CONTEMPORARY ANGLICAN) "The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied" (Gospel According to Matthew, 254). HERMAN RIDDERBOS ( CONTEMPORARY DUTCH REFORMED)

"It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter" [Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303]. DONALD HAGNER

( CONTEMPORARY EVANGELICAL)

"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

DONALD A. CARSON III

(Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminar )

(two quotations from different works)

Although it is true that petros and petra can mean "stone" and "rock" respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses ("you are kepha" and "on this kepha"), since the word was used both for a name and for a "rock". The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name. The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke) (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368

The word Peter petros, meaning "rock" (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus' follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken "rock" to be anything or anyone other than Peter. Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78

William Hendriksen (Reformed Christian Church,Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary) The meaning is, "You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church." Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, "And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church." Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), page 647 Gerhard Maier

(Conservative Evangelical Lutheran theologian)

Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which — in accordance with the words of the text — applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis. "The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate" Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58

John Peter Lange

(German Protestant scholar)

The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun.... The proper translation then would be: "Thou art Rock, and upon this rock", etc. Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), page 293

David Hill

(Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies University of Sheffield, England)

On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the "rock" as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely. "The Gospel of Matthew" The New Century Bible Commentary (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261

Suzanne de Dietrich Presbyterian theologian The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. "Simon", the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the "rock" on which God will build the new community. The Layman's Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16 (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93 Oscar Cullmann.

(Lutheran Theologian)

He disagrees with Luther and the Protestant reformers who held that by "rock" Christ did not mean Peter, but meant either himself or the faith of His followers. He believes the meaning of the original Aramaic is very clear: that "Kepha" was the Aramaic word for "rock", and that it was also the name by which Christ called Peter Religion: Peter & the Rock." Time," Dec. 07, 1953.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,890753-1,00.html

1,579 posted on 01/17/2012 5:16:19 AM PST by verga (We get what we tolerate and increase that which we reward)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1549 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

OK with me...


1,580 posted on 01/17/2012 6:11:21 AM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1576 | View Replies]

To: verga
Peter himself says that Jesus is the stone on which the church is built.

1 Peter 2:4-12 4 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For it stands in Scripture:

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

7 So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,

“The stone that the builders rejected

has become the cornerstone,”

8 and

“A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.”

They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

11 Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. 12 Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.

1,581 posted on 01/17/2012 6:14:21 AM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1579 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Peter himself says that Jesus is the stone on which the church is built.

You have a very good theory, but the problem is that you are disagreeing with Jesus Himself and ALL of the Protestant scholars. If you can gett hem to change their minds bully for you. But please don't agrue with me when it is your own people telling YOU that YOU are WRONG.

1,582 posted on 01/17/2012 8:58:37 AM PST by verga (We get what we tolerate and increase that which we reward)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1581 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

Rather than interacting with what i wrote, your reply is another rant that ignores the very points i first made in response to you (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2831799/posts?page=1410#1410), which refutes the premise that SS renders one assuming infallibility, while pointing out that the Catholic himself “makes a fallible decision to submit to Rome, which use of fallible human reasoning he also engages in when interpreting what Rome has taught, including which teachings are indeed infallible in which was are not, in which he cannot be absolutely sure.” Thus we both claim infallible authorities as supreme, but not assuredly infallible interpretations of them.

Instead you want to me to deal with the posts of individuals, which solves nothing, as the real issue is the premise you rage against. If you you want to engage in reasoned exchange on that, than do so, if not, your broadbrushed immature run ons warrant no more of a response than those of atheists may.


1,583 posted on 01/17/2012 11:06:58 AM PST by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1553 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

http://www.studytoanswer.net/rcc/rvb_authority.html
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/552-was-peter-the-rock


1,584 posted on 01/17/2012 11:17:20 AM PST by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1549 | View Replies]

To: verga

If Jesus has said, *and on YOU, PETER, will I build my church* then I would have nothing to argue against, but He didn’t.

As far as other *Protestant scholars* (and not ALL of them by any means), I don’t give a rip about who says what and what kind of credentials they have or how many letters before or after their name. If it doesn’t line up with a clear reading of Scripture or if it contradicts other Scripture, they’re wrong, plain and simple.


1,585 posted on 01/17/2012 12:27:15 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1582 | View Replies]

To: metmom
If Jesus has said, *and on YOU, PETER, will I build my church* then I would have nothing to argue against, but He didn’t.

Well the the way I read it and those really smart men and women read it that is exactly what Jesus said.

As far as other *Protestant scholars* (and not ALL of them by any means), I don’t give a rip about who says what and what kind of credentials they have or how many letters before or after their name. If it doesn’t line up with a clear reading of Scripture or if it contradicts other Scripture, they’re wrong, plain and simple.

So is it that they disagree with you that makes them wrong or that they agree with what has been taught and understood for 1500 years that makes them wrong.

And I really hate to keep asking (actually I know that you are scared/ terrified to answer) Exactly how many hours of credit do you have at the Graduate/ Master level in New Testament Greek? and What grade did you earn in those classes?

1,586 posted on 01/17/2012 12:50:09 PM PST by verga (We get what we tolerate and increase that which we reward)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1585 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
"Rather than interacting ... "

After that portion, everything is simply more noise to pretend that discussion is being attempted. Let's try one very simple question at a time. Do you believe that the Pope of the Catholic Church is now or at some point in the future will be either the prophet of the AntiChrist or the AntiChrist? I don't see how it's the least bit unreasonable for any Catholic to know at least that much about what an obvious anti-Catholic believes prior to discussing anything with them.

If someone won't answer some very simple questions prior to engaging in conversation there is no reason to believe they want to have a conversation or that they are in fact a reasonable person worthy of engaging in conversation. Those who will not answer such simple questions are in reality saying, "yes, birds of a feather flock together, but I like to pretend I'm not really one of the vultures".

1,587 posted on 01/17/2012 12:55:10 PM PST by Rashputin (Obama stark, raving, mad, and even his security people know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1583 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
The Waldensians were in fact both simple, and Christian. But that is quite besides the point of the conversation, regardless of how they may be viewed.

The real question is; was it justified by the teachings of Christ (and the early Apostles?) to lay into their necks quite literally with battle-axes and other implements of death and destruction, for the "crime" of opposing the Latin church?

You say "they were leading true Christians astray". there is no evidence for that, other than the Waldensian growing opposition to certain doctrines of the Latin church which they themselves [Waldensians] had scriptural foundation for.

Jon Huss, for similar reasons, was himself burned alive for alleged crimes of opposition, to this very same Latin "church".

It is only by convoluted reasoning and application (misapplication?) of "tradition" that brought those of that time to the point where they concluded murder was sanctioned.

If one is to invoke Paul at this point (and I do know the scriptural passage alluded to) then it would be like saying Paul sanctioned such "destruction" to be visited not only upon unbelievers, but also those actively preaching Christ, but disagreeing with some aspects of the Latin church, with such destruction directed to be visited upon the offenders, by members of the Latin church, themselves.

There is a religion in the world today whose texts clearly instruct them to slay those in opposition to their own religious teaching, and it is not the Christian one.

1,588 posted on 01/17/2012 1:33:59 PM PST by BlueDragon (on'a $10 horse an' a $40 saddle I'm going up the trail with them longhorn cattle c'm uh ty-yi-yipy-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1568 | View Replies]

To: metmom
If Jesus has said, *and on YOU, PETER, will I build my church* then I would have nothing to argue against, but He didn’t.

Well the the way I read it and those really smart men and women read it that is exactly what Jesus said.

As far as other *Protestant scholars* (and not ALL of them by any means), I don’t give a rip about who says what and what kind of credentials they have or how many letters before or after their name. If it doesn’t line up with a clear reading of Scripture or if it contradicts other Scripture, they’re wrong, plain and simple.

So is it that they disagree with you that makes them wrong or that they agree with what has been taught and understood for 1500 years that makes them wrong.

And I really hate to keep asking (actually I know that you are scared/ terrified to answer) Exactly how many hours of credit do you have at the Graduate/ Master level in New Testament Greek? and What grade did you earn in those classes?

CRICKETS CHIRPING

1,589 posted on 01/17/2012 5:09:16 PM PST by verga (We get what we tolerate and increase that which we reward)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1586 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin


Let's try one very simple question at a time. Do you believe that the Pope of the Catholic Church is now or at some point in the future will be either the prophet of the AntiChrist or the AntiChrist? I don't see how it's the least bit unreasonable for any Catholic to know at least that much about what an obvious anti-Catholic believes prior to discussing anything with them.

No, i do not believe that the pope is the The False Prophet or the AntiChrist, nor anyone i know of now, though i can think of someone more fitting.

As for whether a pope could be either, i certainly allow that, but it seems some of your own did, or at least those of your schismatic sedevacantist brethren, (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/section1.pdf) though they seem to be more tolerated.

The Catholic bishop Arnulf of Orleans was the first to apply the 'man of sin' prophecy in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-9 to the papacy.[7][26] The same interpretation was given by the Catholic abbot Joachim of Floris in 1190[7] and the archbishop Eberhard II in 1240. — EB Elliott, 'Horae Apocalypticae', volume IV, Appendix I, fifth edition, 1862; Leroy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, volume I (1950) pages 541-542

However, if your interrogation is for the purpose of determining whether i am anti-Catholic, then i think i have made that clear, as you have that you are anti-Protestant. The issue is on what basis. On our part the question is whether it is a result finding Scripture to be the assured word of God and thus seeking to go whether Scripture leads, and resulting in affirming truths we both affirm on the weight of Scriptural evidence, and contending against those who deny them, as well as against those teachings we find as being a product of Rome making dogma out of mere traditions of men. Or whether opposition is due to some other reason, as often is alleged.

I am not motivated by any personal animosity toward Rome, and had no real negative personal events there, and my leaving many years ago was done prayerfully. And here i have sought reasonable exchange, and a higher level of substantive debate than simply name calling and such, though this can be hard. But neither are we to sit docile in the midst of the constant (and i meant constant) promotion of teachings of Rome and here as the one true Church©. And if you will assert such, then you cannot complain when it is challenged point by point.

And rather than broadbrushing, you have more reason to deal with opposition as individuals, if such are not preaching a particular church, as you do. Yet we also must deal with Roman Catholics as individuals, as some are more Traditional and others are quite liberal, and some want JP2 canonized while others blast him. But rather than interrogating every Roman Catholics i think that if one show them self reasonable then exchange may be possible.

If someone won't answer some very simple questions prior to engaging in conversation there is no reason to believe they want to have a conversation or that they are in fact a reasonable person worthy of engaging in conversation. Those who will not answer such simple questions are in reality saying, "yes, birds of a feather flock together, but I like to pretend I'm not really one of the vultures".

Rashputin, i saw interrogation as a regards herring in contrast to their real issues, and your one-size-fits-all response of overall misrepresentation (which was not in response to my post) and responsive interrogation hardly evidences openness to discussion, but which i think my reasoned reply to the veracity of the substantial issues behind your unreasonable rant did, rather than replying in kind. But if your defense of Rome means that you cannot engage anti-Catholics who seek to stick with real issues, and allow they can have sincere reasons for doing so, without you resorting to your manner of response at issue, then continue to do as you have.









1,590 posted on 01/17/2012 5:27:50 PM PST by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1587 | View Replies]

To: Al Hitan

And unless you can show me something of mutually-agreed authority (perhaps the Catholic Bible?), then I refuse to believe the Pope has any authority. It simply looks pulled from one’s butt.


1,591 posted on 01/17/2012 5:30:02 PM PST by ConservativeMind ("Humane" = "Don't pen up pets or eat meat, but allow infanticide, abortion, and euthanasia.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1507 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Stand your ground on all good things before God and Satan will have no room to maneuver.
1,592 posted on 01/17/2012 6:27:53 PM PST by ConservativeMind ("Humane" = "Don't pen up pets or eat meat, but allow infanticide, abortion, and euthanasia.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1585 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind; metmom

Her silence is deafening.


1,593 posted on 01/17/2012 6:38:06 PM PST by verga (We get what we tolerate and increase that which we reward)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1592 | View Replies]

To: verga

Verga, I don’t expect that 15 minutes after I post to someone that they will be able to get back with me.

However, it appears there are quite a few Catholics who are unable to respond to my comments throughout this thread with tangible evidence from the Catholic’s own Bible that could use your assistance.

Care to step in and help them?


1,594 posted on 01/17/2012 6:44:56 PM PST by ConservativeMind ("Humane" = "Don't pen up pets or eat meat, but allow infanticide, abortion, and euthanasia.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1593 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
"However, if your interrogation is for the purpose of determining whether i am anti-Catholic, then i think i have made that clear, as you have that you are anti-Protestant. "

Actually, I only know a few Catholics who I've met of late since deciding the Catholic Church is right and no matter who doesn't like it, it is the One True Church founded by Christ Himself and entrusted to His Apostles. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church teaches the same things today it has taught ever since Pentecost. Not a single one of the Self Alone groups that grew out of the Self focused revolt against the One True Church still exists as it did at that time and none of the tens of thousands of fragments those Self centered doctrines have bred teaches all of Christianity as it was taught by Christ and His Apostles. That's not anti-Protestant a bit and the fact I that spend the majority of my time with Lutherans and Southern Baptists rather than Catholics hadn't crossed my mind. I really do need to spend more time with Catholic folks, you're right about that much at least.

What I am is very much against those pretending to be Protestant Christians but who are in reality not Christian, not Protestant, and not anything else except Self Centered anti-Catholics cooperating with the humanist crowd to fragment non-Catholics and constantly attack Catholics.

The fact is, the only place I run into those who claim a) to be Christian, and b) to be Protestant Christians, and who cannot live without attacking the Catholic Church while claiming to infallibly interpret Scripture as they take their daily walk across the surface of the local lake, is right here. Here those who insist they are not anti-Catholic in the least ignore every one of the openly anti-Cathlic liars even when they insist that Christ was not fully human and fully God. At the very least, its interesting that such an assertion seems to bother so few non-Catholic folks. Obviously, they ignore the known numbskulls and just stay on the sidelines most of the time although now and then the numbskulls do wonder into a thread they didn’t start and are quit clearly put in their place by some of the many fine non-Catholic Christians who frequent FR.

"But neither are we to sit docile in the midst of the constant (and i meant constant) promotion of teachings of Rome and here as the one true Church©. "

Well isn't that sweet, you can't remain docile in the face of history. Do you also refuse to remain docile when someone says the Moors once ruled Spain or that there was a revolution in Russia in 1917?

"But if your defense of Rome means that you cannot engage anti-Catholics who seek to stick with real issues, and allow they can have sincere reasons for doing so, without you resorting to your manner of response at issue, then continue to do as you have. "

I don't defend "Rome" , do recognize the use of “Rome” rather than Catholic is a deliberate slur, and only defend the Catholic Church when someone posts an article attacking it. Something those who each have their own “Christian in Name Only" religion, deny the Deity of Christ, and consider Christmas and Easter both to be pagan holidays, can't seem to resist posting in an endless cycle repeating the same handful of lies as topics and using thinly veiled repetitions of anti-Cathlic lies from a popular comic books series as their primary source. Each and every one continues to repeat lies from sources long after many posters have produced more than adequate proof that their sources are lies. Lies from sources that have been debunked as lies not only by Catholics, but by academics who are shocked that shoddy research mixed with fantasy is accepted as nonfiction material are only repeated by liars, right?.

Such folks routinely slander not just the Catholic Church, but with their non-Christian definition of Christianity they slander all Christians, as well. Such is the result of those who each and every one interpret Scripture for themselves. Side with such folks, continue your own personal argumentation and discussion, while ignoring the lies and total fabrications mixed in with your comments, never even take notice of or correct those lies and fabrications, and it's obvious that simply not "remaining docile" is the least of your objectives. Joining liars and ignoring their lies is collaboration with those liars, not some sort of aloofness. As for not being Catholic? Fine with me, I'm not the Holy Spirit. Those who sincerely study Christianity will become Catholic or Orthodox if they are not now, and if they do not, may God have mercy on their souls.

So much for one borderline pseudo-answer that very carefully avoids distancing yourself from the professional liars who routinely post slanders against Christ, Christianity, and the Catholic Church. I like the, "some of my best friends are black folks" non-denial denial that you do in fact believe the Pope will be the AntiChrist or the prophet of the AntiChrist, too. It must hurt to attempt such verbal tap steps when you only know how to polka and square dance.

Now, do you agree with those who say both Christmas and Easter are pagan holidays, and how can you possibly object to anything anyone says they get from Scripture since you advocate and practice self interpretation of Scripture?

1,595 posted on 01/17/2012 6:52:05 PM PST by Rashputin (Obama stark, raving, mad, and even his security people know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1590 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

I began to reply, but it quickly became apparent that you are back on your 4,000+ word breathless diatribe and diversive interrogation again, and still fail to interact with my post which examined the doctrinal premise behind your SS strawman, etc. And as you indicate you have too much venom to deal reasonably and objectively with the doctrinal issues, then i have no interest in more attempts do so with you but will await certain other Catholics who may be want to do so.

Over and out.


1,596 posted on 01/17/2012 7:21:10 PM PST by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1595 | View Replies]

To: verga; ConservativeMind
Well the the way I read it and those really smart men and women read it that is exactly what Jesus said.

God has His opinion on human *smarts*....

1 Corinthians 1:18-31 18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.

22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

1 Corinthians 2:11-16 11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

There is no other rock than Jesus. Matthew 16:18 is misinterpreted if someone says Peter is that rock because it contradicts the clear statements by God about Himself in other Scripture and Scripture CANNOT contradict itself.

Isaiah 44:8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”

And this.....

1 Corinthians 10:1-4 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

Rock in verse 4 in both uses of it is *petra*.

Here is a link to the Greek...

http://biblos.com/1_corinthians/10-4.htm

And it doesn't take a Greek scholar to read that.

As a matter of fact, here are all 15 occurrences of *petra* in the NT.

http://concordances.org/greek/strongs_4073.htm

The following verses besides the 1 Corinthians one, reference Christ as being the rock - petra. NO mention of Peter at all......

Romans 9:33 ...as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

And by Peter HIMSELF......

1 Peter 2:4- 8 4 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For it stands in Scripture:

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

7 So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense .” They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

1,597 posted on 01/17/2012 7:37:50 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1589 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

And, yeah, it took more than 15 minutes to compose that, not counting the other stuff I had to do around the house this evening.

Catholics tend to be a very controlling and demanding lot. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen that kind of impatience and derision over the length of time it took for a response to one of their posts.

Catholics having control issues. Who woulda thunk?


1,598 posted on 01/17/2012 7:41:33 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1594 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
Thank you very much. It's always nice to find out who believes Christmas and Easter are pagan holidays, that each and every individual who proclaims them-self to be infalliable is instantly infallible, and believes their own verbose and wondering posts are models of perfection but that those who respond in kind are posting, "breathless diatribes".

Oh, and I don't think anyone believes that tired old "some of my best friends are black folks" approach to avoiding questions anymore. Those who accept the fantasy heresy of "Scripture Alone" have worn it out trying to pretend they really don't apply the Lego Block Method of Scripture Interpretation" in order to find whatever is convienent within the Scriptures. You know, the Self Alone Interpret Your Own crowd who ordain queers, marry queers one to another, accept abortion as "unfortunate" but not murder, and all the other things based on every bit as much personal interpretation as are the snark posts denying the deity of Christ around here are.

You know, when people start by refusing to accept the Christian canon of the Old Testament and instead accept the Pharisee canon, they're bound to end up going astray no matter how they try not to.

1,599 posted on 01/17/2012 7:45:04 PM PST by Rashputin (Obama stark, raving, mad, and even his security people know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1596 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin; daniel1212

Good job, daniel. Look at the derision you received for that reply.

A sure indicator that they can’t contest it.


1,600 posted on 01/17/2012 8:45:06 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1599 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,501-1,5501,551-1,6001,601-1,650 ... 1,751 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson