I hear ya...
Posted on 01/11/2018 6:54:52 PM PST by Salvation
Hang in there bro. 👍
Another one that’s going to leave a scar. That’s two on one thread. 😄😀☘️
The meaning of the word is not dependent on the context.
It's dependent on the GRAMMAR.
In other words if anyone can show me the phrase “little stone” or the word “pebble” in any respected definition of the word “Cephas” then I’ll think differently.
Aside from the fact that the word *petros* grammatically means *little rock* or *pebble*, despite how it's translated into English, the word *petra* is CLEARLY identified as JESUS in the Greek, not Peter.
I guess you missed this the first time:
Matthew 16:18 - http://bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm
Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.
Greek: 4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros (”small stone”) then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra (”cliff, boulder,” Abbott-Smith).
“4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff” (TDNT, 3, 100). “4074 (Pétros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (pétra), a projecting rock, cliff” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – “a mass of connected rock,” which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is “a detached stone or boulder” (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a “solid or native rock, rising up through the earth” (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.
4073 (petra) is “a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
It’s also a strange way to word the sentence that He would call Peter a rock and say that on this I will build my church instead of *on you* as would be grammatically correct in talking to a person.
There is no support from the original Greek that Peter was to be the rock on which Jesus said he would build His church. The nouns are not the same, one being masculine and the other being feminine. They denote different objects.
Also, here, Paul identifies who petra is, and that is Christ. This link takes you to the Greek.
http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/10-4.htm
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, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock (petra) that followed them, and the Rock (petra) was Christ.
http://biblehub.com/text/romans/9-33.htm
Romans 9:30-33 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written,“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
http://biblehub.com/text/1_peter/2-8.htm
1 Peter 2:1-8 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.
As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 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. 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.”
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 (petra) of offense.”
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
All occurrences of *petra* in the Greek.
I think I have said that I do not hate
anything as I am not a hater.
The fact that you see no difference between
religion and belief which comes by faith
shows that you are talking about yourself.
Jesus told the religious leaders of his day
they were of their father thee devil.
If you think religion is of God where was the
Godly religion when Jesus was here?
If the religious leaders of God’s chosen people
we’re of the devil where were the godly religionists?
No it is you that does not have the gift of discernment.
Thanks fourtyseven.
I have to go to the desk top at the library
to get all of the info in one place .
Can’t do it on this little thing.
Thanks.
Yes, we have it comming out our ears,
from every direction.
And here is how
........................
Thanks Elsie.
Drop the mic!
Now if you want to REALLY get fancy...
First, one point that seems to be glossed over here is that the ECF's you quoted are clearly not disputing the fact that Jesus is "building a church". I implore you or anyone reading this to dwell on that point a minute. His church is going to be built on something, and that "something" is not just Jesus Christ. That's clear even from what you quoted. Even if it's going to be built on just Peter's confession (and not also on Peter the man, more on that in a minute), Peter's confession is not Jesus. So let that sink in for a second. Jesus is building His church on something more than just Himself.
Secondly, more focused on the point of "Peter's confession" as the basis of the Church's construction: the Catholic Catechism itself says this as I've seen, if not you, at least someone else on these threads point out. Now I would think someone who at least wishes to think of himself as "thoughtful" would wonder: "Why did the Catholic Church do this in their catechism? I thought that Peter was the foundation of their Church, not his confession? Are Catholics crazy?"
That should be the first question but one shouldn't stop there, again if one wishes to think of oneself as "thoughtful". Or at least "intelligent". One should then go to where the Catechism speaks of this matter and see what is said, that would be a good starting place, again, to the thoughtful person.
CCC 555, in part reads, "...Christ, the "living Stone", thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church...." (emphasis added).
So we can see how this notion (of building the church on Peter's confession, as the ECF's you quote below talk about) and the notion of building it on Peter himself are not contradictory. In fact they are complementary. Again, "because of the faith he confessed", Peter himself is the "rock" (or "stone" if you prefer) that Christ builds his Church upon. Both the confession and Peter himself are this "stone", but not that one can separate the confession from the man, as if they are two separate entities. Indeed one (the confession) comes from the other (the man). So to say that Jesus builds His Church on a confession is to say, at least by implication, that it is also built on that same man who issued the confession. It's not "either/or", it's "both/and."
Thirdly, there are other fathers who clearly talk about how Peter (the man) is the foundation Christ chose. "With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).", that's from Cyprian, but there are others here.
I suppose a cynical person may say "so the Catholics pick and choose which ECF to listen to and when, just to fit their agenda". Such cynicism would ignore the point made above that, at least on this matter, the ECF's describe two faces of the same coin so to speak, not that they contradict each other. But also, it would be truly cynicism to say such a thing, to claim it's just "fitting an agenda" to "pick and choose" quotes, because the same could be said of the Protestant's use of ECF quotes.
This actually demonstrates yet again the need for an authoritative body, a teaching authority (itself led by the Holy Spirit), to keep us on track, to remind and inform us of what the true authentic teaching was and is. Or else anyone can claim anything they want about the ECF's (just like can be done with Scripture).
His church is going to be built on something, and that “something” is not just Jesus Christ.
https://www.google.com/search?q=my+hope+is+built+on+nothing+less&ie=&oe=
Sorry Jesus; but you gist ain’t enough!
Isaiah 42:8
"I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols.
Nope, if you knew me you would never suggest such
a thing.
;^)
I hear ya...
I believe your religion teaches that your priests actually become God, to forgive your sins...Isn't that correct???
Yes it does...But it means small rock, as opposed to the massive rock which is Jesus...And Jesus built his church on the massive rock, not the little one...
READ what is in your book![ regarding who Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to]!
I must admit this is an inventive way of reading the passage in question. That's perhaps the most charitable assessment I can make of this argument.
As you correctly state, there are no chapters and verses in the "originals" (really copies of course but that's an irrelevant point here). So let's place ourselves in this scene, by imagining ourselves as witnesses to this exchange between Jesus and His apostles. A good practice by the way the Church encourages (it's called "lectio divina", reading Scripture, and meditating on it, with the expectation that we are dialoging with God and wish to hear what He has to say). So let's do that.
Imagine the scene. Jesus, at a certain point when He entered the region took an opportunity to ask his disciples, (all of them present), "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" So He's talking to all of them at this point.
Then they all respond with various (incorrect) answers, and so He asks them all again, "Who do you say I am" meaning the entire group, who do they say He is.
At this point they all fall silent, because probably no one wants to look the fool. But at a certain point, Peter speaks up ("impulsively" as you say, rather amusingly, because this "impulse" of Peter clearly comes from God the Holy Spirit Himself), but he speaks up and says "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God".
At this point, when I've read this passage, I always imagine Peter shouting this sentence at the top of his voice, as He is moved by the Holy Spirit in a profound way.
At any rate, we've now reached the critical juncture of the exchange, the point you say He then continued to speak to everyone, but Catholics say He only spoke to Peter.
I would only submit the following in reply to such a claim: Imagine again the scene. If someone asks a group a question, and then that group falls silent, for a time however long doesn't matter, but then one person in that group speaks up to answer the question what is the natural, human way such an interaction would proceed?
Would the questioner (here Jesus) then continue to address only the group, or would such a questioner (He) then start to address the only person who had spoken up?
I submit the latter is the natural, human progression of such an interaction. Think about a business meeting or any other kind of meeting between human beings (of which Christ is one). When the group reaches an impasse, but then one of the group speaks up with an idea or suggestion, what is the natural tendency of everyone else in that group at that point? To address the group again, or to address the person who spoke up?
It's to address the person who spoke up. That's just plainly evident to anyone who has ever had interaction in a group setting. You reply to someone who spoke up, not to the group again, even if your question was to the group originally, if at least the one who spoke up was correct or had a good idea, as Peter was correct. So the natural tendency would have been for Christ to then address only Peter at that point, since he was correct in what he said, and also what he said was very profound, very important, and thus deserving of some recognition. Such recognition is even recorded in verse 17.
If the entirety of the above is not convincing, then at least consider the next facts. One, in verse 17-18, we clearly have Jesus addressing only Peter. So are we to believe He addressed only Peter in verses 17-18, but then went back to addressing the group as a whole in verse 19? I submit that makes no sense, given the natural human tendencies as described above but more importantly in the Greek the "you" in verse 17-18 is the same "you" (same tense) as verse 19, the singular. Secondly, that throughout history at least, up until the "Reformation", no one ever denied that at this point, verse 19, Jesus was addressing Peter and Peter alone, not the group. But again, as I pointed out in my previous post, this shows yet again a need for a divinely led teaching authority, or else everyone's personal opinion is what rules instead of the truth.
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.