Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $33,955
38%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 38% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by Petrosius

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Pope Francis approved family synod’s controversial mid-term report before publication: synod chief

    01/29/2015 6:21:46 PM PST · 4 of 8
    Petrosius to ebb tide
    “Up to now, these two issues have been absolutely non-negotiable."

    They are still non-negotiable.

  • Christian unity demands encounter – not theory, says Pope

    01/27/2015 9:42:57 AM PST · 51 of 85
    Petrosius to RnMomof7
    Those are not apostolic succession

    ‘May another take his office.’…

    Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.” Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.

    Matthias clearly succeeded Judas in his office of apostle. In the Council of Jerusalem the presbyters were sharing in the office of the apostles in teaching in the name of the Holy Spirit. One cannot claim the authority of the Bible without recognizing that the Bible itself proclaims a visible and authoritative teaching office in the church.
  • Christian unity demands encounter – not theory, says Pope

    01/27/2015 9:16:09 AM PST · 39 of 85
    Petrosius to RnMomof7
    Actually the bible does not teach "apostolic succession" at all…

    You should perhaps reread the Bible:

    During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said, “My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus. He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry. He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out. This became known to everyone who lived in Jerusalem, so that the parcel of land was called in their language ‘Akeldama,’ that is, Field of Blood. For it is written in the Book of Psalms:

    ‘Let his encampment become desolate,
    and may no one dwell in it.’

    And:

    ‘May another take his office.’

    Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection.” So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias. Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.” Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:15-26)

    The Bible also shows that the Apostles and the presbyters that they had gathered with them to share in the governance of the church taught with the authority of the Holy Spirit:
    Then the apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. The ones chosen were Judas, who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers. This is the letter delivered by them: “The apostles and the presbyters, your brothers, to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of Gentile origin: greetings. Since we have heard that some of our number [who went out] without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. So we are sending Judas and Silas who will also convey this same message by word of mouth: ‘It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.’” (Acts 15:22-29)
    Where in the Bible does it say that the gathered shepherds of the church no longer teach with the authority of the Holy Spirit? No, the church, as established by Jesus Christ, does not just consist of the undifferentiated mass of believers. It also has a leadership established by Jesus Christ himself to teach and guide it.
  • Christian unity demands encounter – not theory, says Pope

    01/27/2015 8:57:00 AM PST · 34 of 85
    Petrosius to ImNotLying
    All I know is that if the Pope does not accept Jesus Christ into his heart as his Lord and Savior, confess his sins and repent, then the Pope is not going to be favorably judged I am afraid.

    You do know that this is Catholic teaching, don't you?

  • Christian unity demands encounter – not theory, says Pope

    01/27/2015 8:55:14 AM PST · 33 of 85
    Petrosius to drone
    And where in the Bible does it say that it is the only source of our knowledge of God? The Bible says that God established a church under the stewardship of the Apostles. The Bible says that the Apostles gathered other men as bishops, presbyters and deacons to share in this office of stewardship. Where in the Bible does it say that this visible leadership no longer exercises the authority that was given to it by Jesus Christ?
  • Christian unity demands encounter – not theory, says Pope

    01/27/2015 7:06:09 AM PST · 27 of 85
    Petrosius to ImNotLying
    Dear Pope, there is no mystery of God, it is all in the Bible. You might want to read it sometime.

    Mystery, not in the sense of unknown but in the sense of being known only by the revelation by God. You might want to read the Bible sometime:

    Matthew 13:11

    Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted.

    Mark 4:11

    And He was saying to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables,

    Luke 8:10

    And He said, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is in parables, so that SEEING THEY MAY NOT SEE, AND HEARING THEY MAY NOT UNDERSTAND.

    Ephesians 3:9

    and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things;

    Romans 16:25

    Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past,

    1 Corinthians 2:7

    but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory;

    Colossians 1:26

    that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints,

    Ephesians 1:9

    He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him

    Ephesians 3:4

    By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ,

    Colossians 2:2

    that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God's mystery, that is, Christ Himself,

    1 Timothy 3:16

    By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.

    Romans 11:25

    For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;

    Colossians 1:27

    to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

    Ephesians 1:9-10

    He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him

    1 Corinthians 15:51-53

    Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.

    Revelation 10:7

    but in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he is about to sound, then the mystery of God is finished, as He preached to His servants the prophets.

    Revelation 17:5-8

    and on her forehead a name was written, a mystery, "BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH." And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus. When I saw her, I wondered greatly. And the angel said to me, "Why do you wonder? I will tell you the mystery of the woman and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns. read more.

    Ephesians 3:8-9

    To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things;

    Ephesians 3:4-6

    By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,

    Ephesians 6:19

    and pray on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel,

    Colossians 1:25-27

    Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God, that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints, to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

    Colossians 4:3

    praying at the same time for us as well, that God will open up to us a door for the word, so that we may speak forth the mystery of Christ, for which I have also been imprisoned;

    2 Thessalonians 2:7

    For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.

    1 Corinthians 13:2

    If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

    1 Corinthians 14:2

    For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.

    Ephesians 5:31-32

    FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.

    Deuteronomy 29:29

    "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.

    Romans 11:33-36

    Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? read more.

    1 Peter 1:10-12

    As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven--things into which angels long to look.

    1 Timothy 3:9

    but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.

    Ephesians 3:4-9

    By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, read more.

    Revelation 17:5-7

    and on her forehead a name was written, a mystery, "BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH." And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus. When I saw her, I wondered greatly. And the angel said to me, "Why do you wonder? I will tell you the mystery of the woman and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns.

    1 Corinthians 15:51

    Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed,

  • Obama promotes religious tolerance in India speech

    01/27/2015 5:31:06 AM PST · 22 of 26
    Petrosius to Olog-hai

    Make that same speech in Pakistan.

  • Sisi Revisits ‘Egypt’s Identity Crisis’

    01/27/2015 5:22:13 AM PST · 7 of 9
    Petrosius to caww
    Interesting the author mentioning it was “the Spirit” of the times and in the same breath called it pan-Arabism.....which is another word for “Islam”. ...so that spirit he mentions was the spirit of Isalm.

    Actually at the time it was a secular socialist pan-arabism. Hence the Baathist parties in Syria and Iraq. Think also the PLO vs. Hamas. The former were bad enough but nothing compared to the Islamists today.

  • The Gospel According to the Church Fathers

    01/24/2015 11:49:24 AM PST · 76 of 382
    Petrosius to RnMomof7
    That someone posting these quotes thinks that they refute Catholic teaching is because he is working on a false assumption of what the Catholic Church teaches: that we merit salvation before or apart from faith. And this faith is pure grace that we do not merit by our works. Notice also that many of the quotes mention "works of the Law," i.e. the Law of Moses. Thus many of the quotes have nothing to do with the dispute between Catholicism and Protestantism. To show that the Church Fathers quoted do not support the Protestant position:
    Origin

    Whoever dies in his sins, even if he profess to believe in Christ, does not truly believe in Him; and even if that which exists without works be called faith, such faith is dead in itself, as we read in the Epistle bearing the name of James. (Commentaries on John, 19, 6)

    St. John Chrysostom

    “He that believes in the Son has everlasting life.” … “Is it enough, then to believe in the Son,” some will say, “in order to have everlasting life?” By no means! Listen to Christ declare this Himself when He says, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven”; and the blasphemy against the Spirit alone is sufficient to cast him into hell. But why should I speak of a part of our teaching? For if a man believe rightly in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but does not live rightly, his faith will avail him nothing toward salvation. (On John, 31, 1)

    I also find the inclusion of the final quote from Bede most interesting since it is a good summation of the Catholic position:
    Although the apostle Paul preached that we are justified by faith without works, those who understand by this that it does not matter whether they live evil lives or do wicked and terrible things, as long as they believe in Christ, because salvation is through faith, have made a great mistake. James here expounds how Paul’s words ought to be understood. This is why he uses the example of Abraham, whom Paul also used as an example of faith, to show that the patriarch also performed good works in the light of his faith. It is therefore wrong to interpret Paul in such a way as to suggest that it did not matter whether Abraham put his faith into practice or not. What Paul meant was that no one obtains the gift of justification on the basis of merits derived from works performed beforehand, because the gift of justification comes only from faith.
    Needless to say, all those quoted also believed in a visible hierarchical church possessing the authority of the Apostle, the Catholic Mass which they celebrated, the sacraments, etc. These men were clearly Catholic and would not have recognized the Protestant faith.
  • The Gospel According to the Church Fathers

    01/24/2015 9:57:09 AM PST · 32 of 382
    Petrosius to metmom

    I believe the reference here is to the gospel truth, not the the written canonical Gospels.

  • Hundreds join peaceful ‘Je suis Muslim’ rally in Sydney

    01/24/2015 5:00:15 AM PST · 2 of 19
    Petrosius to Olog-hai
    Hundreds of Muslims rallied in Sydney on Friday night to protest negative accurate media coverage of Islam…
  • Pope Francis Shocks Liberals on Same-Sex “Marriage”

    01/23/2015 3:05:36 PM PST · 8 of 35
    Petrosius to NKP_Vet; Slambat

    His remarks “Who am I to judge” was about a priest who had repented and is now trying to live a chaste life. Of course this was not how it was reported in the news.

  • The Meal That Divides

    01/22/2015 6:06:30 PM PST · 13 of 15
    Petrosius to CynicalBear
    Oh, I forgot to add that magisterium is the office of a magister/ teacher. Again, an ancient Latin term that predates Christianity.
  • The Meal That Divides

    01/22/2015 6:04:17 PM PST · 12 of 15
    Petrosius to CynicalBear
    Any guess where the MAGIsterium got it's name?

    Nice try but magister is derived from the Latin magnus, great. It means "master, chief, teacher." Its use predates Christianity by centuries and has no connection with the Persian. Nice try though.

  • Upon This Rock

    01/19/2015 10:07:37 AM PST · 141 of 227
    Petrosius to Cvengr
    The first Pope, technically didn’t evolve until some 600 years later. Pope Gregory, called the first Pope by his successors, even denied the title.

    "Pope" (Papa) is just a title of address. The title of his office is BISHOP OF ROME, which goes all the way back to Linus, the successor of Peter.

  • How does the GOP fight a populist, tax the rich proposal by Obama?

    01/19/2015 7:50:50 AM PST · 15 of 35
    Petrosius to SeekAndFind

    Simple, ignore it and move on to other issues. Obama knows that with a Republican controlled Congress that this will not go through. He is just trying to control the conversation. Do not let him. Ignore it and talk about what the Republicans want to do.

  • To Call This Threat by Its Name

    01/18/2015 8:00:31 PM PST · 10 of 15
    Petrosius to Theoria
    They need the distinction between Islamist terrorism and their faith to be made clearly.

    Sorry, there is no distinction.

  • Upon This Rock

    01/18/2015 5:06:15 AM PST · 132 of 227
    Petrosius to AEMILIUS PAULUS
    It does not seem reasonable that Christ would erect a church on a fallible man(Peter denied Christ three times if I remember correctly).

    It does not seem reasonable that God would become man and be born as a helpless infant. It does not seem reasonable that Christ would allow himself to be crucified. He did what he did. Have faith in what he did.

    And I say to you, you are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
  • Upon This Rock

    01/17/2015 11:34:41 AM PST · 107 of 227
    Petrosius to MamaB
    The Rock is not Peter.

    By his own words our Lord differs from you.

  • Upon This Rock

    01/17/2015 11:32:31 AM PST · 106 of 227
    Petrosius to CynicalBear
    Look again at Acts. James' statement come after that of Peter:
    After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.” (Acts 15:7-11)
    Yes, it was James' judgment but he was only affirming what Peter had already said. James was stating that his judgment agreed with that of Peter; he was not introducing a new or contrary judgment. Additionally, the letter was issued in the name of all the apostles and presbyters, not just as the judgment of James.
  • The problem with Islam

    01/17/2015 9:41:39 AM PST · 21 of 26
    Petrosius to Oldeconomybuyer

    What has to be acknowledged is that fundamentalist Islam is not a distortion but is Islam. The 1400 year history of Islamic violence bears this out.

  • Upon This Rock

    01/17/2015 8:12:47 AM PST · 95 of 227
    Petrosius to Springfield Reformer
    Pure speculation. Show me the Aramaic. Don't have it? Hmmmm.

    Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter). (John 1:43)
    The Bible says that "Peter" is a translation of "Cephas." That is good enough for me.

    Here's the deal. The exact language Jesus spoke in any given circumstance is unknown except for where the text directly identifies it. Given His close proximity to the multicultural nexus of Cesarea, it is possible He spoke in Greek, Latin, Hebrew AND Aramaic at various times and circumstances.…

    So without an actual Aramaic text, no one knows of Jesus said this in Aramaic, Hebrew or Greek. Therefore, anyone confidently proclaiming they know with certainty that anything was said in Aramaic in Matthew 16:18 is talking through their hat. Sorry about that.

    No doubt that Jesus and others knew Greek as well as Aramaic. But what language would they have used with one another? In my church there are many Mexicans. Being in the United States most know at least some English. But when they speak to one another, even those who are completely fluent in English, they use Spanish. When Jesus and his apostles speak with one another there can be no doubt that they would have used their native language, Aramaic.

    But even if here, in a private conversation away from the crowds, they were for some reason have used Greek we know from John 1 that "Peter" is only a translation of "Kepha" (rock) and would not have thus had the meaning of only a small pebble. Additionally, this distinction between "petros" and "petra" is only valid for Attic Greek, not for the Koine Greek that they would have used. Attic Greek was replaced by Koine Greek in the 3rd century BC. In Koine Greek there is no distinction between these two forms of the word. If our Lord had wished to make this distinction instead of calling Peter "Petros" he would have called him "Lithos." So even in the Koine Greek the argument of Protestants does not work.

    But even if for the sake of argument we grant the unprovable assumption this was said in Aramaic, there is still good reason to accept a distinction in the two terms. This is because even in Aramaic there were other terms for Rock than Kepha that may well have occupied the second slot, and there is evidence from the Syriac that this is exactly how those early translators perceived the situation, using, not Kepha, but Tnra (another Aramaic word for stone) in the second slot, to preserve the distinction. Two. Different. Words.

    As you pointed out, the Syriac versions of the Gospels are later translations from the Greek. I do not know which Syriac versions of the Gospel have the Kepha/Tnra distinction but in the Peshitta version, which is considered the standard Syriac version of the Bible, "Kepha" is used in both instances.

    But instead, Matthew introduces the demonstrative pronoun "this" (ταύτῃ), jarring the listener out of the address to Peter, and signaling a new, 3rd person referent.

    Incorrect, grammatically "this" would refer to the closest mentioning of "rock" which is "you are Rock."

  • Upon This Rock

    01/17/2015 5:52:42 AM PST · 92 of 227
    Petrosius to MamaB
    “Jesus is the answer, the only answer.”

    Which is why when Jesus says that Peter is the rock on which he will build his church, so be it.

    He is the only forgiver of sin.

    And when [Jesus] had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” (John 20:22, 23)
    I accept Jesus at his words. Will not you?
  • Upon This Rock

    01/17/2015 5:43:00 AM PST · 91 of 227
    Petrosius to cva66snipe; mrobisr
    Was Paul under Peter's authority or oversight?

    Christians and The Gospel as soon as the persecutions began started the spreading of The Gospel to all nations. Persons who came to Jerusalem heard the Gospel and those who believed like the man Phillip was taken too believed and took the Gospel to distant lands. This didn't require an organized effort by some man picked hierarchy. Rather it was believers lead by The Holy Spirit.

    To whom is The Holy Spirit given? Some believe only those ordained to minister and lead. But GOD had other plans because like the Temple Priest and government it could be corrupted and used as a spiritual weapon of enslavement. Instead of allowing that again The Holy Spirit is to all whom receive GOD's Word, believe and receive Jesus Christ as Savior, and Christ calls His own.

    Did you not read in the Bible what Paul did when there arose a dispute in Antioch about keeping the Mosaic Law? Paul did not decide this on his own. The church at Antioch did not decide this on its own. Rather, "it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question." (Acts 15:2) I will point out here that they were sent not just to the apostles but to "the apostles and presbyters." The apostles had already associated other men to themselves in the governance of the church.

    In this assembly of apostles and presbyters it is Peter who first declares that no further burden should be placed on the gentiles, to which James agrees. But notice carefully what was written in the letter back to the church at Antioch. (vv. 22-29) First, it is written in the name of the apostles and presbyters. Second, it states that the dissension in Antioch was caused by those who were teaching "without any mandate from us." Thus the need to teach in accord with the church and not each according to his own light. And finally, and most importantly, notice by what authority the apostles and presbyters give for their decision: "It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us…" It was by the authority of the Holy Spirit itself that the apostles and presbyters made this decision binding. And this authority was binding as an act of the church prior to its recording in the Scriptures.

  • Upon This Rock

    01/16/2015 4:45:51 PM PST · 22 of 227
    Petrosius to MamaB
    I do not understand why some say it is a man instead of Jesus. Jesus is the Rock of our salvation not some man.

    Because Jesus said so. Have faith in the word of God!

  • Upon This Rock

    01/16/2015 4:41:59 PM PST · 21 of 227
    Petrosius to RnMomof7
    He differentiated between Peter and the “rock” by using two different Greek words. The name Peter is petros, but the word for “rock” is petra.

    Perhaps you should look again at way back to John 1:42:

    Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).

    The name which Jesus used was Cehpas, Aramaic for "rock." "Petros/Peter" is only a translation. The use of "Petros" in distinction to "petra" was necessitated in the translation from the Aramaic into the Greek because of the need for a masculine word for the name rather than the feminine form of "petra." What our Lord actually said in Aramaic is:
    You are Cephas (rock) and upon this cephas (rock) I will build my church.
    There is no distinction the the Aramaic that our Lord spoke.
  • WHITE HOUSE CLAIMS POWER TO REGULATE, TAX INTERNET WITHOUT CONGRESS

    01/16/2015 9:49:57 AM PST · 32 of 50
    Petrosius to servo1969
    Although Congress has mandated the general nature of the federal universal service fund and telecommunications relay services, it is the FCC that has the sole authority to set the budget size and the fee structure to perform its regulatory mandate.

    No, the sole authority lies with Congress. The authority that the FCC exercises is only that delegated by Congress.

  • Exclusive: White House says net neutrality legislation not needed

    01/15/2015 7:09:24 PM PST · 25 of 41
    Petrosius to MeshugeMikey
    "In terms of legislation, we don’t believe it’s necessary given that the FCC has the authorities that it needs under Title II."

    That authority comes from Congress. What Congress gives Congress can take away.

  • Why We Think Paid Leave Is a Worker's Right, Not a Privilege

    01/15/2015 6:30:56 AM PST · 28 of 78
    Petrosius to EBH

    Perhaps if we did not destroy marriage and drive women from their homes this would not be a problem. Maybe Ozzie and Harriet have something to teach us today.

  • Wow! Venezuela bishops tell Pope Francis the downside of socialism and communism

    01/14/2015 10:07:13 AM PST · 23 of 25
    Petrosius to stephenjohnbanker
    Name one Jesuit that isn’t a committed leftist.

    Fr. Joseph Fessio

  • Anti-Muslim hate fuels large rally in Germany

    01/13/2015 3:49:56 PM PST · 30 of 62
    Petrosius to Jan_Sobieski
    Anti-Muslim hate rationality fuels large rally in Germany

    That's better.

  • HINDU NURSING LECTURER HACKED TO DEATH FOR NOT WEARING HIJAB

    01/13/2015 3:46:18 PM PST · 15 of 32
    Petrosius to SkyDancer

    ROP? Yes, RIP.

  • Turkish PM: There Should Also be a Rally Against 'Islamophobia'

    01/12/2015 5:17:40 AM PST · 32 of 46
    Petrosius to Eleutheria5

    Considering that the Turkish PM is sitting in Constantinople, once the capital of the Christian east, fear of Islam is justifiable.

  • Muslim Leader Outrage: Genuine or Taqiyya?

    01/12/2015 5:15:43 AM PST · 8 of 10
    Petrosius to Biggirl

    If they are so outraged then get rid of all blasphemy laws in Muslim countries and start protecting the religious minorities there. We need deeds not words.

  • Violence fuels debate among Muslims over interpreting faith

    01/12/2015 5:12:10 AM PST · 13 of 24
    Petrosius to Biggirl
    "But the question is, why is it Muslims who get so angry and kill and blow things up? The French magazine insulted the pope, the Dalai Lama. ... Why do we express our anger in this way?"

    BINGO!

    Islam is based on violence and its history shows their willingness to use it. Islam has a 1400 year history. Over this time the use of violence has been constant. It is those who would have a peaceful Islam that are the anomaly, not the jihadists.

  • Why Charlie Hebdo attack is not about Islam

    01/10/2015 6:41:10 AM PST · 22 of 42
    Petrosius to Oldeconomybuyer
    France's 1830 invasion of Algeria began a 130-year odyssey of murder, expropriation, racism, exploitation and misrule that only ended after a vicious anti-colonial struggle costing well over one million Algerian lives.

    What is left out of this story is that the reason France invaded Algeria was to stop the reign of terror of the Barbary Pirates against Christian shipping and coastlands of the Mediterranean that had been going on for a thousand years.

  • More Americans Say Muslim Extremists Are True Muslims Than Christian Extremists Are True Christians

    01/09/2015 12:35:41 PM PST · 38 of 53
    Petrosius to SeekAndFind

    Who is the Christian extremist, St. Francis or Westboro Baptist?

  • Jihadists have declared war, world must respond: Canada's Harper

    01/08/2015 3:26:12 PM PST · 18 of 27
    Petrosius to Kartographer
    Jihadists have ISLAM has declared war, world must respond.

    Please, stop trying to separate Jihadists/extremists/terrorists from the ideology that is driving them: Islam.

  • How Christians Will Know They Can Join Hands With Rome

    01/05/2015 4:47:53 AM PST · 326 of 326
    Petrosius to editor-surveyor

    Did you hit the link I provided? Its there.

  • How Christians Will Know They Can Join Hands With Rome

    01/04/2015 7:11:42 PM PST · 324 of 326
    Petrosius to RnMomof7
    LOL...you had to dig deep to find this ...this is the use of the word "sacred" as it would refer to a priest...THIS IS NOT A DEFINITION OF PRIEST.. There is no definition given for priest.

    You asked for the definition of sacerd. Here and here is the definition of preost:

    preóst es; m.

    A priest

    1. an ecclesiastic of the seventh of the holy orders; the bishop and the priest were of the same order, but the bishop's functions were more extensive, and in this respect he was superior to the priest. Cf. Ll. Th. ii. 348, 20-29

    2. in a more general sense a member of the ecclesiastical profession

    3. where preóst is in contrast with munuc

    4. where preóst is in contrast with sácerd

    [O. L. Ger. préstar : O. Frs. préstere : O. H. Ger. priestar, préstar: Icel. prestr. Front Latin presbyter.]

  • How Christians Will Know They Can Join Hands With Rome

    01/04/2015 6:50:08 PM PST · 323 of 326
    Petrosius to RnMomof7
    Therefore the NT equivalent of the zaqenim cannot be the Levitical priests.

    No one ever said that it did. The ORIGINAL MEANING of "proest/priest" in English is presbuteros NOT hiereus.

    If you want to discuss the role of the presbyter fine, but the English word "priest" meant first presbuteros not hiereus. And despite how offensive it might be to Protestant ears, this is still a valid meaning.

  • How Christians Will Know They Can Join Hands With Rome

    01/04/2015 5:32:43 PM PST · 317 of 326
    Petrosius to editor-surveyor
    I can’t find sacerd in any dictionary.

    Try Bosworth-Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary:

    sacerd es; m.

    A priest (the terns is not confined to the Christian priesthood)

    As I said, its use dropped out of English and so cannot be found in modern English dictionaries.
  • How Christians Will Know They Can Join Hands With Rome

    01/04/2015 5:06:32 PM PST · 315 of 326
    Petrosius to editor-surveyor
    What does “sacerd” mean?

    Just as "priest/preost" was the Old English word (derived from the Latin presbyter) meaning presbuteros, "sacerd" was derived from the Latin sacerdos and means hiereus. As an example, from the Wessex Gospel of Luke from the 10th century:

    1:5 On Herodes dagum, Iudéa cyniges, wæs sum sacerd on naman Zacharias, of Abian túne: his wíf wæs of Aárones dohtrum, and hyre nama wæs Elizabeth.

    In the days of Herod, King of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah of the priestly division of Abijah; his wife was from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.

    English originally had two district words for presbuteros and hiereus: "priest/preost" and "sacerd." Contrary to the claims of Protestant apologists, Rome did not malevolently mistranslate presbuteros by using the word for hiereus for presbuteros. Rather, in a natural process of linguistic development sacerd dropped out of English usage. It was the English commons, not Rome, than then started to us "priest" for hiereus.
  • How Christians Will Know They Can Join Hands With Rome

    01/04/2015 4:20:34 PM PST · 313 of 326
    Petrosius to RnMomof7
    The NT is written in greek... and so that is translated.. Rome has changed the definition of presbuteros

    But we are not debating the definition of presbuteros but of priest. I do not understand why you cannot accept the fact that the original meaning of priest was indeed presbuteros, and only presbuteros.

    Actually it is Rome that is redefining what the word means.

    Actually Rome had nothing to do with the English word "priest" taking on the additional meaning of hiereus. At the time, around the 12th century, Rome was still using Latin. They had little knowledge, and no control, over the development of the English language. The fact that the proper word in English for hiereus dropped out of the language and was replaced with the word (priest) that had already been used solely for presbuteros for hundreds of years was the result of the local development of the language. Indeed, it was the English reformers who were redefining words by attempting to remove the original meaning of "priest".

    Among the definitions for presbuteros from Vine's Expository Dictionary that you list is: "a term of rank or office … among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably." This office that presided over the assembly continues to exist to the present day. In English this office became known as "priest", a term that was used exclusively for presbuteroi for hundreds of years before being applied to hiereus. That Vine's Dictionary does not include this in its definition is a sign of dishonesty.

    Your citations from the KJV carries no weight. The KJV was a new Protestant translation that did not reflect actual English usage. Rather, following Tyndale's example, it was attempting to change English usage by denying the continuity of the Catholic presbyteral priesthood from the NT presbyterate. Its authority for me in this debate is no greater than that of the Douay-Rhiems would be for you.

    Again, if you object to "priest" carrying two meanings you should object that hiereus is being translated by "priest." Why not start a campaign to bring back the proper English word for hiereus: "sacerd"? "Priest" originally only meant presbuteros and has had this as its definition for over a thousand years.

  • Bishop (Paprocki) Orders Return of the Tabernacle to the Middle of the Sanctuary in His Diocese

    01/04/2015 4:55:34 AM PST · 19 of 125
    Petrosius to RnMomof7
    Poor Jesus…so powerless, born as a homeless baby and placed in a animal's feed box (manger), and then nailed to a cross.

    It is in his lowering himself to become man, die for us, and remain with us in the sacraments that Jesus shows his love for us. Jesus spoke the words "this is my Body." As the angel said to Mary, "nothing will be impossible for God." Notice that all the objections to the Eucharist from Protestants comes not from Scripture but from what they consider absurdity by human judgment. Pity the poor souls who cannot believe the words of our Lord.

  • How Christians Will Know They Can Join Hands With Rome

    01/03/2015 5:28:46 PM PST · 310 of 326
    Petrosius to RnMomof7
    Did you even read my post? We are talking about English, not Greek. No one has ever claimed that presbuteros and hiereus are the same. In English "priest" means first of all "presbyter". This was its original only meaning and has persisted until today. This was the only meaning of the word for hundreds of years. The use of "priest" for hiereus came later after the proper Old English word sacerd dropped out of usage.

    The inability of many Protestants to understand this is that they have been successfully, if dishonestly, catechized to disassociate the modern Catholic presbyteral priest from the New Testament presbyter. Thus when they see the word "priest" they only see the Old Testament temple priest. But this is not the only, nor the first, meaning of the word.

  • How Christians Will Know They Can Join Hands With Rome

    01/02/2015 7:56:09 PM PST · 304 of 326
    Petrosius to RnMomof7
    I think YOU need to check your bible.. the NT is written in greek...Greek has 2 words for "priest" neither word was applied to the church.

    How many times do we have to have this discussion? "Priest" (preost) is the Old English word for, and only for, presbuteros. The word for hiereus (the temple priest) was sacerd. The latter fell out of usage in Modern English and the English term for presbuteros (priest) was applied to hiereus. The difficulty is not that we are using the title of the temple priest for presbuteros but that we are using the title of presbuteros (priest) for hiereus.

  • How Christians Will Know They Can Join Hands With Rome

    01/02/2015 6:44:54 PM PST · 299 of 326
    Petrosius to RnMomof7
    What Christ left was His church.. it had no priests, no mass,no idols, no 7 sacraments, no confessional and no apostolic succession.. these are all inventions of Rome

    Check your Bible again. It had episcopoi (bishops), presbuteroi (priests) and deaconoi (deacons). The Mass is the name given today for the Breaking of the Bread. Since Catholics have no idols I will pass over this one. Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance ("whose sins you forgive …"), Marriage, Anointing of the Sick and Holy Orders (episcopoi, presbuteroi and deaconoi) are all attested in the Bible. See Acts 1 for apostolic succession.

  • How Christians Will Know They Can Join Hands With Rome

    01/02/2015 3:52:07 PM PST · 288 of 326
    Petrosius to metmom
    They were INCLUDED in the Bible that he translated.

    He translated them and put them in the book.

    Don't be argumentative. When someone normally says "Bible" they mean the collection of Sacred Scriptures, not the additional material that is included in a particular edition.

  • How Christians Will Know They Can Join Hands With Rome

    01/02/2015 3:31:31 PM PST · 286 of 326
    Petrosius to metmom
    Even this link from a Catholic source states that Luther did not remove the books from the Bible.

    Did you actually read the link you gave?

    The version of the Bible in use at the time of Jesus was the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX, for the 70 men who translated it from Hebrew into Greek by the beginning of the first century B.C.). This version of the Bible included the seven Deuterocanonical books. This was the version of the Old Testament used by the New Testament authors and by Christians during the first century A.D.

    The early Church continued to accept the books of the LXX version, although some debate about these books continued through the 5th century. This list, as accepted by the Catholic Church, was affirmed by the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D., by the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D., and by Pope Innocent I in 405 A.D. At the Ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442, the Catholic list was again restated, against those who wanted to include even more books.

    In the 16th century, Martin Luther adopted the Jewish list, putting the Deuterocanonical books in an appendix. He also put the letter of James, the letter to the Hebrews, the letters of John, and the book of Revelation from the New Testament in an appendix. He did this for doctrinal reasons (for example: 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 supports the doctrine of purgatory, Hebrews supports the existence of the priesthood, and James 2:24 supports the Catholic doctrine on merit). Later Lutherans followed Luther’s Old Testament list and rejected the Deuterocanonical books, but they did not follow his rejection of the New Testament books.

    Finally, in 1546, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the traditional list of the Catholic Church.

    Luther removed these books from the accepted canon of Scripture that was used since the 1st century and reaffirmed a number of times. He also removed some books from the New Testament, only to be restored later by his followers. And please, don't plead that because he included them in an appendix that he actually did not remove them. They were excluded from the list of books that he considers as canonical, i.e. inspired Scripture. Today Protestants do not even include them in an appendix.