Posted on 10/11/2022 6:45:52 PM PDT by Roman_War_Criminal
Don’t forget some dude later down the road created Purgatory so sinful Catholics with sin complexes can endure “for a time” and then come to Heaven.
Throw in some Holy Water and the bony petrified finger of Saint Peccatumus and you’ve got some real religion that Christ approved - all verified by Scripture of course or the “traditions” of the elders.
Jesus would recognize the Church he left through the apostolic succession of the apostles.
He wouldn’t recognize those who left and thought they could do better than him at building a church.
Jesus would recognize the Church he left through the apostolic succession of the apostles.
He wouldn’t recognize those who left and thought they could do better than him at building a church.
“As stated MANY times, Jesus never put Peter in charge of His Church.”
Yes, He did.
https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Peter-Keys-Scriptural-Handbook/dp/1882972546
https://www.amazon.com/Upon-This-Rock-Scripture-Apologetics/dp/0898707234/ref=pd_bxgy_img_sccl_2/147-8812487-3766439?pd_rd_w=ECdCT&content-id=amzn1.sym.7757a8b5-874e-4a67-9d85-54ed32f01737&pf_rd_p=7757a8b5-874e-4a67-9d85-54ed32f01737&pf_rd_r=57W6PGKN71T1MRVEPKGG&pd_rd_wg=0bghT&pd_rd_r=157dc0d4-8d4c-4d1b-a277-e819aed4ddf3&pd_rd_i=0898707234&psc=1
https://www.amazon.com/Pope-Peter-Defending-Distinctive-Doctrine/dp/1683571800/ref=pd_bxgy_img_sccl_1/147-8812487-3766439?pd_rd_w=ECdCT&content-id=amzn1.sym.7757a8b5-874e-4a67-9d85-54ed32f01737&pf_rd_p=7757a8b5-874e-4a67-9d85-54ed32f01737&pf_rd_r=57W6PGKN71T1MRVEPKGG&pd_rd_wg=0bghT&pd_rd_r=157dc0d4-8d4c-4d1b-a277-e819aed4ddf3&pd_rd_i=1683571800&psc=1
“(Matt. 16:18).
This is Jesus talking (”And I say also unto thee”)
He’s telling Peter (and all who are listening),”Thou art Peter”
“and upon this Rock I will build my Church” (Who is the Rock?) Jesus is the Rock. Peter (or small pebble) is like shifting sand. He is NOT the foundation to build any church.”
Jesus was not referring to Himself as the Rock - as Protestants admit in their better moments:
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
“As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession” [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 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].
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). https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/peter-is-the-rock
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THvwSohHYkY
“He denied His Lord three times. That’s not the rock.”
Yes, it is - just not one yet strengthened with the gift of the Holy Spirit yet.
Jesus prophesied that He would establish His Church on Peter.
Jesus prophesied that Peter would deny Him three times.
Jesus forgave Peter.
Trust Jesus. He’s never wrong.
“the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. The gates of Hell prevailed against Peter.”
Peter went to Hell? Peter was defeated forever by Satan? Ha! You’re actually saying Jesus was wrong, not just Peter. The level you anti-Catholics will go to - even attacking our Lord now just because you can’t believe what the verses actually say. How pathetic!
“Jesus is always the Rock.”
But He named Peter the Rock. Trust Jesus.
” In the Old Testament and New. And Gods Church is not your denomination or any one elses denomination. It’s Gods Chosen People.”
I don’t have a denomination. Protestants have denomination. We have the Church. We are the Church. Founded by Christ, on Peter.
I lke your tag line. I’ll offer a hearty ME TOO.
“apostolic succession” is a man made construct.
I did not attack our Lord. You misinterpret Scripture.
One of the many verses about Jesus being the Rock and cornerstone of the Church.
Isaiah 28:16 Therefore thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a Stone, a tested Stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed.
It is blasphemy to say Peter is the Rock, cornerstone or foundation of His Church.
The "this rock" upon which Christ said I will build My church is "petros," which is the word which is used for physical rocks, as in the rock a wise man builds his house upon: "He ...laid the foundation on a rock [petra]: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock. [petra] (Luke 6:48) It is also used for the tomb of Christ which was carved out in the rock [petra]. (Matthew 27:60)
While men can argue about the significance of the difference between the Greek (the language the Holy Spirit chose to express the New Testament revelation in) words “Petros” (Peter, or stone in Jn. 1:42) and “petra” (rock) in Mt. 16:18, and what the LORD might have said in Aramaic (and your own appeal to a Hebrew Matthew was dealt with), the phrase “this stone” (“touton lithosis”), used to identify the cornerstone which is the foundation of the church, (Mt. 21:42) is only used of Christ as regarding a person. (Mt. 21:44)
It is by the “rock of this faith” that the church not only exists but it gains its members. (1Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:13) And it is by the essential faith which Peter expressed that church overcomes: "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1Jn, 5:5; cf (1Jn. 2:13,14,25)
The only is the one true church is the body of Christ (Colossians 1:18) to which He is married, (Ephesians 5:25) the "household of faith," (Galatians 6:10) for it uniquely only and always consists 100% of true believers, and which spiritual body of Christ is what the Spirit baptizes ever believer into, (1Co. 12:13) while organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, with Catholicism and liberal Protestantism being mostly the latter.
However, organic ecclesial fellowships (that is Rome's terms for non-Catholic churches since it considers them unworthy of the proper name "church") are also organizations, but the Catholic church is an organization with some true doctrines but as told you before(and by the grace of God, many, many, many, many , many times refuted your fallacious attempts to defend such), distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels.
The degree that a church retains and preaches the convicting gospel of grace, of salvation by grace thru heart-purifying, justifying faith, then they are part of the church which the Lord promised would overcome the gates of Hell. However, your false church has sadly become as the gates of Hell for multitudes.
The error of Rome here is not the pretrib. rapture, but denying the thousand year reign of the Lord Jesus - literally referred to at least 6 times - and thus the two separate judgments for two separate peoples separated by 1,000 years, which denial requires engaging in the error that Watchtower disciples selectively do (as with RV. 20:10) in dismissing the literal understanding of prophesies under the premise that the use of symbolic language in them means that whole of it is symbolic.
Are the Catholics into replacement theology? I can’t remember, it’s been so long since I left the Catholic Church.
All of your interpretations on Matthew 16:18 are known to be wrong by even Protestant scholars. What you’re defending has no defense. All of your arguments have already been refuted in what I posted and linked to.
All of your interpretations on Matthew 16:18 are known to be wrong by even Protestant scholars. What you’re defending has no defense. All of your arguments have already been refuted in what I posted and linked to.
——>Hundreds of years of Protestants were wrong - as admitted by other Protestants.
...Yes, modern day Protestants that believe in the Satanic lie of the Pre Trib Rapture, admit/believe it (and many posting on this very thread). They say the protest is over, that the Catholic church can’t be the Antichrist power, because it doesn’t jive with the PTR doctrine. And where did that doctrine come from??? THE CATHOLIC CHURCH of all places. The Antichrist power authored a theory to divert criticism by the Reformers, that the Papacy was the Antichrist power. And almost all of the Protestant world now believes it.
Were the 150+ million Protestant Reformers, who were tortured and put to death, just idiots? Just Wrong? Nope.
Maybe you have never read ROMANISM AND THE REFORMATION by H. Grattan Guiness, published in 1887? He was one of the great Protestant ministers of his time, and certainly did not admit to your assertion. Quite the opposite.
https://www.whitehorsemedia.com/docs/romanism_and_the_reformation.pdf
Bible prophecy identifies the Antichrist power (I showed you that just a few posts back). No doubt about it. Every Reformer saw and understood it. Millions went to their deaths as a result. The Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon and her Harlot daughters are the Protestant churches who left Catholicism but still believe and follow grievous errors (most of the Protestant world and any church that teaches the PTR, OSAS/OJAJ, God’s law was abolished at the cross, Sunday Sabbath, etc...). Know anyone that believes and teaches this? I do. I’m not very popular for saying it. Actually, I was told that I’m “hated” by everyone on this religion forum. Fine thing to say from those “Christians”, right? Plenty of “Christians” proclaiming the name of Jesus, will be lost, because of LAWLESSNESS.
Matthew 7:
21Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!’…
I agree with that, but Rome has a ton more errors, sophistries, and fairy tales to add to the error list.
Officially I’m not sure.
Traditionally, I would say absolutely.
Every time I discuss promises yet to be fulfilled to Israel they roll their eyes.
you wrote:
“...Yes, modern day Protestants that believe in the Satanic lie of the Pre Trib Rapture,”
No. If the best you can do is mischaracterize every Protestant who disagrees with you, then you’re not helping your case much.
Well it's a good thing I don't put much stock in Protestant and Catholic scholars. I'm Judaeo-Christian which means I'm out of the mainstream anyway.
So though how I read it may seem foolish, the Bible says the foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of man. Let God judge which way is correct. Historically, the majority is seldom correct, they chose Barabbas over Jesus.
I very much appreciate your arguments, Daniel.
I would like to ask you, what happened to Peter’s flock? And were the Jews, prior to the stoning of Stephen, still expecting the Kingdom of Israel to come very soon?
Whom did Jesus have in mind as who was to be His church when He told Peter that He would build His church, at the time He said it to Peter, that is?
Thank you always and forever, Daniel. I’ve learned a lot from you during the years.
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.