Posted on 01/08/2024 1:18:20 PM PST by OneVike
Honestly, I think you’re safe in your methodology. Don’t remember the exact part of Scripture but there’s something along the lines of measuring what you believe by the Word and if it doesn’t fit with what God gave us in His word then your beliefs are wrong.
prayers up brother for a great surgery!
going to have my periodic (10 year) thyroid cancer treatment later this month. don’t expect any surprises, but prayers appreciated.
13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”Thus we see this sequence:
Then why the Petros / petra distinction? Simple. As the author has pointed out, Greek has grammatical genders. Petra (feminine) was the ordinary form of the word "rock." But this would not be proper for a man's name. Thus in the translation from Aramaic to Greek the feminine petra was changed into the maculine Petros.
In the end, the author's argument is with our Lord's use of Kipa (rock) in addressing Peter. This is a prime example of how Protestants, despite their claim of sola Scriptura actually bend the meaning of Scripture to fit their own human traditions rather than accepting the plain meaning of the words themselves.
17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven.
This is a peculiar and personal blessing, declaring that his knowledge regarding the Divine Sonship sprang from a special revelation granted to him by the Father!
Yeaaaah...NO
Five verses later, Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”
Satan!
A hindrance!
Peter was not focussed on God, but “things of man”
Peter isn’t the rock.
The rock is the truth which Peter spoke “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
The answer to the OP headline question is: NO.
Even basic grammar (both English and the original Greek) simply don’t suggest Jesus building His church on Peter (a person) - but on what PETER said in response to Jesus’ question: His profession of faith in WHO Jesus is.
Bingo!
Jesus said this rock, not on you, Peter. A few verses down, Jesus is rebuking Peter.
Isn't that what the Church is though? A divine institution (His church) built on and made of flawed human elements (Peter the Rock, and you and me as the bricks).
The earliest versions of the New Testament were prepared by missionaries, to assist in the dispersion of the Christian faith among peoples whose native tongue were in Syriac, Latin, or Coptic. These versions have their origin in the second and third centuries.
Matthew himself wrote his Gospel, and he wrote it as we have it now, in Greek.
. . . Matthew not only seems to have been written in Greek but also to have drawn on sources which were at least predominantly in Greek.
Biblical Archaeology Society Online Archive reports that no “original Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts of the Gospels have ever been recovered.” That is, there is no proof that Matthew was every written in anything but Greek. Period!
If this church was built on Peter he must be a fag
Of course not!
Nor did Jesus Christ walk on water or rise from the dead. Right, madison?
USING sinful flawed humans is a far cry from building His church on one.
So you accept Francis as the legitimate pope?
How can you do that when your religion is claimed to be founded on sinful flawed human beings? Francis is a sinful, flawed human being. Why accept Peter and not which ever of his alleged successors you happen to agree with or disagree with?
If the office of the pope is what you all claim how can you not submit to its authority no matter who holds the positions?
This is the very same reason that Jesus chastised the Pharisees (aside from their hypocrisy); they were basing most of their beliefs upon Jewish tradition, instead of true faith in God. In fact, they elevated tradition above all else. They were also focused upon a works-based salvation, which is false.
Regardless of the denominational badge that you wear, the only thing that will save you is God’s grace alone, by faith in Christ alone. “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast,” (Ephesians 2:8-9).
Works are the EVIDENCE of salvation, not its CAUSE. If anything other than simple faith is required for salvation, then Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was insufficient. No one can read all that the Bible says about salvation and reach any other conclusion. The claim that faith “plus” works (or anything else) is necessary for salvation is simply heresy. And claims that anyone other than Jesus is the mediator between man and God, or that a mortal man is “infallible”, or that men should pray to any sinful human are ALL nothing less than blasphemy.
To put a finer point on it: The pope is just as sinful and fallible as the rest of us, and he certainly has not usurped Jesus’ exclusive authority to act as the sole mediator between man and God. And praying to Mary or any of the endless and arbitrary list of Catholic “saints” is flat-out blasphemous and an abomination.
Catholicism only brings people to faith in Catholicism and all it's rules and rituals.
Scripture is enough to lead one to Christ and the Catholic church is NOT responsible for that, the Holy Spirit is.
Why is it "this" rock, then? What is the "this" referring to?
A few verses down, Jesus is rebuking Peter.
Sure. But no one ever said Peter was beyond rebuke. He just was given a job to do.
Why does Jesus's church filled with sinful people need a perfect person to head it?
It’s all a power grab. The Catholic religion is trying to establish itself as the final authority over all Christendom and anyone who names the name of Christ.
They control people with the threat of damnation for not toeing their line.
For your further edification:
Lessons about Francis (The Destroyer) from St. Robert Bellarmine’s Objections to Protestants
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.