quote:

Apparently you have already forgotten what I said only two posts ago. This re-affirms what I said earlier, that you have no intention of actually learning anything: You just want to go round and round and round. Here is what I said on this very page:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zhi

quote:

Apparently you have already forgotten what I said only two posts ago. This re-affirms what I said earlier, that you have no intention of actually learning anything: You just want to go round and round and round. Here is what I said on this very page:

I read your quote, I checked your references. I pointed out how scripturally inaccurate what you said about them is. You have not addressed that. Until you address the scriptural issues with your assertions, your assertions are invalid.

quote:

Actually, we consider you to be a part of the Catholic Church. After all, you were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That in a sense binds you to the Church Christ established, which we feel of course to be the Catholic Church.

So, we consider you part of us, in some way we don't fully understand, but you're part of us You might not agree, but that's how we see it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kelman

quote:

quote:

It is "Peter the stone" or "Peter the pebble" and "Jesus the Rock" or "God our Rock".

"...Simon, you are Pebble, and upon this Boulder I will build my Church..."

Yeah - that just makes perfect sense - thanks for straightening me out on that...

Yep, it makes abosolute perfect sense considering the fact the church is built upon Peter's confession of faith and never ever upon the person of anyone other than the Lord Jesus Christ - the ROCK.

quote:

And I suppose the infallibility of those who wrote the scriptures had nothing to do with God either. Are you the appointed one who tells God who He can and cannot work through?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcleod

The Catholic Crusader, Say I got something for you to think about.

quote:

And I suppose the infallibility of those who wrote the scriptures had nothing to do with God either. Are you the appointed one who tells God who He can and cannot work through?

You wrote this and maybe so this is true. But what has your church leaders done in the past? A Latin service for the people who don't know a word of Latin.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcleod
....Sounds really smart on their behalf to have this type thought. But it happen in the history books when around 1400's and the 1500's. The leaders, which included the great pope of that time. Spoke in latin to the congergation and they would walk out of the service very unknowledgable to what anything meant in the service.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcleod
....Why oh why would someone do that unless they were leading a great lie. It would be like Jesus Christ talking to his disciples in English.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Odeliya
......I am not being sarcastic, i finally see RC for what it truly is.

quote:

There are many posts have been made by our catholic brethren, trying to prove that it is built on a man -Peter the Pope and sustained on subsequent popes, i feel we ought to agree- yes, it is.

quote:

But do keep in mind, Jesus was speaking aramaic at the time,

quote:

I shall repeat a previous post which was overlooked:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Christian7246

quote:

But do keep in mind, Jesus was speaking aramaic at the time,

Why would Jesus speak in Aramaic when He was Jewish? The Jewish people spoke in Hebrew, the SAME language the Original Scripture was written in.

We need a Pope so that Scripture will be Fullfilled!

quote:

I don't think so Lurker! They spoke in Hebrew and they wrote the Scripture in Hebrew!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Christian7246
I don't think so Lurker! They spoke in Hebrew and they wrote the Scripture in Hebrew!

quote:

......Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while "rock" is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?

Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, "You will be called Cephas"). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church."

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of "small stone" and "large rock" in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).

Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church."

Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, "and the Rock was Christ" though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from "Rock . . . rock."

If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew’s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.

The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy.......

quote:

You can agree but Catholics wouldn't--the foundation is always Christ and it is what He established that we follow.

quote:

We would rather stay away from fly by night pastors who start their own version of religion

quote:

or follow guidance that is essentially religious indifferentism.

quote:

So is your church built on Pope the rock or Jesus the Rock?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Odeliya
.....You mean pope Benny is getting fired and popery cancelled?.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wikipedia
.....Papist is a term, usually disparaging or an anti-Catholic slur... ...The term – and the related words "popery", "papistry" and "popish" – is still used occasionally today by some.....

quote:

Please do not use it.

quote:

This really isn't that difficult. Christ built His Church and established a visible means to guide His flock through the disciples with leadership provided by what came to be known as the Pope. I'm starting to think you just have an allergic reaction to the word "pope". So as I said before Christ is the foundation.

I also find it interesting that you say "all believers" (whatever that means) are part of the Church and yet you continue to argue with Catholics. Unless you think we are not Christian believers, then by your own very basic definition of "church" membership you shouldn't have any concern on how we worship or organize the Church. Do you have "beef" the rest of the protestant denominations as well? It's also interesting on how you do your best to avoid examining your own religious structure. We are either "mean" or you just laugh it off like above with wise cracks. Making fun of Catholicism is of course fair game.

quote:

Popes have been around for 2000 years, and will continue to fulfill their Christ-given role as shepherd of Christ's flock until Christ returns. This is a truth of the Christian faith; whether or not you choose to recognize it is your own affair.

quote:

So is your church built on Pope the rock or Jesus the Rock?

quote:

pop·er·y (pp-r)
n. Offensive
The doctrines, practices, and rituals of the Roman Catholic Church.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

quote:

Furthermore, please abstain from making derogatory attacks using terms like Romanism and other such comments. For the sake of discussion and because it is so common among protestants and because it is not intended to be offensive RCC will be an acceptable name to indicate the catholic church.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zhi

quote:

Popes have been around for 2000 years, and will continue to fulfill their Christ-given role as shepherd of Christ's flock until Christ returns. This is a truth of the Christian faith; whether or not you choose to recognize it is your own affair.

Meh, the Pope as Supreme Commander has again only been around since 1054.....