What is the one true Church?

[Ziggy]

During the Sermon on the Mount when multitudes came to hear Jesus preach,
one of the things He taught was:

Mat 5:23
Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
Mat 5:24
Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

As far as retaining sins, there is one episode I recall where Paul throws someone out of the church for having relations with a near kin.
But it is only for a short time and then Paul tells the people to forgive him and let him back in.
So who has the power to forgive? Only Paul or even the congregation in which the man was tossed out of?

1Co 5:1
It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
1Co 5:2
And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
1Co 5:3
For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
1Co 5:4
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
1Co 5:5
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

2Co 2:3
And I wrote this same unto you, lest, when I came, I should have sorrow from them of whom I ought to rejoice; having confidence in you all, that my joy is the joy of you all.
2Co 2:4
For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears; not that ye should be grieved, but that ye might know the love which I have more abundantly unto you.
2Co 2:5
But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part: that I may not overcharge you all.
2Co 2:6
Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many.
2Co 2:7
So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.
2Co 2:8
Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him.
2Co 2:9
For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things.
2Co 2:10
To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;
2Co 2:11
Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices.

This is addressed to whom?
2Co 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:

To the church of God in Corinth.

On the other hand, There is a case where no mercy or even the slightest bit of forgiveness was shown.
They didn't get thrown out of the church, they got struck down dead as a door nail.

I think you know what I'm referencing..

And forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.

Hugs

 

[Ziggy]

Because this is a forum. If you post something offensive and/or meaningless you can expect to be ignored.

Don't be stupid!

 

[Grailhunter]

I don't believe the Church is infallible. I believe it is founded on human understanding.
And humans are infalliable.
You say the Catholic Church was founded on Peter. Peter was a man.
I believe God's Church is founded on Jesus alone and his doctrine. And anytime people try to explain it, it can bring in both errors and truth.
No one is infallible accept the Lord himself. And sometimes he shows us things through his word or even life experiences, that we all tend to try to interpret the way it is presented to us.
I don't believe that everything exactly the same happens to every person.
Some understand better than others. Which is why Jesus says: those who have ears to hear let him hear.
It is God alone that opens our ears and our understanding. And I believe he does that on an individual basis.
And then it is up to the individual to share what they've heard or experienced with others.
But not everyone will agree because either they have not heard it the same way or experinced the same thing.
And yet these are the building blocks we all offer to the construction of the building of the Church itself.

In Jerusalem when Jesus was there preaching and performing miracles, there was a certain group who refused to listen.
They believed their way was infallible. They were given the very law from Moses himself.
But something happened from the time they were in the wilderness until the time of Jesus.
They began to lose their faith in God alone and they put their faith in the service they performed to him.
And even the services began to get offcourse. They were picking and choosing which parts of the law should apply or not apply.
They made excuses for their own bad behavior.
Jesus called them hypocrites, because they would preach to the people one thing and yet do something entorely different.
Usually in their own best interest.

Jesus said unless our righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees and Saducees, we are no better than them.
The whole world is full of hypocrites.
In one mouthful we preach love thy enemy, and out the other we hate our enemies.
You can't have both. Because then we become the very thing it is we have been given an escape from... self-righteousness.
Our righteousness comes from God alone. There is nothing we can do to earn it.
When we try to justify ourselves we make God a liar. Which we ourselves are liars, because in God is only truth.
We just don't like to admit it, because we have not fully given ourselves over to an infallible God.
We still cling to our fallible egos.

And there are many denominations that believe their way is the only way.
But in truth, only God's way is the true way.
And we have to listen and learn from Him and His spirit within us. And walk as he shows us to walk.
My spirit shall not always strive with man because he is also flesh.
This God said before the flood of Noah.
They were unwilling to be led by God's Spirit and chose their own ways and their own undersandings.
They built their own churches and their own kingdoms.
And here we are today.

God's church is in your heart and in your mind and in your soul.
And where your treasure is, that's where your heart will be also.

Hugs

And the crowd roared with applause!

 

[360watt]

Nice try.

However, Jesus and the Apostles spoke ARAMAIC - not Greek.
What Jesus actually said to Peter was:
" ... you are Kepha and on this Kepha I will nuild my Church..."

That's why Paul refers to hinm - NOT as "Peter" in his letters, but as "Cepha".

Kepha epha neans "Rock" in Aramaic. Not "small" rock - just "Rock".
There was no "Petra vs. Petros". Peter IS the Rock Jesus is talking about in Matt. 16:18.

Hang on.. koine Greek is the translation we are looking at here. Petra and Petros is what is used by Strongs concordance.

But aside from that.. context shows it is Jesus as the foundation.. the builder and Head of the church further as we go thru the NT.

 

[Illuminator]

.
FAQ: At Matt 16:18, Jesus said: "I will build my church; and the gates of the
netherworld shall not prevail against it." What is the meaning of that verse?

REPLY: Basically it's saying that should one of Jesus' sheep slip through a
crack and end up in the wrong place, they will be able to stroll right on out
of there like a tourist in Paris; led to safety by the good shepherd.

It means the gates of the netherworld will not prevail, it doesn't mean the the gates of the netherworld will not attack. "will not prevail" contradicts the false narrative of made-in-America bible clubs who insist the gates of the netherworld have prevailed, thus making Jesus out to be a liar. Paul wrote a lot about end times, but he never said the Church would be overcome with evil. It's a new doctrine invented by the spiritually/mentally ill bible clubs fixated with distortions of 2 chapters in Revelation, and ignore the rest of the book.
The Good Shepherd is a prominent theme in the infant Church, as indicated by the paintings on the walls of the Roman catacombs dating to the 3rd.century.

Forbidding Scripture in art form is another invention, not found anywhere in the Bible.

● John 10:27 . . My sheep hear my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

We should emphasize that if the were the "my
church" that Christ spoke of in Matt 16:18,

Thank you. Rites of the Church was a later development. "Roman Catholic Church" was first used as a slur by the Anglicans. It didn't exist at the time Christ spoke of it.

then no Catholic— not one
would end up on the wrong side of things;

The Catholic Church has never made that claim. Nobody but God knows who would end up on the wrong side of things.

but I'm pretty sure that Rome
expects to lose a number of its followers to fiery justice; which reminds me
of a line from the movie "AVATAR" spoken by Colonel Miles Quaritch, played
by Stephen Lang, that goes like this:

"It is my job to keep you alive. I will not succeed . . not with all of you."

The Church is a hospital for sinners, not an exclusive club for the righteous.

But Jesus will succeed because his own personal standing in Heaven
depends upon it. Here' why.

● John 10:27-29 . . My sheep . . . my Father gave them to me

● John 6:39 . .This is the will of the One who sent me, that I should not lose
anything of what He gave me.

● John 4:34 . . My food is to do the will of the One who sent me.

● John 8:29 . . I always do what is pleasing to Him.

Were Jesus to lose even one head of the sheep that his Father gave him,
just one, then it would be wrong of Jesus to say he "always" pleases his
Father. He'd have to tone it down and say "almost always" viz: most of the
time, but not all the time.

When people say that it's possible for Jesus to lose some of the sheep that
his Father gave him; they are actually casting a vote of no-confidence in the
reliability of his faithfulness to God's will.

The problem with this line of thinking is it removes free will, a saved person has no freedom to walk away. God respects our free will even to the point where we damage ourselves.
When people say that it's possible for Jesus to lose some of the sheep that his Father gave him refers to those predestined to grace, which we can lose, it does not refer to people predestined to glory, who are dead and with God.

FAQ: How can you be sure Matt 16:18 isn't talking about Jesus' church as an
institution rather than individuals.

REPLY: Because sheep are individuals, i.e. John Que and Jane Doe pew
warmer.
_

Individualism is a false philosophy that leads to relativism and chaos as a consequence. It's a product of sola scriptura. Everybody is a pope except the pope. It hasn't worked for 500 years.

 

[Illuminator]

Hang on.. koine Greek is the translation we are looking at here. Petra and Petros is what is used by Strongs concordance.

Hang on, the Aramaic argument is a strong one. Paul uses the word "Cephas" 6 times, affirmed by Strong's to be of Aramaic origin. Why would Paul use an Aramaic word to Greek speaking communities?? Jesus used the Aramaic name "Cephas", in John 1:42, not Petra and not Petros.

But aside from that.. context shows it is Jesus as the foundation.. the builder and Head of the church further as we go thru the NT.

That is not contested.
1 Cor. 3:11 – Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock. These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.

No Peter, no unity.

 

[Taken]

I don't pnow down to statues.

You a A CATHOLIC who does not bow down to statues?

And those in the presence of almighty God in Heaven aren't "dead".
They are MORE alive than YOU are (Heb. 12:1), my faithless friend . . .

Your deflection is irrelevant, but nothing new.

You Pray to the Dead. (Pretending a person is not dead, when they are, is simply your hocus pocus.)
I am neither faithless nor your friend.

Deut 18:
[11] Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
[12] For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

 

[Keturah]

Something struck me in my own heart this morning.
I am an American. I am very Patriotic. I stand with the national anthem and I pledge alliegence to our flag.
none of us are immune to idolatry to one extent or another.

I pledge allegience to a particular country and it's policies.
But in TRUTH my allegience is to God and His word Alone.

My perspective is clearer now.
This world can't save us no matter how much allegience we give to it.

I don't mean to offend anyone.
It's just that things are becoming more serious, and we need to be not so ignorant of what we do.
We have all been indoctrinated into the ways of the world, in ways we don't always see.

Hugs

I agree & have no allegiance to any country nor government here, my citizenry is NOT of the earth but I am a foreigner & stranger here!

My allegiance & worship is to God & him ONLY. I will obey the laws of the land bc it is the commandments. The king, president, ruler ect deserves no honour for he has DISHONOURED the office & the people!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Hang on.. koine Greek is the translation we are looking at here. Petra and Petros is what is used by Strongs concordance.

But aside from that.. context shows it is Jesus as the foundation.. the builder and Head of the church further as we go thru the NT.

Do you ave ANY idea why there is a differentiation between Petros and Petra in this verse?

Petros is a masculine noun and Petra is a feminine noun. The writer would NEVER use "Petra" as a name for a man.
Stop thinking like a 21st century English-speaking person and think like a 1st century Greek-speaking person.

Literally, DOZENS of Peotestant schoilars agree with the Catholic position on this verse . . .

Protestant Scholars on Matt. 16:16-19​

1. There is no distinction between "petros" and "petra."
"In Aramaic 'Peter' and Rock are the same word; in Greek (here), they are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period." --Craig S. Keener,The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90.

"Although it is true that petros and petra can mean 'stone' and 'rock' respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry." --Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.

"Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broke off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed." --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355.

"I grant that in Greek Peter (Petros) and stone (petra) mean the same thing, save that the first word is Attic [from the ancient classical Greek dialect of the Attica region], the second from the common tongue." --John Calvin, Calvin's New Testament Commentaries: The Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 2, trans. T. H. L. Parker, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 188.

"The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and Petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words."--Gerhard Friedrich, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. VI, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 98-99.

2. Two different Greek words are used because you can't use a feminine noun for a man's name.
"The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name." --Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.

"When using both the masculine and feminine forms of the word, however, Matthew is not trying to distance Peter, Petros, from 'this rock,' petra. Rather, the evangelist changes the genders simply because Simon, a male, is given a masculine form of the feminine noun for his new name." --James B. Shelton, letter to the authors, 21 October 1994, 1, in Scott Butler, Norman Dehlgren, and Rev. Mr. David Hess, Jesus Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, (Goleta, CA: Queenship, 1996), 23.

"The name Peter (not now first given, but prophetically bestowed by our Lord on his first interview with Simon (John 1:42), or Cephas, signifying a rock, the termination being only altered from petra to petros to suit the masculine appellation, denotes the personal position of this Apostle in the building of the Church of Christ." --Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers, vol. 1, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983), 119.

"The most likely explanation for the change from petros ('Peter') to petra is that petra was the normal word for 'rock.' Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man's name, however, Simon was not called petra but petros." --Herman N. Ridderbos, Bible Student's Commentary: Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 303.

"The feminine word for rock, petra, is necessarily changed to the masculine petros (stone) to give a man's name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form kepha would occur in both places)." --R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 254.

3. "This rock" refers to Peter
"Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view." --William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.

"Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which--in accordance with the words of the text--applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic Exegesis." --Gerhard Maier, "The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate," trans. Harold H. P. Dressler, in D. A. Carson, ed., Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context, (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), 58.

"By the words 'this rock' Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter's confession, but Peter himself." --J. Knox Chamblin, "Matthew," in Walter A. Eldwell, ed., Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: MI: Baker, 1989), 742.

". . . If, then, Mt. 16:18 forces us to assume a formal and material identity between petra and Petros, this shows how fully the apostolate, and in it to a special degree the position of Peter, belongs to and is essentially enclosed within, the revelation of Christ. Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession." --Gerhard Friedrich, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed.,Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. VI, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 98-99.

"The expression 'this rock' almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following 'the Christ' in vs. 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." --Craig L. Blomberg, The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22, (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 251-252.

"The foundation of the messianic community will be Peter, the rock, who is recipient of the revelation and maker of the confession (cf. Eph 2:20). The significant leadership role of Peter is a matter of sober history . . . . [T]he plain sense of the whole statement of Jesus would seem to accord best with the view that the rock on which Jesus builds His Church is Peter." --William E. McCumber, "Matthew," in William M. Greathouse and Willard H. Taylor, eds.,Beacon Bible Expositions, vol. 1, (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1975),

 

[BreadOfLife]

Peter the Rock, continuewd . . .

"'You are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my church.' Peter is here pictured as the foundation of the church." --M. Eugene Boring, "Matthew," in Pheme Perkins and others, eds., The New Interpreter's Bible, vol. 8, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), 345.

"Let it be observed that Jesus could not here mean himself by the rock, consistently with the image, because he is the builder. To say, 'I will build,' would be a very confused image. The suggestion of some expositors that in saying 'thou art Peter, and on this rock' he pointed at himself involves an artificiality which to some minds is repulsive." --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 356.

"Another interpretation is that the word rock refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage." --Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament, Robert Fraw, ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 170.

"It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the 'rock' as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely." --David Hill, "The Gospel of Matthew," in Ronald E. Clements and Matthew Black, eds., The New Century Bible Commentary, (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), 261.

"Some interpreters have therefore referred to Jesus as rock here, but the context is against this. Nor is it likely that Peter's faith or Peter's confession is meant. It is undoubtedly Peter himself who is to be the Rock, but Peter confessing, faithful and obedient." --D. Guthrie and others, The New Bible Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1953) [reprinted by Inter-Varsity Press], 837.

"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." --Herman N. Ridderbos, Bible Student's Commentary: Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 303.

"The word-play and the whole structure of the passage demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus' declaration about Peter as vs. 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 to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied." --R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 254.

"The frequent attempts that have been made, larely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock (e.g., most recently Caragounis) seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy." --Donald A. Hagner, "Matthew 14-28," in David A. Hubbard and others, eds., World Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b, (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 470.

4. The identity of the rock ("petra") is affirmed by the Aramaic that Jesus was speaking.
"The meaning is, 'You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter, I will build my church.' Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, 'And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.'" --William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition on the Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.

"'You are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church (mou ten ekklesian).' These words are spoken in Aramaic, in which Cephas stands both for Petros and petra." --Veselin Kesich, "Peter's Primacy in the New Testament and the Early Tradition," in John Meyendorff, ed., The Primacy of Peter, (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992), 47-48.

"In Aramaic 'Peter' and Rock are the same word; in Greek (here), they are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period." --Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90.

"The underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses ('you are kepha' and 'on this kepha'), since the word was used both for a name and for a 'rock.' The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses." --Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.

"'And upon this rock'--As 'Peter' and 'rock' are one word in the dialect familiarly spoken by our Lord--the Aramaic or Syro-Chaldaic, which was the mother tongue of the country--this exalted play upon the word can be fully seen only in languages which have one word for both. Even in the Greek it is imperfectly represented. in French, as Webster and Wilkinson remark, it is perfect, Pierre-pierre." --Robert Jamieson, Andrew Robert Fausset, and David Brown, One Volume Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Associated Publishers, n.d. [197?]), 47-48.

"The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John 1:42; comp. 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; Gal 2:9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun. Hence the old Syriac translation of the N.T. renders the passage in question thus: 'Anath-her Kipha, v' all hode Kipha.' The Arabic translation has alsachra in both cases. The proper translation then would be: 'Thou art Rock, and upon this rock,' etc." --John Peter Lange, trans. Philip Schaff, Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 293.

"But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, 'Thou are kipho, and on this kipho.' The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, 'Thou are kepha, and on this kepha.' (Comp. Buxtorf.) Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: 'Thou are Pierre, and on this pierre'; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, 'Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.'" --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355-356.

"Edersh. finds the words petros and petra borrowed in the late Rabbinical language, and things that Jesus, while speaking Aramaic, may have borrowed those Greek words here. But this is grossly improbable, and the suggestion looks like a desperate expedient; nor has he shown that the late Rabbis themselves make the supposed distinction between the two words." --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 356.

"Furthermore, the whole passage contains semitic structures. In Aramaic the word for both Peter's name and the rock would be identical, Kepha' . . . kepha'." --James B. Shelton, letter to the authors, 21 October 1994, 1, in Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and Rev. Mr. David Hess,Jesus, Peter, and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, (Goleta, CA: Queenship, 1996), 21.

"PETER (Gr. Petros). Simon Peter, the most prominent of Jesus' twelve disciples. Peter's original name was Simon (Aram. sim'on, represented in Greek by Simon and Symeon). Jesus gave him the Aramaic name kepha "rock" (Matt. 16:18); Luke 6:14 par.; John 1:42), which is in Greek both transliterated (Kephas; Eng. Cephas) and translated (Petros)." --Allen C. Myers, ed., The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 818.

"Rock (Aram. Kepha). This is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times. On building on a rock, or from a rock, cf. Isa 51:1ff.; Matt 8:24f. Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community (cf. I will build). Jesus, not quoting the OT, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose." --W. F. Albright, and C. S. Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), 195.

"On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and Petros: petra = kepha = Petros." --Gerhard Friedrich, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed.,Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 6, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 98-99.

"The play on words in [Mat 16] verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage." --Suzanne de Dietrich, The Layman's Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16, trans. Donald G. Miller, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), 93.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You a A CATHOLIC who does not bow down to statues?

Yup.

Your deflection is irrelevant, but nothing new.

You Pray to the Dead. (Pretending a person is not dead, when they are, is simply your hocus pocus.)
I am neither faithless nor your friend.

Deut 18:
[11] Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
[12] For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

Only an ignotamus doesn't understand the diifference between asking a member of the Body of Christ for intercessory prayer and "consulting" with the dead . . .

 

[Taken]

WRONG.

Yes, you are.

As followers of Christ - we are ALL commanded to forgive the trespasses of others agsinst US.

However - NOWHERE did Jesus teach that we ALL have the power to HOLD their sins bound.

It’s not about POWER!
Men can forgive trespasses or not.
KNOWLEDGE....INFORMATION...DUH, FYI...
* Be a forgiver....God takes notice (BINDS in Heaven )and Himself forgives.
* Don’t be a forgiver...God takes notice (LOOSENS in Heaven) and Himself does not forgive.

Not rocket science, and Not exclusive to “men serving duties of a man-made church”.

John 20:21-23

Repeating a Scripture changes nothing.

Jesus NEVER gave this power to the crowds.

The Converted have Gods Power within them, to forgive, and it be accepted in Heaven.

In 2 Cor. 2:10, he states, “Whomever you forgive anything, so do I. For indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for you in the presence of Christ.”

Yep...as I said, the Converted have the same authority to forgive and it be accounted forgiven in Heaven.

And we see this belief and practice throughout the Early Church:

The Beginning Church was Jews, why Not QUOTE THEM, instead of Gentiles who made up their own Doctrines?

 

[Taken]

Nice try.

However, Jesus and the Apostles spoke ARAMAIC - not Greek.
What Jesus actually said to Peter was:
" ... you are Kepha and on this Kepha I will nuild my Church..."

That's why Paul refers to hinm - NOT as "Peter" in his letters, but as "Cepha".

Kepha epha neans "Rock" in Aramaic. Not "small" rock - just "Rock".
There was no "Petra vs. Petros". Peter IS the Rock Jesus is talking about in Matt. 16:18.

Every Christian Church....(except the Catholic Church)....is BUILT ON....
On the ROCK FOUNDATION: Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

op: one true church?

What would happen IF all the true members of the Body Of Christ, planted once, watered once,
and then, obeyed Romans 16:17? Avoiding, AND:

A LOT LESS "biting and Devouring one another" (1 Corinthians 4:6; Galatians 5:15)?

 

[Grailhunter]

Peter the Rock, continuewd . . .



"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." --Herman N. Ridderbos, Bible Student's Commentary: Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 303.

"The word-play and the whole structure of the passage demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus' declaration about Peter as vs. 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 to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied." --R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 254.

"The frequent attempts that have been made, larely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock (e.g., most recently Caragounis) seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy." --Donald A. Hagner, "Matthew 14-28," in David A. Hubbard and others, eds., World Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b, (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 470.

4. The identity of the rock ("petra") is affirmed by the Aramaic that Jesus was speaking.
"The meaning is, 'You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter, I will build my church.' Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, 'And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.'" --William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition on the Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.

"'You are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church (mou ten ekklesian).' These words are spoken in Aramaic, in which Cephas stands both for Petros and petra." --Veselin Kesich, "Peter's Primacy in the New Testament and the Early Tradition," in John Meyendorff, ed., The Primacy of Peter, (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992), 47-48.

"In Aramaic 'Peter' and Rock are the same word; in Greek (here), they are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period." --Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90.

"The underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses ('you are kepha' and 'on this kepha'), since the word was used both for a name and for a 'rock.' The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses." --Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.

"'And upon this rock'--As 'Peter' and 'rock' are one word in the dialect familiarly spoken by our Lord--the Aramaic or Syro-Chaldaic, which was the mother tongue of the country--this exalted play upon the word can be fully seen only in languages which have one word for both. Even in the Greek it is imperfectly represented. in French, as Webster and Wilkinson remark, it is perfect, Pierre-pierre." --Robert Jamieson, Andrew Robert Fausset, and David Brown, One Volume Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Associated Publishers, n.d. [197?]), 47-48.

"The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John 1:42; comp. 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; Gal 2:9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun. Hence the old Syriac translation of the N.T. renders the passage in question thus: 'Anath-her Kipha, v' all hode Kipha.' The Arabic translation has alsachra in both cases. The proper translation then would be: 'Thou art Rock, and upon this rock,' etc." --John Peter Lange, trans. Philip Schaff, Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 293.

"But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, 'Thou are kipho, and on this kipho.' The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, 'Thou are kepha, and on this kepha.' (Comp. Buxtorf.) Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: 'Thou are Pierre, and on this pierre'; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, 'Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.'" --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355-356.

"Edersh. finds the words petros and petra borrowed in the late Rabbinical language, and things that Jesus, while speaking Aramaic, may have borrowed those Greek words here. But this is grossly improbable, and the suggestion looks like a desperate expedient; nor has he shown that the late Rabbis themselves make the supposed distinction between the two words." --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 356.

"Furthermore, the whole passage contains semitic structures. In Aramaic the word for both Peter's name and the rock would be identical, Kepha' . . . kepha'." --James B. Shelton, letter to the authors, 21 October 1994, 1, in Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and Rev. Mr. David Hess,Jesus, Peter, and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, (Goleta, CA: Queenship, 1996), 21.

"PETER (Gr. Petros). Simon Peter, the most prominent of Jesus' twelve disciples. Peter's original name was Simon (Aram. sim'on, represented in Greek by Simon and Symeon). Jesus gave him the Aramaic name kepha "rock" (Matt. 16:18); Luke 6:14 par.; John 1:42), which is in Greek both transliterated (Kephas; Eng. Cephas) and translated (Petros)." --Allen C. Myers, ed., The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 818.

"Rock (Aram. Kepha). This is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times. On building on a rock, or from a rock, cf. Isa 51:1ff.; Matt 8:24f. Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community (cf. I will build). Jesus, not quoting the OT, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose." --W. F. Albright, and C. S. Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), 195.

"On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and Petros: petra = kepha = Petros." --Gerhard Friedrich, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed.,Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 6, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 98-99.

"The play on words in [Mat 16] verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage." --Suzanne de Dietrich, The Layman's Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16, trans. Donald G. Miller, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), 93.

Some people dig their own graves.
Some people are their own worst enemy.
Some people don't know when to quit while they are ahead.
Most Protestants don't know all the things the Catholic believe or understand their rituals.
But one of the issues that Protestants have with Catholics is that they seem to worship Peter and use him to prove that they have supremacy over others. Which none of that is Christian. The Protestants are never going to be impressed with the Catholic's infatuation with themselves.
You might try focusing on Christ.

 

[360watt]

Peter the Rock, continued..

Well it isn't an issue anyway if I'm wrong in seperating petra and petros. Jesus is the beginner.. builder and Head of the local New Testament church that is obviously seen in the rest of the NT. The chief cornerstone. So Peter becomes one of the pastors (called shepherd) of the churches Jesus calls His own.

It would mean the same thing if Jesus built His church... local... on Peter's confession of faith which is the gospel of Jesus. I don't really hold to this view.. but it could hold water.

The other thing is I'm non-protestant Baptist. So the baptistic teachings I hold to aren't based on the Protestant reformation. Just the Bible.

Used to be called ana-baptists and became 'baptist' . Independent Christian churches that largely remained true to the faith. Going back before the reformation.

Anyway .. further to the church being local and visible..

Ephesians has 'there is one body..one faith .. one baptism'

Context around this is unity in the church at Ephesus... an example to other churches that the letter would be distributed to.

'There is' is also.. for Bibles which are being honest... an insertion.

What difference does this make? It means it could apply to any local body of believers. Rather than one ununited, disjointed, unassembled mass of all believers.

The one Jesus.. with many local assemblies He calls His own.

 

[Taken]

Yup.

Only an ignotamus doesn't understand the diifference between asking a member of the Body of Christ for intercessory prayer and "consulting" with the dead . . .

Wacky

Pray FOR the living.
Scripture teaches AGAINST PRAYING TO “created” spirits, PRAYING TO dead men...FOR ANY REASON!

Praying TO, is reserved for the Lord God.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yes, you are.





It’s not about POWER!
Men can forgive trespasses or not.
KNOWLEDGE....INFORMATION...DUH, FYI...
* Be a forgiver....God takes notice (BINDS in Heaven )and Himself forgives.
* Don’t be a forgiver...God takes notice (LOOSENS in Heaven) and Himself does not forgive.

Not rocket science, and Not exclusive to “men serving duties of a man-made church”.



Repeating a Scripture changes nothing.



The Converted have Gods Power within them, to forgive, and it be accepted in Heaven.



Yep...as I said, the Converted have the same authority to forgive and it be accounted forgiven in Heaven.



The Beginning Church was Jews, why Not QUOTE THEM, instead of Gentiles who made up their own Doctrines?

WRONG.

I don't have the power to forgibe YOU for sinning against your wife or for steaking from your boss.
I can onlky forgive those sins you commit against ME.

That's why Jesus gave that poer to His Church in John 20:21-23. - to forgive those sine OR to hold them bound.
That's what Paul was talking about in 2 Cor. 2:10, when he forgave the sins of others had committed against som of the Corinthian congregation - and he did so in the PERSON of Christ.

He explains in 2 Cor. 5:18-20:
“And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given US the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to US the message of reconciliation. So WE are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through US. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”

God gave "US" the ministry of recoonciliation.
He doesn't say "YOU" to his readers.

Entrustung to "US" the message of reconciliation.
He doesn't say "YOU" to his readers.

"WE" are ambassadors for christ.
He doesn't say "YOU" to his readers.

As if God were appealing through "US".
He doesn't say "YOU" to his readers.

This isb't Rocket Science, pal . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Every Christian Church....(except the Catholic Church)....is BUILT ON....
On the ROCK FOUNDATION: Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God.

There's only ONE Church.
What YOU have are factions, called, "denominations" of that ONE Church.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Some people dig their own graves.
Some people are their own worst enemy.
Some people don't know when to quit while they are ahead.
Most Protestants don't know all the things the Catholic believe or understand their rituals.
But one of the issues that Protestants have with Catholics is that they seem to worship Peter and use him to prove that they have supremacy over others. Which none of that is Christian. The Protestants are never going to be impressed with the Catholic's infatuation with themselves.
You might try focusing on Christ.

Nobodu is "worshipping" Peter.
If onn;y you could stiop LYING for 5 minutes - we night be able to have an intelligent conversation . . .

The problem isn't about Peter anyway.
It's about a fictitious, revisionist version of the origins of the Chburch that YOU and others choose to believe for which you hgave no valid linguistic argument..