Peter the Rock?

[Philip James]

God knows.

But those are the teachings of men, and there you go showing your fruit and calling names again.

You don't like being called out? Then stop spewing lies about the catholic Faith..

 

[Philip James]

That would be all well and good if that Catholic line to the Apostles was the only line. But you and I know that it wasn't don't we.

Dear Brakelite,

If Rome is your stumbling block, then come to the Feast with Alexandria! Come with Constantinople! But come!

Pax et Bonum

 

[ScottA]

You don't like being called out? Then stop spewing lies about the catholic Faith..

For the record, you have it backwards (psychologically called "projecting").

Catholics drew first blood. I was calling them out - and it is you who doesn't like me calling them out.

 

[Illuminator]

God knows.

But those are the teachings of men, and there you go showing your fruit and calling names again.

662 "and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."541 ScottA says this is a teaching of men.

The lifting up of Jesus on the cross signifies and announces his lifting up by his Ascension into heaven, and indeed begins it. Jesus Christ, the one priest of the new and eternal Covenant, "entered, not into a sanctuary made by human hands. . . but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf."542
ScottA says this is a teaching of men.
There Christ permanently exercises his priesthood, for he "always lives to make intercession" for "those who draw near to God through him".543
ScottA says this is a teaching of men.
As "high priest of the good things to come" he is the centre and the principal actor of the liturgy that honours the Father in heaven.544
ScottA dismisses anything Catholic as "the teaching of men" even if it is right from the Bible.

 

[Tulipbee]

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.

Ah, BreadOfLife and Truthnightmare, welcome to the theological comedy club where we dance through the complexities of biblical interpretation with a touch of humor. Now, let's tango through the arguments surrounding the papal system, the keys, and the reliability of early Father's writings.

Papal system, the divine cha-cha: Picture this – the papal system is like a divine cha-cha, with the keys of authority being passed down through the centuries. The dance involves interpreting Matthew 16:18, where the distinction between "Petros" and "petra" becomes a theological dance step. It's a cha-cha that sometimes feels like a delicate balance between tradition and biblical interpretation, wouldn't you agree?

Early Father's writings, the cosmic comedy: Now, let's twirl through the cosmic comedy of relying on early Father's writings. It's like a comedic play with a diverse cast of characters, each contributing their unique spin on theological matters. However, the dancefloor of historical reliability might have a few unexpected slips, considering the varied perspectives of the early Fathers.

Truthnightmare, your breakdown of the Greek words is like a tap dance through linguistic nuances, and BreadOfLife, your emphasis on Protestant scholars adds an interesting beat to the dance. As we navigate through the theological dancefloor, let's appreciate the diversity of perspectives, finding humor in the cosmic dance of interpretations.

Now, shall we continue our theological dance through the intricate steps of Matthew 16:18, the papal system, and the reliability of early Father's writings? After all, in this cosmic comedy, the punchlines are biblical, and the dance moves are part of the divine choreography!

 

[ScottA]

662 "and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."541 ScottA says this is a teaching of men.

The lifting up of Jesus on the cross signifies and announces his lifting up by his Ascension into heaven, and indeed begins it. Jesus Christ, the one priest of the new and eternal Covenant, "entered, not into a sanctuary made by human hands. . . but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf."542
ScottA says this is a teaching of men.
There Christ permanently exercises his priesthood, for he "always lives to make intercession" for "those who draw near to God through him".543
ScottA says this is a teaching of men.
As "high priest of the good things to come" he is the centre and the principal actor of the liturgy that honours the Father in heaven.544
ScottA dismisses anything Catholic as "the teaching of men" even if it is right from the Bible.

No, dropping in some of the actual scriptures into the above extra-biblical Catholic [private, and therefore false] doctrine, is indeed the teachings of men. They have added to the scriptures against the Sword of God.

For the record, I am not against all Catholics, but am for the Truth, which means being against many denominations. The fact that Catholics are most offended, simply self identifies them as the greatest offender. Those who hold to the truth among any denomination that has strayed from the truth, should self police. One either witnesses for or against the Truth.

 

[Marymog]

What?!

How could this be? You said God gave authority only to Peter - and his successors in your denomination. It logically follows that Gods will could not be outside your denomination.

Mary, you must be tired from all that mental gymnastics.

Dear Wrangler,

Thank you for asking! :)

First off, Marymog didn't say that God gave authority to Peter only. Jesus said he gave authority to Peter only: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; I will give YOU the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever YOU bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Your disagreement is with Jesus, not me.

2nd off, Apostolic Succession is well documented in Scripture. You can ignore/deny it all you want, that doesn't make it go away. The Apostles taught other men the Truth. Those men then taught other men the Truth etc etc for 2,0000 years. So, either your men ended up with the truth and passed it onto you or my men did.

Wrongler, you must be tired of being proven wrong all the time.

 

[Marymog]

God. And not one of your church fathers will be standing next to you holding your hand when you answer to Him.

Soooo when God decides Scripture is being misused...who does he tell? Brakelite?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

Looks like a plan to me.

Thanks trollman

 

[Marymog]

What a mocking spirit you have.

I don’t always agree with @ScottA but I always love him and support his free religious pursuit. If the Holy Spirit tells him to go left and me right, we have no conflict. All glory to God!

None to your denomination.

 

[Marymog]

So, carry on as it is written, "Pause and wonder! Blind yourselves and be blind!"

Hold on...HOLD ON Scottie......

Partially quoting a passage from Isaiah 29 AND the context of that quote has NOTHING to do with our conversation only makes you look silly.

YOU should carry on as it is written:

For the Lord has poured out on you
The spirit of deep sleep,
And has closed your eyes,

Mary

 

[Marymog]

You decide your own fate by who and what you gravitate to. Which is not a dilemma I have established, but He whose hands we are all in. I have only told you what you did not know about it.

Nice try Scottie. I asked very specific questions of which I would like you to answer instead of acting like you are some wise sage who speaks in God inspired words.

Let's try this again since you dodged me the first time: When you reveal to all of us what the Holy Spirit told YOU and what YOU reveal is opposite of what other men have revealed...WHO should I believe? After all, those men have the same feeling in their tummy that you had. Which one of you are twisting Scripture and leading the flock astray?

PS: I shouldn't say you are acting like a wise sage. I know you think you are a wise sage and you are not acting.....

 

[ScottA]

Hold on...HOLD ON Scottie......

Partially quoting a passage from Isaiah 29 AND the context of that quote has NOTHING to do with our conversation only makes you look silly.

YOU should carry on as it is written:

For the Lord has poured out on you
The spirit of deep sleep,
And has closed your eyes,

Mary

Indeed, context can be key, but in scripture, is often not and only points to the actual or greater context for which it was first witnessed.

 

[Marymog]

No, dropping in some of the actual scriptures into the above extra-biblical Catholic [private, and therefore false] doctrine, is indeed the teachings of men. They have added to the scriptures against the Sword of God.

Hold on Scottie...HOLD ON!!

First off, YOU drop scripture into YOUR doctrine in YOUR posts on this website that hardly anyone in the world sees. But when the Catholic Church does it and puts it in a book (Catechism) for the entire world to see it then becomes a teaching of men? Huh....

When you spew your "teachings" onto the rest of us in your posts, is not your teachings a "teachings of men"?

Can you REALLY not see the dilemma you are in Scottie?

Curious Mary

 

[ScottA]

Nice try Scottie. I asked very specific questions of which I would like you to answer instead of acting like you are some wise sage who speaks in God inspired words.

Let's try this again since you dodged me the first time: When you reveal to all of us what the Holy Spirit told YOU and what YOU reveal is opposite of what other men have revealed...WHO should I believe? After all, those men have the same feeling in their tummy that you had. Which one of you are twisting Scripture and leading the flock astray?

PS: I shouldn't say you are acting like a wise sage. I know you think you are a wise sage and you are not acting.....

As long as you mock, I am under no obligation to speak with you or answer you at all.

But I have answered you already. Should you not gravitate to what and whose you are? Is that not the fruit showing whose you are? Does that mean you should not do otherwise? No, but if you insist, so shall it be--and this too is right.

 

[RedFan]

First off, YOU drop scripture into YOUR doctrine in YOUR posts on this website that hardly anyone in the world sees. But when the Catholic Church does it and puts it in a book (Catechism) for the entire world to see it then becomes a teaching of men? Huh....

Marymog, are you suggesting that 100% of the Catechism is a recapitulation of Scripture?

 

[Marymog]

Indeed, context can be key, but in scripture, is often not and only points to the actual or greater context for which it was first witnessed.

Huh....

 

[Marymog]

Marymog, are you suggesting that 100% of the Catechism is a recapitulation of Scripture?

I see NOTHING in my statement that suggests that. But you clearly have a strong desire to air your anti-Catholic grievance sooooooo let's hear it kiddo.

 

[RedFan]

I see NOTHING in my statement that suggests that. But you clearly have a strong desire to air your anti-Catholic grievance sooooooo let's hear it kiddo.

I am not anti-Catholic. Don't know what gave you that idea . . .

 

[ScottA]

Hold on Scottie...HOLD ON!!

First off, YOU drop scripture into YOUR doctrine in YOUR posts on this website that hardly anyone in the world sees. But when the Catholic Church does it and puts it in a book (Catechism) for the entire world to see it then becomes a teaching of men? Huh....

When you spew your "teachings" onto the rest of us in your posts, is not your teachings a "teachings of men"?

Can you REALLY not see the dilemma you are in Scottie?

Curious Mary

I see the dilemma, but you apparently do not.

"Drop ins" of scripture phrases, etc. are the prerogative, providence, and sole dominion of God, and is otherwise without authority by any other use. Are there not counterfeits? Certainly, there are. But only the Spirit knows what is true.