Peter the Rock?

[Marymog]

No, the truth does not elude you "because of those Catholic men", but because the truth from God is only given and received by the Spirit. Thus, if what you have you got "from those Catholic men", that's not good enough, it doesn't qualify without the Holy Spirit speaking. But limited to that three-way communication, as it is, you may not even know the actual truth until you are actually in the presence of God. Unfortunately.

As for the snare, it was and is intended for all, that only those who hold the seal of the Holy Spirit pass, having fallen "backward" and away from where they have gone away from God.


Says the one doing all the mocking.

But, no, righteous correction is not given by a "degrading" spirit, but in blessing, as the Light shines into darkness.

Oh goodness Scottie......

You teach that I "may not even know the actual truth until I am in the presence of God". And, as I have shown multiple times, YOU teach opposite of Scripture: And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free...... a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.....Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth,

I knew you wouldn't apologize but hey, at least this time you didn't use Scripture in a feeble attempt to degrade me!

I agree with you. The snare is intended for all........You have yet to escape it Scottie.

 

[Marymog]

False premise in your question. Sin and grace don’t get inherited. Proof no one inherited the key is future so-called popes did not prove by miracles like Peter their divine appointment via succession.

Nope, not a false premise. Your men never taught you all of Scripture and how to answer those questions so it stumped you kiddo. Since you don't have an answer, you just make the accusation "False premise". And then you (in your heart) are off the hook.

Sooooo let me see if I got YOUR premise right: Your premise is that the keys of authority just disappear after Peter dies? His replacement doesn't inherit them? Is that what you are saying?

Curious Mary

Edit: and stop adding to my post something that isn't there just like you add to Scripture things that are not there. We are not talking about sin and grace. We are talking about the keys to the kingdom of heaven!

 

[ScottA]

Of course non-Catholics are to blame for not understanding this passage. This is a falsehood that has been passed down since the dawn of the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century.

That is a matter of [private] interpretation. Which, in this case of being under protest, cannot be determined by either party. Only One is Judge, which will only come as it is written.

Here is another verse that is continually misapplied by Protestants.

First of all – Church hierarchy isn’t about “exalting” oneself. It was Jesus who exalted the Church leaders (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16. John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23, John 21:16-19).

Paul also reminds us of the hierarchy:
1 Thess. 5:12
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are OVER YOU in the Lord and who admonish you

1 Tim. 5:17
Let the elders that RULE WELL be counted worthy of DOUBLE HONOUR, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

1 Cor. 12:28
Some people God has designated in the church to be, FIRST, apostles; SECOND, prophets; THIRD, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues.

As you hopefully can see, your interpretation has failed you:

Mat 23:12​

And G1161 whosoever G3748 shall exalt G5312 himself G1438 shall be abased; G5013 and G2532 he G3748 that shall humble G5013 himself G1438 shall be exalted. G5312​

 

[Wrangler]

Nope, not a false premise.

Yes, it is a false premise for the reasons already provided. The Church is built on Christ, not Peter.

"Apostolic succession" is likewise, not what the church is built on. We are not saved by the church, not even your denomination can save us.

 

[Philip James]

For the record, I am not against all Catholics, but am for the Truth,

As someone who is 'for the Truth', you should be more careful about making FALSE statements about the Catholic faith..

and it is you who doesn't like me calling them out.

I have no problem with you calling out anyone... using deception and lies about the Faith to do so, I have a problem with..

Pax et Bonum

 

[Tulipbee]

At this point – I’m convinced that all of your “cosmic comedy” and “cha-cha” dancing nonsense is just a way of deflecting from your failure to address the issues.

ONE more time . . .
Jesus never used the words “Petros” or “Petra”. As I already informed you – Jesus was speaking Aramaic in Matt 16. The word He used in verse 18 was “Kepha”, which means “Rock”.

No linguistic dancing here – just common sense . . .

BreadOfLife, you've brought a serious tone to the theological dance floor, and I appreciate your focus on the linguistic nuances. Let's address the Aramaic dance steps in Matthew 16:18 without missing a beat.

In the cosmic comedy of biblical interpretation, you rightly point out that Jesus likely spoke Aramaic, using the term "Kepha," which means "Rock." Now, imagine the linguistic tap dance, where the Greek translation introduces the distinction between "Petros" and "petra."

Here's the comedic twist: while the terms may differ linguistically in Greek, the Aramaic original is the true star of the show. "Kepha" maintains its rock-solid meaning, emphasizing the foundational role of Peter.

Now, as we navigate the cosmic dance of interpretation, let's appreciate the subtleties of the linguistic cha-cha. The punchline remains rooted in the foundational truth that Jesus identified Peter as the rock upon which He would build His church.

Shall we continue our dance through Matthew 16:18, embracing both linguistic intricacies and the foundational truth? After all, in this theological dance, every step contributes to the divine choreography. Let's tango through the cosmic comedy with grace and understanding.

 

[ScottA]

As someone who is 'for the Truth', you should be more careful about making FALSE statements about the Catholic faith..



I have no problem with you calling out anyone... using deception and lies about the Faith to do so, I have a problem with..

Pax et Bonum

You call "lies", while I call "misunderstanding", "mistranslation", and "confusion."

You contend for private interpretation, while I contend for correction, and the revelation and finish of the mystery of God which was foretold not to come until mistranslations, misunderstandings, and times of the gentiles are fulfilled.

Many have made straight the way of "delusion." I make straight the way foretold.

Each "is known by its fruit."

Believe what you will.

 

[Marymog]

Yes, it is a false premise for the reasons already provided. The Church is built on Christ, not Peter.

"Apostolic succession" is likewise, not what the church is built on. We are not saved by the church, not even your denomination can save us.

Yup, The Church is built on Christ. I have agreed with you on that already kiddo. He is the cornerstone, the foundation. But according to your premise/theory/(lack of)teaching by your men, Peter didn't do anything to build up The Church after Christ died. He and the other Apostles just sat around, bored.

I have learned no matter how much Scripture or logic is given to you wrongler that proves you wrong you will never admit to being wrong sooooo here I go again to prove you wrong and if/when you respond you will say you are not wrong:

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Couple that with the "already provided" passages from Scripture that I have provided to prove wrongler wrong it is clear that you are...ONCE AGAIN...wrong.

Good Night Wrangler.....

 

[ScottA]

Yup, The Church is built on Christ. I have agreed with you on that already kiddo. He is the cornerstone, the foundation. But according to your premise/theory/(lack of)teaching by your men, Peter didn't do anything to build up The Church after Christ died. He and the other Apostles just sat around, bored.

I have learned no matter how much Scripture or logic is given to you wrongler that proves you wrong you will never admit to being wrong sooooo here I go again to prove you wrong and if/when you respond you will say you are not wrong:

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Couple that with the "already provided" passages from Scripture that I have provided to prove wrongler wrong it is clear that you are...ONCE AGAIN...wrong.

Good Night Wrangler.....

Now you mock someone else and call him names.

But the scripture you gave is good. Unfortunately, you apparently only acknowledge parts of it--which makes a good small example of all that you present, and your pattern of error.

Without going into all the rest, just looking at this passage (Ephesians 2:19-22). Look at it--you embolden the foundation of the apostles and the idea of building together, but do not embolden "the prophets", and consistently reject everyone other than your own favorite and select denominational priests.

--That's not building together, and it's only on a partial foundation. Which you do, calling others "wrong."

 

[Wrangler]

Yup, The Church is built on Christ. I have agreed with you on that already kiddo.

Still with the kiddo disrespect.

You agree in theory but not practice. Thank I’m no longer part of the RCC.

 

[Tulipbee]

The Church’s leadership doesn’t ONLY consist of the Pope.
There are Bishops and Priests in every diocese in the world who ALL have Authority.

HOWEVER, the Bible tells us that Jesus appointed Peter to shepherd over His flock (John 21:15-19).

The Bible doesn’t even make that claim about itself.

HOWEVER – the Bible does state that Christ’s Church is our final earthly Authority:

As usual, most Protestants – and ALL Calvinists – throw out the baby with the bath water when it comes to the New Covenant.
Regardless of the fact that we are no longer under the Law of the Old Covenant – Christ’s Church borne through the model o0f Judaism.

In the Old Testament, there were three levels of Priests:
- The High Priest (Lev. 16, Haggai 1:12-14 S).
- The Levitical/Ministerial Priesthood (Lev. 16).
- The rest of the people were a General priesthood of believers (Exod. 19:6).

In the New Testament, there are also three levels of Priests:
- Jesus, our High Priest (1 Tim. 2:5, Heb. 7:22-25)
- The Ministerial Priests (James 5:14-15)
- The General priesthood of all Christians (1 Peter 2:5-9).

Salvation is by grace through faith.

HOWEVER, the Bible describes “Faith” as as something that if FAR more involved that “Belief” (1 Cor. 13:1-13, Gal 5:6). James 2:19 tells us that even the demons believe.
True faith = Belief + Surrender/Obedience (works).

HOWEVER – the Bible tells us that Jesus said the following to Peter:

Matt. 16:19
WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Ah, BreadOfLife, let's embark on a theological journey filled with Calvinist humor, exploring the perceived pitfalls of the papal system. In the Calvinist comedy club, we'll dissect the errors through Calvin's lens, with a touch of wit and scriptural banter.

1. Singular Authority vs. Collective Leadership: Calvinism grooves to the collective leadership beat, with elders sharing the stage. The papal system insists on Peter as the exclusive "Rock," a one-man band. It's like trying to turn a group dance into a solo performance!
   BreadOfLife responds: "But wait, there's a choir of bishops and priests! Peter's just the lead vocalist. John 21:15-19 says so!"
2. Sola Scriptura and Papal Tradition: In the Calvinist disco, sola scriptura takes the lead. The papal system, with its dance moves in tradition and the Magisterium, might be seen as stepping out of sync with the Calvinist groove. It's like dancing to a different scriptural beat.
   BreadOfLife retorts: "Scripture doesn't claim solo status! Christ's Church is our final earthly Authority, grooving to its own rhythm."
3. Priesthood of All Believers: Calvinism celebrates the universal priesthood dance, where everyone has direct access to God. The papal system introduces hierarchies and confession steps – it's like adding unnecessary dance partners in a solo dance.
   BreadOfLife counters: "Don't toss the baby out with the bathwater! We've got a three-tiered priesthood dance going on, just like the good ol' Old Testament days."
4. Salvation by Grace vs. Works: Calvinism's hip move is salvation by grace, no strings attached. The papal system throws in works, indulgences, and merit steps – it's like trying to dance the grace waltz with added spins.
   BreadOfLife clarifies: "Salvation's a grace-fueled dance, but true faith involves more than just belief – it's belief plus surrender and obedience, a dance of its own."
5. Scriptural Interpretation and Papal Infallibility: Calvinism grooves with rigorous biblical interpretation. Papal infallibility challenges this dance, like insisting on flawless choreography in a world of imperfect dancers.
   BreadOfLife counters: "But Jesus told Peter, 'Whatever you bind on earth…' – it's like heavenly dance moves endorsed by the divine choreographer!"

In this divine dance-off, let's appreciate the diversity of theological moves, recognizing that our shared journey holds different rhythms. After all, in this cosmic comedy, the punchlines are scriptural, and the dance moves are part of the divine choreography!

 

[RedFan]

So, now you can see there is no contradiction. Peter DID receive the keys of authority from Jesus AND there was an Apostolic Successor. He even has a name, Matthias.

Soooo is your theory that there was no successor named to replace Peter?


Curious Mary

The real debate here, as I said earlier (Post #97), should be over the assignability of the keys, whether by appointment or by vote. Matthias' election to replace Judas so that there could be twelve rather than eleven apostolic witnesses tells us nothing about Peter handing off his keys to a successor, nor about some (small) subset of surviving apostles or apostolic successors or elders taking the keys form Peter's dead hands and voting to give them to another. Can't we start talking about THAT?

 

[Brakelite]

Dear Brakelite,

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

Pax et Bonum

No, but thanks. It is your church's practise to use history and it's links to the apostles as proof evident of your church's valid claims to truth, authority, and right to dominate the world. I am simply pointing out that it doesn't work that way. Many lines of Christian faith had their roots in the apostles, and possibly more deeper than Rome's. Alexandria certainly is a case in point, but gnosticism was a thorn in its side they never expelled, but carried into Rome. Constantinople was merely the result of an argument over who had rightful authority over the church. Both were wrong.

You and others here have a fixation on requiring others, may demanding others, surrender to Rome's authority in pastoral and doctrinal matters, and should we refuse, there are intimations we are somehow less Christian. I find it numbingly frustrating that Catholics who frequent forums; Catholics who are without doubt more connected to their church than the vast majority and more invested in Catholic faith and practise, cannot understand that submitting to Papal authority (and the council of Trent), as in centuries past being an absolute criteria to membership, holds immense impact on our relationship with Jesus. And what impact is that? We are replacing Christ with a vicar of Christ. Sorry my friend, but ought we not cleave to the real rather than surrender to a self exalting deputy with all the faults and failings as the rest of us?

 

[Brakelite]

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

Curious Mary

Absolutely. Why wouldn't He? He died for me, funny you thing He would have my best interests at heart? So why would He not tell me when I go off the rails?

 

[Behold]

First off, Marymog didn't say that God gave authority to Peter only.

Do you think the day will come, when you dont obsess on water baptism, Mary, or Peter?

I dont think so, as the "cult of mary" is built on this deception.

See the POPE< for an update....
-
-

 

[Illuminator]

The real debate here, as I said earlier (Post #97), should be over the assignability of the keys, whether by appointment or by vote. Matthias' election to replace Judas so that there could be twelve rather than eleven apostolic witnesses tells us nothing about Peter handing off his keys to a successor, nor about some (small) subset of surviving apostles or apostolic successors or elders taking the keys form Peter's dead hands and voting to give them to another. Can't we start talking about THAT?

What are you trying to prove? Please do better homework on early Christian writings. The testimony of the early Church is deafening in its unanimous (yes, unanimous) assertion of apostolic succession. Far from being discussed by only a few, scattered writers, the belief that the apostles handed on their authority to others was one of the most frequently and vociferously defended doctrines in the first centuries of Christianity. Can't we start talking about THAT?

 

[Marymog]

The real debate here, as I said earlier (Post #97), should be over the assignability of the keys, whether by appointment or by vote. Matthias' election to replace Judas so that there could be twelve rather than eleven apostolic witnesses tells us nothing about Peter handing off his keys to a successor, nor about some (small) subset of surviving apostles or apostolic successors or elders taking the keys form Peter's dead hands and voting to give them to another. Can't we start talking about THAT?

Hey RedFan,

I have thought about that also. Why doesn't Scripture OR even historical Christian writings tell us WHO replaced Peter just like it told us who replaced Judas. WHO was assigned the keys after the death of Peter is a good question. There are some writings from Ireneaus and Cyprian that give some credence to WHO. Maybe this is where 2 Thessalonians 2:15 comes into play?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Now you mock someone else and call him names.

But the scripture you gave is good. Unfortunately, you apparently only acknowledge parts of it--which makes a good small example of all that you present, and your pattern of error.

Without going into all the rest, just looking at this passage (Ephesians 2:19-22). Look at it--you embolden the foundation of the apostles and the idea of building together, but do not embolden "the prophets", and consistently reject everyone other than your own favorite and select denominational priests.

--That's not building together, and it's only on a partial foundation. Which you do, calling others "wrong."

Thanks for your opinion, Scottie.

I know, I know. Lil ol marymog is, according to Scottie, in error again.

And here comes Scottie on his white horse, riding high in the saddle to show marymog her error. So high in his saddle that his head is in heaven with the angels whispering in his ears.

Yup Scottie, I emboldened the words "foundation of the Apostles".....Now why did lil ol' stupid marymog who is always, according to Scottie, in error embolden the word Apostles and not the word prophets?

Maybe....JUST MAYBE......because we are discussing The APOSTLES?????

Sooo what is really going on here. On one hand Scottie throws me a doggie treat and tells me what Scripture I "gave is good". But then he chastises me like he is the master of knowledge and I am his student. Me thinks that Scottie felt rejected by marymog and is saying that I left HIM out when I didn't embolden the word prophets?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

-
View attachment 40073

Thank you for sharing this beautiful picture of the Vicar of Christ and a statue that represents the Mother of Jesus. I sincerely believe that by you sharing such beautiful pictures, more people will join The Church.

Mary

 

[Wrangler]

I mean no disrespect when I use the word kiddo wrongler.

Since I asked you repeatedly not to refer to me that way, it most certainly is disrespectful.

Once again you live up to the nickname I have given you...WRONGler!

I thought you mistyped before. Now I see your mocking spirit is fully out in the open.

Not sure where you come off giving people degrading nicknames is the best way you can witness to Christ. I've mentioned your disrespectful replies for the last time, e.g., kiddo, wrongler. And have reported you. Either such posts will stop or I'll put you on ignore.