S
SoonerServant
Guest
I just don’t see the need for faith and hope in Heaven. If it’s a perfect place, what is there to hope for? And if all things will be revealed, what is there to have faith in?
- Status
D
dbacks5439
Guest
Did Paul really say that about Faith, Hope, and Love remaining after all other gifts cease?
S
SoonerServant
Guest
No, he said after prophesy and tongues cease.
A
Abiien
Guest
I am not going to be too offensive, or atleast i will try. You are way ignorant, in my opinion, take it or leave it. Sorry. First off, You are not perfect, and we are called to be in community all the time. Because you dont think something is right doesnt mean it is wrong! It’s probably right in this case, seeing what youve been saying. I like the way you argue, I do. But the way you treat it is another personal story that I have no business with, neither do you with others. You cannot tell someone they are interpreting thigns wrongs. What if you are? If you think you arent because it seems true then i have to say your very juvenile. Who are you to judge everyone else? Honestly. Do you remember the story of the woman who was being stoned and Jesus came and said “You who have not sinned are allowed to throw rocks at this woman” or whatever. How are you to say every church youve been to is wrong, especially the one that was built on Peter. Which brings me to your initial question.
Peter in Greek(happy?) is Petros which is a specific name for a rock used in building. Jesus names him this for a definite reason, He is the Cornerstone of the church. Without him, the church will fall apart. You mention the church was not built on HIM but on His faith, this is also true! The church runs by the Faith of the Pope, this is most definite. The People come and Go. However, the faith stays alive in the God Willed Pope!. That “Rock” of Peter is handed down to other Popes, this is a fact!
The second time Jesus says ROCK (On this rock) the word rock is used as a normal noun, not as the descriptive noun Petros, it is now petra which means a rock mass or rockbed.As was said before the church is Spiritual, yes. Jesus commends Peter on His Faith and wants Builds upon it. Your Faith is Spiritual. and its connected to the world somehow, and for that reason we have a physical Church with physical authority granted by God above.
"But he turned, and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, for you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of men.”
This is after peter rebuked him.
“Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and a rock of offense; and no one who believes in him will be disappointed.”Isaiah 8:14; 28:16
In Zion, which if i am not mistaken the Kingdom of Heaven. The Spiritual World. A stumbling stone and a Rock of Offense. The stumbling stone is everywhere. But Jesus build the church on the Rock of Offense(Peter-Faith) and a stumbling stone(peter-flesh) I dont know, i am not very good at this, maybe its not my gift. Who knows. Maybe iti s. Im just putting things up i just read it.
Your turn interpret that reference Jesus has, it is a reference to it. This quote is referred to so many times by Jesus and Paul in his epistles. Its also seen in 1 Peter
Godbless you!
Sorry if you had to read all that, im only a Kid, im still learning
S
SoonerServant
Guest
“By the grace God has given you, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it…” The foundation is Jesus Christ, as revealed later on in the chapter,“For no one can lay any other foundation than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.” Paul says he laid the foundation, which was him bringing the gospel to the Corinthians. By building on it, he means their faith. And at the part where he says,“It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work…” This is obviously referencing to man’a spiritual works vs. his physical works. The spiritual will survive and the physical will be burned up as will the Earth and all in it.“If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.” I fail to see anything in the passage about after one dying.
M
Montgomeryatty
Guest
I hate to derail a growing dialogue on purgatory, but let me respectfully suggest that we have our hands full with the Papacy and the existence of a singular Church. I have followed this conversation with great interest because I once was where SoonerServant was. I shared his views on the Papacy and the “invisible church” for the first 28 years of my life, and am only recently beginning to reevaluate those stances as I investigate Catholicism.
Allow me to jump in and offer up a few thoughts that might (hopefully) add some clarity to the debate.
(1) Sooner instructively asked about the “this” in Jesus’s statement where he renamed Simon as Peter. Why would Jesus say “this rock” if he was talking to Peter? I don’t know if the Church offers a specific reason, but it seems likely that since Jesus was surrounded by his disciples, he used “this rock” for the benefit of his bystanding disciples. That is, he referred to “this rock” as perhaps you or I might say, “I agree with this good man.” Just a theory though, I defer to a more specific teaching from the Church.
(2) Sooner has spent the majority of his time questioning Peter’s special role by questioning the “rock” analogy. As a Protestant still investigating the Church and searching for the answers myself, if I may offer some advice: The “Peter isn’t the rock” argument requires some serious verbal gymnastics that quite strongly invalidate fundamental rules of grammar. And just as importantly, at the end of the day, conceding that Peter is the rock doesn’t NECESSARILY concede his office as Pope. Sooner did raise this objection in one post, but seemed to abandon it afterwards. Although I lean towards accepting Peter’s role not merely as a personal grant of authority but as an office that would have a successor of equal authority, I would suggest that the question of “office” is a much more formidable objection. I pray for you to learn the truth, and to understand certain doctrines you must raise objections, but the Peter isn’t the rock argument is (a) pretty weak and (b) isn’t the truly determinative issue.
Allow me to jump in and offer up a few thoughts that might (hopefully) add some clarity to the debate.
(1) Sooner instructively asked about the “this” in Jesus’s statement where he renamed Simon as Peter. Why would Jesus say “this rock” if he was talking to Peter? I don’t know if the Church offers a specific reason, but it seems likely that since Jesus was surrounded by his disciples, he used “this rock” for the benefit of his bystanding disciples. That is, he referred to “this rock” as perhaps you or I might say, “I agree with this good man.” Just a theory though, I defer to a more specific teaching from the Church.
(2) Sooner has spent the majority of his time questioning Peter’s special role by questioning the “rock” analogy. As a Protestant still investigating the Church and searching for the answers myself, if I may offer some advice: The “Peter isn’t the rock” argument requires some serious verbal gymnastics that quite strongly invalidate fundamental rules of grammar. And just as importantly, at the end of the day, conceding that Peter is the rock doesn’t NECESSARILY concede his office as Pope. Sooner did raise this objection in one post, but seemed to abandon it afterwards. Although I lean towards accepting Peter’s role not merely as a personal grant of authority but as an office that would have a successor of equal authority, I would suggest that the question of “office” is a much more formidable objection. I pray for you to learn the truth, and to understand certain doctrines you must raise objections, but the Peter isn’t the rock argument is (a) pretty weak and (b) isn’t the truly determinative issue.
D
dbacks5439
Guest
That is a good post! In regards to point 1, I’d like to offer this thought. You’re right, that Jesus said “this rock” as a benefit to the other apostles. Perhaps it is that when Jesus renames Simon and calles him Kephas (Aramaic for rock), Jesus is looking directly at him. Then, when He says “this rock”, consider the possibility that Jesus turns TO the other apostles and points directly at Peter. Just a thought…
Point 2. You are beginning to see the verse in whole! I want to add to it. Please refer to Isaiah 22:22. You’ll see the keys mentioned in the Davidic Kingdom! Jesus refers to this verse to show that Peter is not only the rock, but the authority, the representative of Christ. These keys can be handed down, just as you see happening in the Davidic Kingdom. These keys were then handed to Linus, the next Pope, all the way down to Pope Benedict. When Jesus returns, the keys will be given back to Jesus. As you can see, the Catholic Church is really the Davidic Kingdom, in a perfected state. Just as Jesus says, He didn’t come to do away with the law, but to perfect it. How awesome is that!?
S
SoonerServant
Guest
If you are going to say this, then I am going to have to hear you say that the church was not founded on the Truth.
S
SoonerServant
Guest
All that Jesus is saying is that Peter will establish the church and be an authority, as will the other Apostles, until he die. Jesus didn’t abandon us, he left his teachings and the way for salvation. I’d say that’s more than I could ever ask.
S
SoonerServant
Guest
I already cleared that up with 1 Cor. 13
M
Montgomeryatty
Guest
Yes, dbacks, that was one thing that hit me with such excitement reading Isaiah as I followed along with some of Randy’s & your comments. I looked at 22:22, but decided to get some context by starting before that. My problem for WEEKS has been the notion of an “office” reposed in Peter that lasts after his death. And when I backed up before v. 22 to get some better context, there it was: “I will depose you from your office, and you will be ousted from your position,” (v. 19) after which God installs Eliakim and gives him Shebna’s “authority.” (v. 21). The parallels are starting to come into focus!
S
scylla
Guest
I agree that Jesus didn’t abandon us and that He founded a Church. Also that His teachings endure and are available.
So this means that Salvation was available for people in the year 100AD for believing in the truth of Jesus.
Which would be the same doctrines those would believe in, in the year 300 AD when the Nicene Creed was written.
The same in about the year 400 AD when the Bible was put together.
And so on…
This would be evidenced by Christians bearing witness to the faith and being recorded in history.
Which Christian Church was visible and existed since the beginning.
If it ever became corrupt then Jesus failed.
I believe in the power of Jesus to maintain His teachings and allow for Salvation even in the year 500.
Which was Jesus’s Church in the year 500AD?
God Bless
Scylla
So this means that Salvation was available for people in the year 100AD for believing in the truth of Jesus.
Which would be the same doctrines those would believe in, in the year 300 AD when the Nicene Creed was written.
The same in about the year 400 AD when the Bible was put together.
And so on…
This would be evidenced by Christians bearing witness to the faith and being recorded in history.
Which Christian Church was visible and existed since the beginning.
If it ever became corrupt then Jesus failed.
I believe in the power of Jesus to maintain His teachings and allow for Salvation even in the year 500.
Which was Jesus’s Church in the year 500AD?
God Bless
Scylla
D
dbacks5439
Guest
I have the feeling that pretty soon we will be welcoming you home!!! This excites me as well! Also, Jesus promised us that the Gates of the Netherworld will never prevail against the Church, and we are the living proof. click here. This is a website with scriptural verses for every Catholic doctrine. I hope they’ll come in handy for you!
D
dbacks5439
Guest
Thanks Scylla. I was being bogged down for a second. Prayed for another Catholic to help. Thanks!
Y
YADA
Guest
SoonerServant,
You twist scripture to fit your theology. But thee Church and the Apostolic Trdition predates the Scripture you reference. In fact it is the Church who produced the Scriptures. The Scriptures are the product of a faith community for a faith community. The Church existed before Scripture and Tradition existed before Scripture. As such it is that faith community’s role to protect, perpetuate defend and to interpret.
You owe a debt of gratitude to the successor of Peter and the apostles in the office of bishops working through the various councils that approved and compiled the 27 books we call the New Testament. These 27 Books and not the Gospel of Peter or the Gospels of Thomas and Mary Magedelene are the Canon of the Church.
You are welcome by the way…glad you read them, wish you understood them better…
You twist scripture to fit your theology. But thee Church and the Apostolic Trdition predates the Scripture you reference. In fact it is the Church who produced the Scriptures. The Scriptures are the product of a faith community for a faith community. The Church existed before Scripture and Tradition existed before Scripture. As such it is that faith community’s role to protect, perpetuate defend and to interpret.
You owe a debt of gratitude to the successor of Peter and the apostles in the office of bishops working through the various councils that approved and compiled the 27 books we call the New Testament. These 27 Books and not the Gospel of Peter or the Gospels of Thomas and Mary Magedelene are the Canon of the Church.
You are welcome by the way…glad you read them, wish you understood them better…
S
SoonerServant
Guest
Mm, not true about the church prevailing. No where did it say anything about it prevailing on earth. Perhaps when there is not even one christian left on the earth will he destroy it. He said like Sodom and Gamora. And like the ancient world when it was flooded. Techniqually, there isn’t any such thing as prevailing against God, because He created everything and can destroy it when he sees fit.
S
SoonerServant
Guest
I’m sorry, did you just say that the gospel of Thomas was part of the bible?
D
dbacks5439
Guest
Um, first off, the verse says that the Gates of the Netherworld will not prevail against it. That means that Satan cannot bring it down. Secondly, please give evidence that supports your view in this matter. Book, chapter, verse please.
D
dbacks5439
Guest
If we went with the protestant stance. Oops, sorry. You guys weren’t around then.
M
Montgomeryatty
Guest
Sooner, that’s a false choice. To say that the church was built by Jesus on Peter the Rock, you don’t have to deny the Church’s “foundation” on the Truth. Besides, I’m not certain whether the Bible ever calls Jesus a “rock,” per se, but it clearly calls him a “cornerstone.” If you think about it, a “foundation” must contain a cornerstone, which literally and figuratively is considered the most important part of the foundation.
I agree that Jesus didn’t abandon us. But its important to soberly consider how exactly Jesus will “be with us until the end of time.” With his teachings as found only in the Bible? What about oral teachings not found in a canonical epistle or gospel? See 2 Thess. 2:15. Moreover, although I agree that the Bible is instructive, it doesn’t always admit of just one obvious interpretation. How do we know which is correct? Open up your KJV or NIV and it will just come to you? Truly devout and God-fearing people have done just that, and come to starkly different conclusions about serious issues that impact every Christian. Do you conclude that the Holy Spirit failed one of them? Or could it possibly be (and I actually ask this seriously to those more informed than I) that we’re asking more of the Holy Spirit than we’re entitled to?
- Status