challenge question, who can answer this

[2ndGen]

Peter pretty much affirms that Jesus is the Rrock and not himself. He categorizes us with him as stones.

Jesus means literally “God among us”.

Peter means literally “Rock”.

Not only that, Jesus being a Carpenter and having full knowledge of how a structure is built was clearly stating that the foundation of The Church would be built upon Peter (that’s why He changed his name to “Rock” from Simon).

Jesus’ prophecy of The Church…
Matthew 7:
24. "Whoever thus listens to these words of mine and performs them,
will resemble the wise man who built his house on the rock.
25."And the rain came down and the floods* came
and the winds blew and drove against that house
and [the house] did not fall,
for its foundation was placed on rock.

This is The Catholic Church that has existed since the time of Christ and “did not fall”.

Jesus’ choice for the “Rock”…
Matthew 16:
“I am also telling you that you are the Rock [Peter]
and on this rock I am building my Church,
and the doors of sheol cannot draw it in.”

Again, even hell cannot overcome The Church that Jesus started, The Universal Christian Church.

Confirmation of exactly where The Apostles and Jesus fit in The House of God, The Church…
Ephesians 2:
19. Henceforth, you are neither outsiders, nor migrants, except you are inhabitants of the saints’ towns, and the children of the house of God.
20. And so you may build upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, and He is the cornerstone of the building, Jesus Christ himself.

A “cornerstone” is the first stone layed to start the foundation of the house, but it is not buried. The Foundation is buried for the house rest upon The Foundation. What is a foundation buried in? In “soil” or dirt (that which man is made of). The foundation of The Church are The Apostles and The Prophets who prophesized them.

Jesus is the capstone, the stone that goes “upon” the structure. He is not buried in the soil like the Apostles are, but is “atop” the structure, the visible stone (think of when you see a building built with a cornerstone that states who built the building along with the date that it was built).

Jesus was a Carpenter…He knew “exactly” what He was saying when He called Peter The Rock and when He said that a house built upon rock would not fall when tested.

Only one Christian Church has not fallen and coincidentally, that one Church was built upon The Rock [Peter].

The Catholic Church.

 

[rinnie]

That same question can be ask of any church, its how you want to beleve in the word of God that matters, and all church’s or religions can’t get on the same page. It would be nice if we all could beleve in the same way but that will never happen in our time.

yeah but its happening slowly but it is. Like a friend of mine isnt Catholic and her church is protestant, now they get ashes on Ash Wed. Now that something. But we will all go back to one church, but i do agree its gonna take a lot of love, understanding and A whole lot of God.

 

[inchrist101]

Jesus means literally “God among us”.

Peter means literally “Rock”.

Not only that, Jesus being a Carpenter and having full knowledge of how a structure is built was clearly stating that the foundation of The Church would be built upon Peter (that’s why He changed his name to “Rock” from Simon).

Jesus’ prophecy of The Church…
Matthew 7:
24. "Whoever thus listens to these words of mine and performs them,
will resemble the wise man who built his house on the rock.
25."And the rain came down and the floods* came
and the winds blew and drove against that house
and [the house] did not fall,
for its foundation was placed on rock.

This is The Catholic Church that has existed since the time of Christ and “did not fall”.

Jesus’ choice for the “Rock”…
Matthew 16:
“I am also telling you that you are the Rock [Peter]
and on this rock I am building my Church,
and the doors of sheol cannot draw it in.”

Again, even hell cannot overcome The Church that Jesus started, The Universal Christian Church.

Confirmation of exactly where The Apostles and Jesus fit in The House of God, The Church…
Ephesians 2:
19. Henceforth, you are neither outsiders, nor migrants, except you are inhabitants of the saints’ towns, and the children of the house of God.
20. And so you may build upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, and He is the cornerstone of the building, Jesus Christ himself.

A “cornerstone” is the first stone layed to start the foundation of the house, but it is not buried. The Foundation is buried for the house rest upon The Foundation. What is a foundation buried in? In “soil” or dirt (that which man is made of). The foundation of The Church are The Apostles and The Prophets who prophesized them.

Jesus is the capstone, the stone that goes “upon” the structure. He is not buried in the soil like the Apostles are, but is “atop” the structure, the visible stone (think of when you see a building built with a cornerstone that states who built the building along with the date that it was built).

Jesus was a Carpenter…He knew “exactly” what He was saying when He called Peter The Rock and when He said that a house built upon rock would not fall when tested.

Only one Christian Church has not fallen and coincidentally, that one Church was built upon The Rock [Peter].

The Catholic Church.

OK I get what you are saying. But here’s where the confusion is. In one sentence you are saying Peter is the foundational Rock. But then in the next sentence you state that the Apostles and Prophets are the foundation:

Ephesians 2:19 So now you Gentiles are no longer strangers and foreigners. You are citizens along with all of God’s holy people. You are members of God’s family. 20 Together, we are his house, built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets. (Not Just Peter) And the cornerstone is Christ Jesus himself. 21 We are carefully joined together in him, becoming a holy temple for the Lord. 22 Through him you Gentiles are also being made part of this dwelling where God lives by his Spirit.

So basically Peter can’t singularly be the rock which would then suggest that it was his confession that was the Rock. The same confession we all make when we profess our faith and get baptized. Now this makes a whole lot more sense.

 

[inchrist101]

yeah but its happening slowly but it is. Like a friend of mine isnt Catholic and her church is protestant, now they get ashes on Ash Wed. Now that something. But we will all go back to one church, but i do agree its gonna take a lot of love, understanding and A whole lot of God.

Actually Rinnie many Non-Catholic churches always observed Ash Wednesday:

Anglican/Episcopal churches
Some Free Churches (Baptist, etc.)
Lutheran churches
United Methodist churches
Reformed churches (Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, others)
Wesleyan churches

We do at our church and we’re non-denominational. This is a very ancient tradition as I’ve been taught and is indeed very scriptural. The only resistance has come from the fasting part because people will refer to Matthew 6:18 where Jesus gave instructions for fasting.

“And whenever you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, .Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that your fasting may be seen not by others but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”

So basically if you fast for Ash Wednesday don’t advertise it to try and impress anyone. It’s between you and our Great and Wonderful GOD.

 

[2ndGen]

inchrist

OK I get what you are saying. But here’s where the confusion is. In one sentence you are saying Peter is the foundational Rock. But then in the next sentence you state that the Apostles and Prophets are the foundation:

Well, “I’m” not saying it…The Holy Bible is saying it. I’m just plagiarising The Word of God.

Peter “is” an Apostle, so He “is” part of the foundation. I never said that he was the only rock “in” the foundation, but he is part of it.

He is the voice of The Apostles. Once all is said and done, Peter speaks in their place. Only Peter was given the Keys of authority. The Apostles recognize this. Throughout The New Testament, His authority is unchallenged and He is shown respect by the other Apostles.

So basically Peter can’t singularly be the rock which would then suggest that it was his confession that was the Rock. The same confession we all make when we profess our faith and get baptized. Now this makes a whole lot more sense.

Why the “confession” theory is wrong. First of all, how could one give a group of words The Keys to The Kingdom of Heaven?

Demons confess that Jesus is Who He is (The Messiah), are they saved?

Or course not.

And don’t forget that it wasn’t Jesus Who chose Peter, but God Himself Who chose Peter and thus, this is how Jesus knew “who” to choose to found His Church.

Jesus didn’t name Simon’s “confessioin” Rock, but Simon personally. That is why Simon was referred to as Rock from there on.

youtube.com/watch?v=nVDotEw9vZE

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

Those links might help you understand that a “confession” that was even uttered by demons could not gain one entry into Heaven for they are just words that float in the air.

You could try to make an argument that it was Peter’s faith, but it wasn’t Peter’s faith because God placed the right answer in Peter’s heart to respond to Jesus with.

Therefore, it wasn’t “Peter’s” confession, but God’s revelation to Peter.

 

[2ndGen]

Actually Rinnie many Non-Catholic churches always observed Ash Wednesday:

Anglican/Episcopal churches
Some Free Churches (Baptist, etc.)
Lutheran churches
United Methodist churches
Reformed churches (Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, others)
Wesleyan churches

We do at our church and we’re non-denominational. This is a very ancient tradition as I’ve been taught and is indeed very scriptural. The only resistance has come from the fasting part because people will refer to Matthew 6:18 where Jesus gave instructions for fasting.

“And whenever you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, .Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that your fasting may be seen not by others but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”

So basically if you fast for Ash Wednesday don’t advertise it to try and impress anyone. It’s between you and our Great and Wonderful GOD.

Father Groeschel speaks about how Jews and Buddhist and Muslims go to Saint Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City on Ash Wednesday to get their ashes too.

 

[fbl9]

OK I get what you are saying. But here’s where the confusion is. In one sentence you are saying Peter is the foundational Rock. But then in the next sentence you state that the Apostles and Prophets are the foundation:

Ephesians 2:19 So now you Gentiles are no longer strangers and foreigners. You are citizens along with all of God’s holy people. You are members of God’s family. 20 Together, we are his house, built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets. (Not Just Peter) And the cornerstone is Christ Jesus himself. 21 We are carefully joined together in him, becoming a holy temple for the Lord. 22 Through him you Gentiles are also being made part of this dwelling where God lives by his Spirit.

So basically Peter can’t singularly be the rock which would then suggest that it was his confession that was the Rock. The same confession we all make when we profess our faith and get baptized. Now this makes a whole lot more sense.

…yes it does make sense if one rejects St Peter’s primacy in the church. btw i thought about it later i misunderstood you you were just asking me to be polite thanks

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Anytime Jesus is addressing the Apopstles you have to substitute the church for you.

The “you” that is spoken by Jesus is not “All you individuals” but rather “You of one mind”. To be of one mind is to hold the same doctrine. To hold the same doctrine is to ACCEPT a SINGLE decision/interpretation/meaning about doctrine, which IS indeed guaranteed by the Holy Spirit to be “infallibly without error”, which specifically DOES NOT ALLOW each of us to make up our own mind about such things!

He breathed on them and said receive the power of the Holy Spirit. Whatever you (the church) forgive will be forgiven in Heaven and whatever you (the church) don’t forgive will not be forgiven in Heaven.

Can YOU forgive the sins of others for anyone but yourself? If a person wounds another person who is not you, should the person who wounds consider themselves forgiven by GOD because YOU have forgiven them?

You may forgive them, but you are not The Church, which ALONE as the Body of Christ has the power to REMOVE their sins, which is what to really “FORGIVE sins” means.

Do you truly claim to REMOVE sins from people?

Don’t we all receive the power of the Holy Spirit when Baptised? Yes. According to the Our Father don’t we have the power to forgive? Yes.

We can separate the sin from the person, whereby we can HATE the sin and yet love the sinner, but do you REALLY think that YOU can not only see sin as sin and pray for the conversion of the sinner but REMOVE the sin from the responsibility of the sinner?

Jesus in fact tells us that if we don’t forgive how can God forgive us. We ask GOD for forgiveness in the Our Father not the Priests.

We ask GOD to be as FORGIVING to us as we are to others, but how is asking God to allow us to be forgiving in anyway related to asking God to forgive us IN PERSON so as to be most effective by Catholic reconciliation?

Aren’t we members of Jesus church after confessing and getting baptized? Yes. Now go forth (you the church) and make disciples baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and I will always be with you.

The Apostles weren’t the only ones that went forth.

Anyone who “goes forth” is an apostle, but is not “having been tested and verified by the Church capable” for their quality of teaching, which is what priests/bishops are so that we have our guaranteed-by-Jesus “true” teachers!

After Pentecost they all (meaning the church) went forth practicing what they had been taught.

“They all” in your sentence does NOT mean “the Church” (though it DOES mean “the church” as protestants mean it) because you are refering to individuals and not to the Body of Christ.

The Body of Christ is not simply “the sum total of the individuals who are believers in Jesus”. That is your basic error.

That’s why so many churches started to form even in the face of so much persecution. Christianity spread like wild fire. Not just because of the Apostles but because of all church members.

Each “church”, meaning each particular community, was governed by an authority who was in constant communication with the “decision maker” of THE Church, such that doctrine would maintain it’s unity.

Not every “bishop” kept their particular church’s doctrine perfectly “in sync” with The Church, but The Church kept it’s communities as “in sync” with her as possible, and this is what MAKES the various particualar churches CATHOLIC churches within the Church (Catholic).

Your “analysis” simply defies history.

 

[paidion]

Jesus means literally “God among us”.

er… FYI, Jesus (Yeshua) means “salvation”; Emmanuel is “G-d with (or among) us”

shalom

 

[rinnie]

inchrist101

I just responded and somehow lost my reply.

Here i go again, Let start with the Holy Spirit, yes we do get it at baptism. I agree.

Now the rest of this is me. okay not what i was learned from the faith this is how i see it.

When Jesus breathed on the apostles and gave them the power to forgive sins yes he did breath the Holy Spirit directly into them. But he told them pick people. more or less not everyone because then we would all be priests, dedicate our whole life to the church.

Now lets start with confession. Like anything else Jesus gives us, its not for him its for us. When you go to confession you were lets say bad. You did something wrong. Our Holy spirit is the God in us our conscience. There are times we cant tell anyone and it eats us up. Now maybe to the priest he is like did you do that on purpose and so on and so on. he gets to the truth of the matter. But see maybe the way hes sees it its not that bad. And he will help you. And if its something you cant control he will find a way to help you. But see a priest does not forgive your sins its thru him that God works. IT is Gods way of talking to us . sometimes you need to hear God lets say it out loud. It is GOD who gives him the words. the priest cant tell no matter what you say. hes bound to it. Now you dont become a priest over night. It is God that gives them the calling. they give up thier life. no wife, children, they feel the need to doGods work. Thats it only Gods work. Why do you think so many people are going to shrinks all the time. now lets say i see you and say hey buddy over here, let me help you out. spill your guts i wont tell anyone. could you imagine. how many people do you know that can truely keep a secret. or in the end hold it over your head. Then in the ends its the priest that goes with you the 3 or you to God and asks for forgiveness, Now if its something horrible he will tell you, lets say its illegal what you have to do. but he cant make you. But he will help you to do the right thing. But if its little what does he say Go now in peace and you are forgive and sin no more. People say we can do whatever we want and keep confessing I wish it was like that. trust me. But confession is for us not the priest or God. He is there to help to fix what you seem to keep doing wrong. and to help you find a way. And if confession is so horrible why do you feel so good after. There are Good priests out there. many many all you hear about is the bad. but there are more good. And before it starts yes there are bad ones. they were either bad from the get go or the devil won. doesnt the bible say the devil is the master of discises. sorry forget how to spell it. But he doesnt want the evil people he has them he wants Gods people. Look how he tempts us. what do you think he does to these priest every second of the day. They are only human. Even though they are of God he still doent take over their free will. now get to the rest in a minute

 

[2ndGen]

2ndGen;3258957:

Jesus means literally “God among us”.

er… FYI, Jesus (Yeshua) means “salvation”; Emmanuel is “G-d with (or among) us”

shalom

I assumed that when the Bible calls Jesus Emmanuel,
it’s saying that He is God and that God is with us.

Matthew 1:23
“Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son,
and they shall call his name Emmanuel,
which being interpreted is, ‘God with us’.”

Thanks for the correction however on the terms.



I should say Jesus is called Emmanuel in Matthew 1.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Now one final point. In a discussion with the mother of James and John (Matthew 20-28) a request is made to place each one on the left and right side of Jesus when he comes into HIS Kingdom. Now Jesus responds. You have heard how the Pagans Lord it over one another exercising authority. That will not be so among you. Whosoever wants to be great must be your servant etc. etc.

You mischaracterize the Pope to fit your prejudice.

You seem not to realize that the Pope IS the servant of all humanity, the “lowliest of the low”, and not the “Lord” of anyone!

We simply recognize the holiness of the Pope’s self-inflicted maximal possible servitude, and are docile in the face of it.

This was the Orthodox church’s chief objection to Marcellinus when he first assumed the office of the Papacy. He took on the title Pontificus Maximus and then ultimately went by Pope. Pontificus Maximus was by the way the same title attributed to Caesar.

It’s “Pontifex Maximus”.

“Pontifex”, which means “Bridge Maker”, which is a very good description of what the Pope is. He is the “point contact” decider in those things which he is specifically charged to be authoritative about, and that sounds like one who builds and maintains our bridge to divine truth to me.

That, for political reasons, some people in the past considered this descriptive term an “insult” only shows the pettiness of those who did so.

The Orthodox church argued the same point I do which was Jesus said no Lordship.

You are both wrong. The Pope is no “LORD”!

He is our most humble servant and an image of holiness in his maximal humility.

Marcellinus then countered with the whole on this rock argument. Hence the Great Schism.

Jesus is the Rock on which the rock that is Peter is laid upon which the Church is built.

The rock that is Peter and his ordained descendents are the BRIDGE (pont) between the Rock that is Jesus and the building (structure) which is the Church which contains, as a Cathedral contains “all” the earthly atmosphere, being open to it, all humanity.

The only question is whether one is part of the building, the furniture, the air in the building, or outside with the possibility of entering?

So if there is no lordship then there can be no pontificus maximus hence there can be no pontiff or Pope. I see the whole thing as one large political structure which I believe is counter to what Jesus wanted.

Once again, the Pope is no “Lord”. He is our servant.

Your reasoning is definitionally in error, and is nothing on which to claim that all people are “Pontifi”.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

I don’t attribute anything special to Peter for being first in almost all the lists. I believe he is first because that’s the order Jesus called them in. Again not saying Peter is not special.

You claim Peter is both specail and not-special.

What is your reason for holding such a contradiction as truth?

I’ve read some really good books regarding church history that give a good account of the events leading up to the reformation. I don’t like the splits. But deep down I still see us as one church.

You fail to see the visible Church as THE Church, and substitute your “invisible ‘one’ church”, because of your natural conflict between wanting what you know is good, while simultaneously wanting what you want over what you need.

Our salvation is based on Jesus and Jesus only.

Amen!

All other teachings are secondary that have no impact on salvation.

Is one of our “secondary teachings” that Jesus is God the Son consubstantial with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit?

What is the difference between this “teaching” and any of your so-called “secondary teachings”?

Our salvation consists of choosing God at our end by being able to let go of that which is not-God when asked to choose heaven or hell.

What does your “based on Jesus” mean!? Is it simply saying “Lord Lord!”? If that is someones opinion of what their faith “being based on Jesus” means, then are they saved?

No. The only way for our faith to based on Jesus is to follow Jesus in every way he has told us. To not do as He says is to choose “not-God” at our end, and volunteer for hell.

I know plenty of Current Catholics that do not believe in many teachings but stay because that’s how they were brought up. Not implying anything here but I have yet to find many Catholics outside these boards who read the Bible let alone believe in everything they are taught. Forgive me if I sound critical but it’s very true.

It’s VERY true that people think they can be saved by picking and choosing doctrines to follow, but are you claiming that your doing so, because they do so, is justification for thinking yourself saved because you’re no worse than they are?

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Bottom line is, none of us were there and we don’t know if Jesus was pointing to Peter or to himself when he made the statement. Further support for the Gospel writers to use petra and petros.

Bottom line is, I have the choice of believing YOU or believing a doctrinally holy an inerrant source for my information of truth from God guaranteed by the Holy Spirit.

You chose yourself., making yourself Pontifex Maximus.

I choose the Church, whose history is there for us to see.

 

[inchrist101]

inchrist

Well, “I’m” not saying it…The Holy Bible is saying it. I’m just plagiarising The Word of God.

It’s good plagiarising though. If you’re going to plagiarise then GOD would be your best bet.

Peter “is” an Apostle, so He “is” part of the foundation. I never said that he was the only rock “in” the foundation, but he is part of it.

You sort’ve implied it but we’ll leave it alone.

He is the voice of The Apostles. Once all is said and done, Peter speaks in their place. Only Peter was given the Keys of authority. The Apostles recognize this. Throughout The New Testament, His authority is unchallenged and He is shown respect by the other Apostles.

I would respectfully disagree. How about the incident when he was eating with the Gentiles and then backed away when the Jews walked in. James ended up issuing Judgement which resulted in a letter that basically was dispatched to the Gentiles.
But Paul was pretty upset with him:

Galatians 2: 11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong. 12 When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile Christians, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision. 13 As a result, other Jewish Christians followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.

Seems like Paul challenged Peter pretty vehimently.

Why the “confession” theory is wrong. First of all, how could one give a group of words The Keys to The Kingdom of Heaven?

Demons confess that Jesus is Who He is (The Messiah), are they saved?

Or course not.

And don’t forget that it wasn’t Jesus Who chose Peter, but God Himself Who chose Peter and thus, this is how Jesus knew “who” to choose to found His Church.

Jesus didn’t name Simon’s “confessioin” Rock, but Simon personally. That is why Simon was referred to as Rock from there on.

There’s a difference between confessing or professing that Jesus is the Christ and actually acknowledging HIM as your Lord and Savior. I’m not implying demons or anyone for that matter who admits that Jesus is the Christ will be saved and get the keys to the Kingdon of GOD. It’s actually accepting him as your savior is what saves you and grants you the keys. Peter had accepted him which is demonstrated by his actions. I just find it interesting that as soon as Peter confesses Jesus to be Christ, Jesus then states he’s going to build his church. Why did he wait for Peter to make that confession?

youtube.com/watch?v=nVDotEw9vZE

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

Those links might help you understand that a “confession” that was even uttered by demons could not gain one entry into Heaven for they are just words that float in the air.

Already commented above. Never tried to imply that.

You could try to make an argument that it was Peter’s faith, but it wasn’t Peter’s faith because God placed the right answer in Peter’s heart to respond to Jesus with.

Therefore, it wasn’t “Peter’s” confession, but God’s revelation to Peter.

Well you could argue that. But here’s the issue I have with that. None of the Apostles were supposedly getting it. Jesus says “Who am I”? And we both know the responses. Then he says “No who do you say I AM” Then Peter confesses. Jesus says blessed are you because GOD revealed this to you. Peter didn’t know it himself nor did any of the other Apostles. Or did they??

Read this from John 1:
49 Then Nathanael exclaimed, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God—the King of Israel!” All the apostles were standing with Jesus there including Peter. At least the ones he chose up to that point.

Seems they knew who he was. Perhaps they all suspected Jesus identify, but GOD confirmed it to Peter.

As we read the Bible Jesus uses alot of parables and symbolism when he speaks. How do we know that Jesus wasn’t speaking symbolically to Peter. We really don’t. Peter never really ruled alone with authority as you say. It always appeared to be by committee. Acts talks of them meeting quite often, the Apostles and Elders. Peter may speak but it seems the group makes the decision. They always appeared unified but not because Peter says “this is the way it is and that’s it”.

Thoughts??

 

[rinnie]

inchrist101 Okay now again this is not scripture this is me now.

Okay that why it goes back to Peter, the reason i know Peter was to be the leader go back you will see it. Peter knew Jesus was God before the others. Because he said Peter who am I Peter said you are the son of God long before Jesus told the others. Thats why he was so rough on Peter … Remember he said step away from me satan. Now if that was us we would be mad and fighting with him. and saying hey why you keep picking on me the others dont know either. But see God knew Peter was going to be the man in charge. remember FLESH AND BLOOD DID NOT REVEAL THIS. BUT SEE FLesh and Blood did reveal it to the others do you see it now. Go back to when they were on the boat and afraid what did peter do. He saw Jesus and was scared to death. Then it hit him oh my God your arent just Jesus you are GOD ALMIGHTY. thats why Peter fell the feet of Christ. Remember Jesus said Peter you know me. Now thats why today the way the church is handed down is thru the sacrements, HOLY ORDERS You cant be married and receive Holy ORders, and they have to be passed down. some priests are just that their whole life priests, some become bishops, etc they keep climbing up. But only one Pope like there was one Peter. Its goes back to you have to have a leader. think of it this way too many chiefs not enough indians what happens, no work get done. see what i mean. thats why yes the Pope is Human, Yes he is a sinner but he cant forgive my language but he cant screw up when it comes to the bible. He is the only one that God talks thru directly when it comes to understanding it. look at it this way back to the 2 churches, in my eyes its still doesnt make sense no scripture backs it. But when the pope says something scripture backs in. Hundred of ways, times, books. But if the Pope doesnt know then its not to be revealed yet. And the Pope is human when it comes to his personal life or some decisions he may change but never scripture. That is the one part he is never wrong Jesus promised us that. He told Peter I will give you the words. Why do you think it was the Catholic Bible that was here first. Because it was Holy Spirit inspired but certain people God picked to write it. He choose the books. hope i didnt bore the hell out of you and you can see what i see.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

OK I understand that. But that just re-affirms my point that Matthew was trying to denote 2 different entities in his use of the Words Petra and Petros. Think of it this way. Could Jesus have said “you are Peter and on this Rock” now pointing back to himself I will build my church. Matthew seeing this knows Jesus is the Rock and not Matthew. Peter’s letter now makes sense given that he calls all Christians living stones built up into a spiritual household with the Jesus as the cornerstone. Peter pretty much affirms that Jesus is the Rrock and not himself. He categorizes us with him as stones.

He DID say “you are Peter and on this rock”!

Peter was not a name before then, and was utterly synonymous with ROCK. What he said was, “You are ROCK (like a rock) and on this ROCK (on this rock-like foundation) I will build my Church”.

The ROCK that is Jesus is the ROCK, which is no sand, supporting the ROCK which is the foundation stone(s) of the building.

SImply by saying “BUILD” Jesus was implying a "visible (substantial) structure, and these objections to the Church being visible and substantial are ludicrous when this is considered IMPORTANT.

To NOT consider this important is to claim that not all scripture is “necessary”, which is quite a position to take!

 

[2ndGen]

He DID say “you are Peter and on this rock”!

Peter was not a name before then, and was utterly synonymous with ROCK. What he said was, “You are ROCK (like a rock) and on this ROCK (on this rock-like foundation) I will build my Church”.

The ROCK that is Jesus is the ROCK, which is no sand, supporting the ROCK which is the foundation stone(s) of the building.

SImply by saying “BUILD” Jesus was implying a "visible (substantial) structure, and these objections to the Church being visible and substantial are ludicrous when this is considered IMPORTANT.

To NOT consider this important is to claim that not all scripture is “necessary”, which is quite a position to take!

Here is what Protestnnts say…

Jesus called Simon a rock,
but wasn’t the rock He wast talking to
when He called Simon a rock.

Now I know that the way I put it sounds really stupid,
but this is exactly what they are saying.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

OK I get what you are saying. But here’s where the confusion is. In one sentence you are saying Peter is the foundational Rock. But then in the next sentence you state that the Apostles and Prophets are the foundation:

Ughhh! Peter is the, at that time, most worthy office holder of the office we call the Pope.

There have always been and will always be individual people who occupy that office.

Ephesians 2:19 So now you Gentiles are no longer strangers and foreigners. You are citizens along with all of God’s holy people. You are members of God’s family. 20 Together, we are his house, built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets. (Not Just Peter) And the cornerstone is Christ Jesus himself. 21 We are carefully joined together in him, becoming a holy temple for the Lord. 22 Through him you Gentiles are also being made part of this dwelling where God lives by his Spirit.

So basically Peter can’t singularly be the rock which would then suggest that it was his confession that was the Rock. The same confession we all make when we profess our faith and get baptized. Now this makes a whole lot more sense.

We, the members of the Body of Christ, are built into the structure ON THE FOUNDATION which is the OFFICE which is the BRIDGE between we as individuals and Christ Himself.

To guarantee that we will recieve “infallible truth” we are to rely on this bridge as our sole conduit of truth in faith and morals, which has proven to BE the ONLY reliable source since ALL other “privately inspired” sources of “supposedly infallible truth” is contradicted by other “self-called infallible” sources of truth!

How is it possible that we can be guaranteed an infallible source of truth, when there are more than one source which are perfectly free to contradict each other?

 

[inchrist101]

You claim Peter is both specail and not-special.

What is your reason for holding such a contradiction as truth?

It’s not a contradiction I hold as truth. You go way out there. He is special of course. But I don’t elevate him above any other Apostle.

You fail to see the visible Church as THE Church, and substitute your “invisible ‘one’ church”, because of your natural conflict between wanting what you know is good, while simultaneously wanting what you want over what you need.

I hardly think our church is invisible. Accepting Jesus as my Lord and Savior makes me a part of HIS church. The church is people not a building or institution. I go to a building where we collect as the church. To Worship the ONE who saved us and paid the price. Jesus says where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name I am there with you. 3000 people is definitely more than 3.

Amen!

Let me add. AMEN. We can never say it enough Brother.

Is one of our “secondary teachings” that Jesus is God the Son consubstantial with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit?

Absolutely not. If I didn’t believe that then why would I believe in Jesus? Or get Baptised in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? I wouldn’t

What is the difference between this “teaching” and any of your so-called “secondary teachings”?

When I say secondary I refer specifically to things not relevant to our Salvation. Plain and simple. Tell me what’s absolutely needed for salvation and then I’ll tell you everything else is secondary.

Our salvation consists of choosing God at our end by being able to let go of that which is not-God when asked to choose heaven or hell.

AMEN AMEN AMEN. Why are we fighting then?? Well I’m not but I sense a little hostility on your part.

What does your “based on Jesus” mean!? Is it simply saying “Lord Lord!”? If that is someones opinion of what their faith “being based on Jesus” means, then are they saved?

Accepting Jesus as your Savior and adhering to your Faith. That’s what based on Jesus is. I’m not saved based on satan. Are you? Is anyone?

No. The only way for our faith to based on Jesus is to follow Jesus in every way he has told us. To not do as He says is to choose “not-God” at our end, and volunteer for hell.

Again. AMEN AMEN AMEN. Why do you act like I’m saying the complete opposite??

It’s VERY true that people think they can be saved by picking and choosing doctrines to follow, but are you claiming that your doing so, because they do so, is justification for thinking yourself saved because you’re no worse than they are?

That’s a big stretch. I follow the doctrine of Faith let me say that. That doctrine says that if I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior with all my heart, soul, and mind. I’m saved. That’s called Faith. There’s a difference between saying you have faith and actually living it out. Living it out means not becoming a slave to sin and aligning youself with Jesus. Becoming a Doulas (Greek for Slave) to Jesus Christ. And literally agonizing over every decision you make every minute of every single day to purposely do your best to reject sin. I may attend a non-denominational church where I serve as a Deacon but I can guarantee you Jesus is with us and we are soooo with HIM. When I pass from this life I find it hard to believe my Saviour would turn his back on me.

PEACE and GOD Bless.