Clarification on Mormon Belief

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jay53
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank you! I try to be as helpful as I can.
No, thank you! I’ve enjoyed your insights thus far.
👍
Can you give some example of this in the Bible? Is this how you determine if the Bible is true? If so, then you should be able to give us some examples. And by the way, I don’t consider the testimony of the Holy Ghost to be subjective.
Yes, sir! I think God says it most clearly through Moses:

17And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.

18I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

19And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

20But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

21And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?

22When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

(Deuteronomy 18)

Do you see what I mean?
🙂
 
I suspect that spockrates is a Mormon sock-puppet. Our friend Zerinus may be talking to himself. No-one else sees much sense in trying to communicate with him. 😃
 
No, thank you! I’ve enjoyed your insights thus far.
👍
I will be glad to be of any help.
Yes, sir! I think God says it most clearly through Moses:
17And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.
18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
(Deuteronomy 18)
Do you see what I mean?
🙂
This is a prophecy, that was fulfilled 2,000 (or more) years later. How did the people at the time of Moses knew that he was a prophet? How did they know 200 years, or 300 years or 500 years later know that he was a prophet? And in any case, how can you be so sure that that prophecy has actually been fulfilled? It is not very specific. It does not give a precise date when it should be fulfilled. If somebody wanted to be an atheist or a skeptic, and say to you, “Prove to me that it has been fulfilled!” How would you answer? You see, we believe that it has been fulfilled (by the coming of Christ) because the New Testament says that it has been; and we happen to believe that the New Testament is true. But if somebody wanted to play the skeptic card, and said to you, “Prove to me that it has been fulfilled (other than ‘because the New Testament says so!’),” you wouldn’t really be able to give him any convincing answers. What if a Muslim claimed that it was fulfilled by the coming of the Prophet Mohamed! How are you going to prove that it wasn’t? I don’t think that you can. So your argument does not hold a lot of water. The reality is that you believe what you believe on the basis of faith. You believe it because you believe it! You don’t believe it because there is a sound rational argument that forces you to believe it. I think you will soon discover that believing in the Book of Mormon is not much different than believing in the Bible. It is a matter of faith, and what the Spirit of the Lord witnesses to you is true.
 
I suspect that spockrates is a Mormon sock-puppet. Our friend Zerinus may be talking to himself. No-one else sees much sense in trying to communicate with him. 😃
Dont know if Spockrates or Zerinus have any connection to each other, but it would be a shame for anyone here to be playing mind-games or yanking chains with those of us who are sincere in our willingness to be helpful.

But we all know we live in a culture where lacking integrity of any sort is considered the norm rather than the exception.

Lacking honor and integrity is accepted as being “OK” unfortunately.

:sad_yes:
 
Jerusha;6006505:
I suspect that spockrates is a Mormon sock-puppet. Our friend Zerinus may be talking to himself. No-one else sees much sense in trying to communicate with him. 😃
Dont know if Spockrates or Zerinus have any connection to each other, but it would be a shame for anyone here to be playing mind-games or yanking chains with those of us who are sincere in our willingness to be helpful.

But we all know we live in a culture where lacking integrity of any sort is considered the norm rather than the exception.

Lacking honor and integrity is accepted as being “OK” unfortunately.

:sad_yes:
A bunch of sick folks with sick minds.
 
A bunch of sick folks with sick minds.
Zerinus,

People who play mind games or yank chains really arent sick people. I know people who legitimately mentally ill, those are sicknesses. The real thing.

Mind game playing and yanking chains just tends to be a lack of integrity and honor, not truly a sickness. JMO.
 
I suspect that spockrates is a Mormon sock-puppet. Our friend Zerinus may be talking to himself. No-one else sees much sense in trying to communicate with him. 😃
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Maybe if Jerusha was not so stuck up I wouldn’t have to talk to myself!

:rolleyes:
 
I will be glad to be of any help.

This is a prophecy, that was fulfilled 2,000 (or more) years later. How did the people at the time of Moses knew that he was a prophet? How did they know 200 years, or 300 years or 500 years later know that he was a prophet? And in any case, how can you be so sure that that prophecy has actually been fulfilled? It is not very specific. It does not give a precise date when it should be fulfilled. If somebody wanted to be an atheist or a skeptic, and say to you, “Prove to me that it has been fulfilled!” How would you answer? You see, we believe that it has been fulfilled (by the coming of Christ) because the New Testament says that it has been; and we happen to believe that the New Testament is true. But if somebody wanted to play the skeptic card, and said to you, “Prove to me that it has been fulfilled (other than ‘because the New Testament says so!’),” you wouldn’t really be able to give him any convincing answers. What if a Muslim claimed that it was fulfilled by the coming of the Prophet Mohamed! How are you going to prove that it wasn’t? I don’t think that you can. So your argument does not hold a lot of water. The reality is that you believe what you believe on the basis of faith. You believe it because you believe it! You don’t believe it because there is a sound rational argument that forces you to believe it. I think you will soon discover that believing in the Book of Mormon is not much different than believing in the Bible. It is a matter of faith, and what the Spirit of the Lord witnesses to you is true.
I haven’t mentioned any prophecy, Zerinus, but I think you’ve got the right idea. Moses appears to be quoting God as saying (incredible as it sounds to me) that the way to know for certain someone is His prophet is to see whether the predictions the prophet makes come true. Amazing as this sounds, it seems to me a good way of proving God was speaking through the prophet, don’t you agree? I mean, who but God alone knows the future with 100% accuracy 100% of the time?
 
Dont know if Spockrates or Zerinus have any connection to each other, but it would be a shame for anyone here to be playing mind-games or yanking chains with those of us who are sincere in our willingness to be helpful.

But we all know we live in a culture where lacking integrity of any sort is considered the norm rather than the exception.

Lacking honor and integrity is accepted as being “OK” unfortunately.

:sad_yes:
What is it about me that reminds you of Zerinus, Marie? Or has he a history of being a playful prankster?

😃

If you wanted to prove I was not Zerinus, how would you go about doing it? What questions would you ask? What would I know that Zerinus would not? Hmmm.

Do you know what I just now find fascinating? It would be harder to prove that I was not Zerinus than it would be to prove that Moses or Isaiah were not prophets! Can you guess why? (Hint: See post # 268.)
 
Spockrates,

I havent been following your journey on the forum so completely that I know exactly where you are at?

Do you see yourself as a Christian? A deist? Agnostic? Atheist?

I only ask because a few of the posts that I have read over past few days makes me think you are evening questioning the existence of God? I could be wrong I know.

Im just sensing some mixed-messages, confusion on your part?

I dont know where square one is for you. 🙂

TIA for the clarification.
I was raised a baptized, confirmed and raised a Catholic.Left the faith and became a Fundamentalist Baptist. Later married, became a father of two sons, and became an Evangelical. After spending considerable time talking with Catholics like yourself, I had good reasons to doubt what I believed as an Evangelical and am considering alternatives, such as Catholicism and perhaps Mormonism.

What would you like to tell me about your spiritual journey?

🙂
 
What is it about me that reminds you of Zerinus, Marie? Or has he a history of being a playful prankster?

😃

If you wanted to prove I was not Zerinus, how would you go about doing it? What questions would you ask? What would I know that Zerinus would not? Hmmm.

Do you know what I just now find fascinating? It would be harder to prove that I was not Zerinus than it would be to prove that Moses or Isaiah were not prophets! Can you guess why? (Hint: See post # 268.)
Nothing one way or the other…Just generally commenting on the other poster’s comment of sock-puppet. 🙂
 
I was raised a baptized, confirmed and raised a Catholic.Left the faith and became a Fundamentalist Baptist. Later married, became a father of two sons, and became an Evangelical. After spending considerable time talking with Catholics like yourself, I had good reasons to doubt what I believed as an Evangelical and am considering alternatives, such as Catholicism and perhaps Mormonism.

What would you like to tell me about your spiritual journey?

🙂
When I was born I was baptised Catholic (more out of tradition than anything); began catechism as a kid but all of that was derailed when I was hit with a serious medical problem at the age of 7 that left my legs silent.

Became LDS when I was 15…VERY active…went to BYU, served in many callings including Relief Society President, went thru the temple for my endowments etc etc…

Realized one day while sitting in sacrament meeting that I no longer believed in the basic tenets of Mormonism (IE JSmith a prophet, the need for the temples and being sealed etc etc to be a “family forever”)

Left Mormonism on very good terms…Officially resigned my membership in '98…

Became agnostic for many years…felt a pull towards God in the new millenium…started the research…with ALL DOUBTS IN HAND (didnt have much use for patriarchal, heirarchal organized religion )…

Found myself looking at Catholicism in April '06…lots of research later was brough into full communion at the Easter Vigil '07…

God knows I come before Him with my faith and doubts hand in hand…Im brutually upfront w/Him and my questions and concerns…

What I have sensed from Him is to keep walking forward in faith, with my doubts in hand.
Thus far I havent been let down…as time as gone by I have found clarity and understanding to my doubts…

I still have my doubts…and He knows that…but I am willing to walk forward in faith while bring my doubts with me…

I havent been let down…

Again----I tend not to trust what humans tell me…I wait for God to do the explaning…

Dont know if that makes any sense to you or if it helps…But its the only way I could sincerely overcome my agnosticism and keep going forward…

Im always skeptical of human answers and explanations…
 
Spockrates,
I hadn’t seen your question until tonight.
Thank you, Parker! Yes, I understand that Jesus is the rock on which the Church stands. Just trying to figure out which Church that is! I’m told by Catholics that this is what they believe, too, although they say He was speaking of Peter in this case. What I find is that you and Zerinus and other thoughtful and knowledgeable Mormons read the same words of Jesus that Marie and MT and other thoughtful and knowledgeable Catholics read. And yet, you and they still respectfully and sincerely disagree as to His meaning.
“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; …”
(Matthew 16:18)
You appear to be telling me that our Jesus meant this:
“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon [myself] I will build my church; …”
(Matthew 16:18)
While someone by the name of Catholic Carl will likely say He really meant this:
“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon [you] I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
(Matthew 16:18)
Then again, someone named Evangelic Ed might throw in the opinion that Jesus truly meant this:
“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this [truth that I am the Son of God, which you just spoke] I will build my church; …”
(Matthew 16:18)
Thus the figure of speech I mentioned before. I find myself at a crossroad, and do not know where to go. Prayer does not help me, for I pray daily asking for wisdom, not doubting the words in which Joseph Smith put his trust: (James 1:5,6)
I have full confidence that the Holy Ghost is able to show me the truth. I’m just surprised by the truth He has shown me! That truth is this: Some of Jesus’ words are unreliable guides to the truth for me; for when I try to grasp their true meaning, they flow through my fingers like dray desert sand. For you, I apprehend, His words are solid as a rock, for you are convinced of their true meaning. For Marie and other sincere Catholics, they are also rock solid, for they are convinced of their true meaning. For me, they are sand, for I don’t know whether Jesus meant what you believe, or what Marie believes, or …
To modify my metaphor, I’m at a crossroads in the desert. One way promises to take me to an oasis and cool, life-giving water. The other two ways to more hot and lifeless sand. The only problem is I cannot see which way the Living Water will be! The reason is, to my dismay, is that Jesus’ words are ambiguous.
Perhaps you can make it clear to me how they have become clear as the oasis water of Paradise to you?
Spockrates,
I think you may have misunderstood my meaning. I would say that Jesus said exactly what He meant, and that “this rock” in Matthew 16:18 definitely does not mean Peter but means more than the Person, Jesus Christ–it means the absolute and completely pure knowledge that Jesus is the Christ, and that He brings to mankind what He promised and witnessed that He brought to mankind, because of the witness of the Holy Ghost. “Build my church” means “build my congregation of believers in Me.”

Jesus spoke with clarity–the grammar and syntax of His spoken words, in the original language or in translation when the translation is faithful to the original grammatical expression in the new language, are quite clear, but can be made ambiguous by those who wish to make them ambiguous. If Jesus had meant “upon Peter I will build my church,” He would not have used the word “this”, but instead “upon ‘thee’ (or “thy leadership” or “thy apostolic authority” I will build my church.” That would be the grammar He would have used if He meant Peter.

The words that have been translated to “this rock” make reference to "this foundation you have shown that you have by what you just said when you said “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” By knowing Jesus was the promised Christ, the Anointed One, Peter was showing He knew that all the scriptural prophecies about the Messiah were being fulfilled in Jesus the Christ. That was the intent of the Savior’s original question to the disciples in verse 15. Whom did they believe Him to be? The words “the Christ” bring in all the implications of those words from Old Testament prophecies, and also the implication that Peter knew the truth by having had it revealed to Him by the Holy Spirit.

Spockrates, you must build the foundation of your knowledge about religion on complete trust in Him and no one else–not people or words or philosophy–but looking to Him and trusting in Him, completely and with no holding back. When you can honestly tell Him you are doing that, He will guide you to next steps as far as whether a religion on earth meets His standards for preparing a people for His Second Coming, if you have the humility to be guided in His way (not your way).

A religion isn’t going to be the means of trusting Him. Your heart is the means of trusting Him. He wants a one-to-one relationship with you. He has promised that to you. If you completely trust Him, you will be able to commit to do whatever the Holy Spirit guides you to do that is following scriptural patterns for how guidance is given by God. The trust must come first. The commitment to act must come first–not after–not “well, I’ll wait and see what guidance comes and then decide if I’m willing to do that.” He has to know you are committed to act, or you simply will not get an answer that is from the Holy Spirit.

As to your last question, it is because I have learned to trust Him, with many experiences when I yielded my own heart’s desires to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so I’m familiar with that process. Trust, and yield.
 
Spockrates,

Catholics believe that Peter is the rock referred to in Matt 16:18. We also believe that Jesus Christ is a rock, and He is the chief cornerstone of the Church. We also believe that the Church is built on the foundation of apostles and prophets. The Bishop of Rome, the successor of the apostle Peter, is the visible head of the Church, the physical symbol of unity of the Church. Jesus Christ is the ultimate head of the Church, and is the ultimate symbol of unity. We believe that the Eucharist, the actual body and blood of Christ, is the most sacred way that we can commune with each other, and with Jesus Christ.

Catholics believe that Matthew 16:18 shows a very clear poetic structure, and in Greek and Aramaic, this is made even more clear. The name “Peter” means “rock”. We believe that Simon was named Peter/Rock for a reason, and when we understand that the passage reads “You are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church…”(emphasis mine), we can see that Jesus is referring to Peter when He is talking about a rock. There was no need to say “thee” or anything of the sort instead of “this”, since we can now see that Peter means rock, and this is just one of the many poetic ways that the Bible tells us various messages.

Now, this has multiple meanings for Catholics. We believe that Peter and his successors all had and have primacy in the Church. Catholics believe that Peter had primacy among the apostles, and his successors had and have primacy among the bishops. The Pope is a bishop (remember, one is not ordained a Pope, since the only three Orders in Catholicism are deacon, priest, and bishop). While Jesus Christ is the head of the Church, the chief cornerstone, Peter and his successors are the visible heads of the Church, and this is important to us in many ways.

Peter as the rock also refers to his faith as well. Pope John Paul II gave a great homily on the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul called “The Church is Built on Peter’s Faith and Fidelity”. Here are some important parts for you, and I think they will show the depth to which Catholics interpret Matthew 16:18, and why many of us are also amused/confused when others criticize our interpretation of the passage:

*" We are reflecting on this extraordinarily rich Gospel passage: the incarnate Word had revealed the Father to his disciples; now is the moment when the Father himself reveals his only Only-begotten Son to them. Peter receives inner enlightenment and courageously proclaims: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!”.

These words on Peter’s lips come from the depths of God’s mystery. They reveal the intimate truth, the very life of God. And Peter, under the action of the divine Spirit, becomes a witness and confessor of this superhuman truth. His profession of faith thus forms the firm basis of the Church’s faith: “On this rock I will build my Church” (Mt 16:18). The Church of Christ is built on Peter’s faith and fidelity.



Could Saul have understood with his reason alone all that such an event entailed (referring to Acts 9)? Certainly not! It was, in fact, part of God’s mysterious plan. It would be the Father who would give Paul the grace of knowing the mystery of the redemption accomplished in Christ. It would be God who would enable him to understand the marvellous reality of the Church, which lives for Christ, with Christ and in Christ. And he, who had come to share in this truth, would continuously and tirelessly proclaim it to the very ends of the earth."*

So, Catholics believe that Peter/Rock is the rock referred to in Matt 16:18. And why is he the rock? Because of his faith, which led him to his revelation, which came from God through Jesus Christ, who is the chief cornerstone. Peter had primacy among the apostles, and that primacy continues today in his successors, in Catholic belief. Peter would have been nothing without Jesus Christ, who is the most important rock of the Church, and who unity ultimately is found in in the Church, symbolized in the Eucharist.

Spockrates, like Peter, you too can receive knowledge from God about the truth of His Church. You can read and read and read, and ask us many questions, however you have to pray to God sincerely to find the truth. It all ultimately comes through Jesus Christ, who is at the center of everything we believe, and we come to participate in His life through the sacraments.
*
“Today the Church again proclaims their (Peter and Paul) faith. It is our faith, the Church’s unchanging faith in Jesus, the only Saviour of the world; in Christ, the Son of the living God, who died and rose for us and for all humanity.”*
 
I was raised a baptized, confirmed and raised a Catholic.Left the faith and became a Fundamentalist Baptist. Later married, became a father of two sons, and became an Evangelical. After spending considerable time talking with Catholics like yourself, I had good reasons to doubt what I believed as an Evangelical and am considering alternatives, such as Catholicism and perhaps Mormonism.

What would you like to tell me about your spiritual journey?

🙂
spockrates said:
Hi, I’m a new Catholic, too, but I think the prayers that are in your own words make God your Father smile the most.

🙂
Hi Spockrates, I have been following your posts for a long time and was glad to see that you had decided to become a Catholic from the post above. But, now, it sounds like you weren’t quite ready?
 
I haven’t mentioned any prophecy, Zerinus, but I think you’ve got the right idea. Moses appears to be quoting God as saying (incredible as it sounds to me) that the way to know for certain someone is His prophet is to see whether the predictions the prophet makes come true. Amazing as this sounds, it seems to me a good way of proving God was speaking through the prophet, don’t you agree? I mean, who but God alone knows the future with 100% accuracy 100% of the time?
Thank you for your reply; but I feel that you didn’t really consider my post very carefully did you! You hadn’t “mentioned any prophecy,” that is true; but the example you gave was one of a prophecy. You have also disregarded the argument I gave about how long it took for that prophecy to be fulfilled—during which time how else could the Jews have known that Moses had been a prophet? :confused: You also disregarded the fact that the fulfillment of that prophecy cannot be empirically proven beyond doubt. A Muslim could claim that it refers to Mohamed, and that would be just as possible as the Christian claim that it refers to Jesus Christ. The point I was trying to make was that that is not how people generally become convinced that something is from God or not. Moses was undoubtedly the greatest prophet of ancient Israel. This is even attested by the Holy Book itself:

Deuteronomy 34:

10 And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face,

This greatest of all Hebrew prophets didn’t leave a lot of “predictions” of the future by which his credentials as a true prophet could be verified, if that is the only criteria you wanted to apply to determine whether he was a true prophet or not. So how were the Jews supposed to know that he had been a true prophet all those many years in ancient times, while waiting many thousands of years to see if his prophecies would be fulfilled or not? Had they no other way of knowing? Did they have to wait for thousands of years before they could make up their minds whether he had been a true prophet or not, before deciding to obey his words or not? :confused:

Okay, let’s look at it another way. So if I understand you correctly, you are looking for a prophecy in the Book of Mormon whose fulfillment might convince you that it is true. Is that correct? Let me see if I can find you one. How about this:

1 Nephi 5:

17 And now when my father saw all these things, he was filled with the Spirit, and began to prophesy concerning his seed—
18 That these plates of brass should go forth unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people who were of his seed.
19 Wherefore, he said that these plates of brass should never perish; neither should they be dimmed any more by time.

This prophecy has not yet been fulfilled, and we don’t know when it might be. It could be tomorrow, or it could be 500 years from now. We have no way of knowing. Do you think that we have to wait that long before deciding whether the Book of Mormon is true or not? There is no other way of knowing? And even after it is fulfilled, if you wanted to play the skeptic’s card, you could always say that that event is not a fulfillment of this prophecy! So that kind of argument seems more like an excuse for not believing than a valid reason.
 
When I was born I was baptised Catholic (more out of tradition than anything); began catechism as a kid but all of that was derailed when I was hit with a serious medical problem at the age of 7 that left my legs silent.

Became LDS when I was 15…VERY active…went to BYU, served in many callings including Relief Society President, went thru the temple for my endowments etc etc…

Realized one day while sitting in sacrament meeting that I no longer believed in the basic tenets of Mormonism (IE JSmith a prophet, the need for the temples and being sealed etc etc to be a “family forever”)

Left Mormonism on very good terms…Officially resigned my membership in '98…

Became agnostic for many years…felt a pull towards God in the new millenium…started the research…with ALL DOUBTS IN HAND (didnt have much use for patriarchal, heirarchal organized religion )…

Found myself looking at Catholicism in April '06…lots of research later was brough into full communion at the Easter Vigil '07…

God knows I come before Him with my faith and doubts hand in hand…Im brutually upfront w/Him and my questions and concerns…

What I have sensed from Him is to keep walking forward in faith, with my doubts in hand.
Thus far I havent been let down…as time as gone by I have found clarity and understanding to my doubts…

I still have my doubts…and He knows that…but I am willing to walk forward in faith while bring my doubts with me…

I havent been let down…

Again----I tend not to trust what humans tell me…I wait for God to do the explaning…

Dont know if that makes any sense to you or if it helps…But its the only way I could sincerely overcome my agnosticism and keep going forward…

Im always skeptical of human answers and explanations…
Thanks for helping me get to know you!

🙂

I suppose you had a crisis of faith similar to mine, with the difference being that you were a Mormon and I was an Evangelical.

And I’m curious to what extent you keep people out of the loop in your seeking advice from God. I think what you mean is that you don’t seek counsel from lay persons, but you do look to the spiritual experts for guidance. That is, you might trust Matthew the Apostle to give you wisdom by reading his gospel, or trust the authors of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to make things clear when you are unsure about the meaning of what you read in Sacred Scripture. Is this your method of obtaining truth and keeping free of deception? Are you putting faith in the Holy Spirit to speak to you through the Bible and the CCC?
 
Spockrates,
I hadn’t seen your question until tonight.
No problem; no pressure; no rush! That’s the beauty of a discussion forum. One can pray and take one’s time and answer when time and God’s guidance permits! Even if you miss a reply, you can answer days later and pick up the conversation where you left off. It’s like reading one of Plato’s dialogs, only the authors are you and me.

👍
Spockrates,
I think you may have misunderstood my meaning. I would say that Jesus said exactly what He meant, and that “this rock” in Matthew 16:18 definitely does not mean Peter but means more than the Person, Jesus Christ–it means the absolute and completely pure knowledge that Jesus is the Christ, and that He brings to mankind what He promised and witnessed that He brought to mankind, because of the witness of the Holy Ghost. “Build my church” means “build my congregation of believers in Me.”
Yes, sorry for misunderstanding. Of the three possible interpretations of Jesus’ words to Peter, you believe (c) to be the correct one:

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; …”

(Matthew 16:18)

a. “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon [myself] I will build my church; …”

**b. **“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon [you] I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

**c. **“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this [truth that I am the Christ, Son of God] I will build my church; …”
 
… Jesus spoke with clarity–the grammar and syntax of His spoken words, in the original language or in translation when the translation is faithful to the original grammatical expression in the new language, are quite clear, but can be made ambiguous by those who wish to make them ambiguous. If Jesus had meant “upon Peter I will build my church,” He would not have used the word “this”, but instead “upon ‘thee’ (or “thy leadership” or “thy apostolic authority” I will build my church.” That would be the grammar He would have used if He meant Peter.

The words that have been translated to “this rock” make reference to "this foundation you have shown that you have by what you just said when you said “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” By knowing Jesus was the promised Christ, the Anointed One, Peter was showing He knew that all the scriptural prophecies about the Messiah were being fulfilled in Jesus the Christ. That was the intent of the Savior’s original question to the disciples in verse 15. Whom did they believe Him to be? The words “the Christ” bring in all the implications of those words from Old Testament prophecies, and also the implication that Peter knew the truth by having had it revealed to Him by the Holy Spirit. …
Thank you, Parker, for reasoning (or thinking this through) with me!

👍

Yes, I understand why you believe the truth Peter spoke is the rock to which Jesus referred. I also understand why Marie, or MT, or a Catholic Carl would believe Peter is the rock of which Christ was speaking.

When I was an Evangelical, I used the same reasoning you have used myself. I still see such as valid logical arguments supporting your view. However, having spent much time listening to Catholics with an open mind, I see that they are being reasonable, as well. Their logical arguments are no less lacking in validity. The upshot is that, apart form trusting the assistance of someone who knows the true meaning of Christ’s words to Peter, I’m at a loss to know which interpretation is true! (If you desire to experience what I mean, try starting a discussion thread in the Apologetic Forum, here.) I see no factual errors (FE) or logical errors (LE) in support of your conclusion that the truth of who Christ is, is the rock. I also see no FE or LE in the rational arguments of Catholics in support of the view that Peter is the rock of whom Jesus was speaking. The upshot is that I’m at a loss to know which interpretation is the interpretation.

🤷

I’m willing to discuss this further, but my current though is that reason and the Bible alone are not sufficient to adequately rule out one interpretation or the other. However, if the Holy Ghost is leading you to go down this rabbit trail, I’m willing to follow you. Perhaps He will reveal something new to me through you? As for me, He seems to be leading me to ask you and Zerinus and Marie and MT what is the most reliable way to determine the truth.
 
… Spockrates, you must build the foundation of your knowledge about religion on complete trust in Him and no one else–not people or words or philosophy–but looking to Him and trusting in Him, completely and with no holding back. When you can honestly tell Him you are doing that, He will guide you to next steps as far as whether a religion on earth meets His standards for preparing a people for His Second Coming, if you have the humility to be guided in His way (not your way).
Yes, sir! Though I’ve lost faith in my previous religion (Evangelicalism), and though I’ve lost faith in the Bible and reason, I’m still trusting God to somehow reveal the truth to me. That’s why I’m still asking questions. My hope is that He will reveal something to you, or Marie, or someone else that He has not revealed to me. That way, I suppose, the one who shares the wisdom that sets me free will also share in my joy of seeing the shackles fall to the ground. I suppose God will share our joy as well.

🙂
A religion isn’t going to be the means of trusting Him. Your heart is the means of trusting Him. He wants a one-to-one relationship with you. He has promised that to you. If you completely trust Him, you will be able to commit to do whatever the Holy Spirit guides you to do that is following scriptural patterns for how guidance is given by God. The trust must come first. The commitment to act must come first–not after–not “well, I’ll wait and see what guidance comes and then decide if I’m willing to do that.” He has to know you are committed to act, or you simply will not get an answer that is from the Holy Spirit.
The loss of my Evangelical faith has brought me into this desert. I have never stopped trusting in Christ to lead me to milk and honey! I just have a strong prompting from the Holy Ghost that I cannot get there on my own. I need someone to show me which way is His Way.

👍
As to your last question, it is because I have learned to trust Him, with many experiences when I yielded my own heart’s desires to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so I’m familiar with that process. Trust, and yield.
I am trusting, Parker. And I am yielding to His prompting me to keep asking questions of you and others until the truth be know.

🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top