Communion is just a symbol!

[susanlo]

24 A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Well, Jesus clearly talks about the apostles siting on thrones. And I repeat, can you seperate a person’s faith from that person?

I don’t think anyone denies that the Apostles were given thrones and authority.

You can not separate a person’s faith from them. However, you can distinguish the faithful person from the object that they profess to have faith in.

How was Matthew 16:18 interpreted in the first centuries?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Luke 22:31 “'Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

33 But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.”

34 Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.’”

Wasn’t this about Jesus’ crucifixion and Peter denying Christ? What do you believe the significance is?

This passage comes right after a passage where the Apostles are quarreling over who would be considered the greatest. It seems that they didn’t understand that Jesus declared Peter to be the rock/foundation of the church.

Many believe that the rock is the confession of faith in Jesus. Some believe the rock is Christ himself. The ‘rock’ isn’t about the one stating the confession, but it is about the content of the confession.

Big rock/little rock. Petra/Petros

Most of the informed on the protestant side do not hold to that argument anymore.

Luther never used it.

Even the GREEK Orthodox didn’t use it.

Both had knowledge of the NT Greek and certainly had the motivation against the papacy to do so.

That’s because they both knew that back then the words were virtually the same, and that they were actually speaking Aramaic when it happened. So what was actually said was "“You are Kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church.” (remember the Passion of the Christ movie?)

The NT writer obviously understands there is a gender issue here. He doesn’t want to refer to Peter as Petras because that’s like referring to Micheal as Michelle.

So the confession is important, but so is the person/office, hence, why Jesus changed his name.

Pax

.

 

[benhur]

The NT writer obviously understands there is a gender issue here. He doesn’t want to refer to Peter as Petras because that’s like referring to Micheal as Michelle.

Hi La,

So it is ok to refer to Christ as female and male but not Peter ? Christ is referenced as both Petros and Petras if I recall ? It is the female that births.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Most of the informed on the protestant side do not hold to that argument anymore

Hi La,

Maybe some hold that view but then do they also not say the other apostles are equal foundation as per Revelations ?

Do they say it establishes a permanent successive office ?

Do they say the office is ad infinitum infallible on faith and morals ?

And finally are there not still those that hold to the older argument of the two different inspired words, and not because of gender but of distinction in “objects” ?

Blessings

 

[eddie_too]

communion is just a symbol for non-catholics.

it is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ for catholics.

that is the bottom line. i really see no reason for any discussion since both sides are limited to a faith response.

everyone has access to the same information, history, reason, etc. the whole disagreement is a question of faith, faith in Jesus Christ, faith in the words of Jesus Christ and faith in the apostles of Jesus Christ and their successors.

some have faith in the Roman Catholic Church, others do not. that is the way it will always be in this world and there is nothing, no discussion, that we can do to change that.

as a Roman Catholic, i am overjoyed that i, through the Blessed Sacrament, communicate with the Real Presence of Jesus Christ everytime i receive Holy Communion.

likewise as a Roman Catholic, i am sad that so many others do not have the benefit of this reality.

 

[Dorothy]

communion is just a symbol for non-catholics.

it is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ for catholics.

that is the bottom line. i really see no reason for any discussion since both sides are limited to a faith response.

everyone has access to the same information, history, reason, etc. the whole disagreement is a question of faith, faith in Jesus Christ, faith in the words of Jesus Christ and faith in the apostles of Jesus Christ and their successors.

some have faith in the Roman Catholic Church, others do not. that is the way it will always be in this world and there is nothing, no discussion, that we can do to change that.

as a Roman Catholic, i am overjoyed that i, through the Blessed Sacrament, communicate with the Real Presence of Jesus Christ everytime i receive Holy Communion.

likewise as a Roman Catholic, i am sad that so many others do not have the benefit of this reality.

Thank you for your post. Only the Holy Spirit can change minds with His gifts of Understanding and Wisdom. Also Love, of course. We all need to keep praying for unity and the Lord will do his will.

 

[Darryl_B]

Hi La,

So it is ok to refer to Christ as female and male but not Peter ? Christ is referenced as both Petros and Petras if I recall ? It is the female that births.

Blessings

Proper Names do not have the same impart as similes and metaphors. Christ is never referenced as petros because the word does not exist in the NT beyond being a proper name. The word Petros (masculine) is only ever Peter. It is actually hard to find the Greek word Petros in external sources either.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

So it is ok to refer to Christ as female and male but not Peter ? Christ is referenced as both Petros and Petras if I recall ? It is the female that births.

Blessings

Greetings.

Daryl in #167 said exactly what i was going to say.

Thanks.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

Maybe some hold that view but then do they also not say the other apostles are equal foundation as per Revelations ?

Do they say it establishes a permanent successive office ?

Do they say the office is ad infinitum infallible on faith and morals ?

And finally are there not still those that hold to the older argument of the two different inspired words, and not because of gender but of distinction in “objects” ?

Blessings

Greetings, Ben.

Talk to 10 different protestant scholars and you will get varying opinions depending on what Protestant branch they favor.

But no, in general, they will not be in agreement with us on the nature of the offices that were established.

But with this modern petros/petra argument, most seem to understand Aramaic was the primary language spoken then and Kepha was very, VERY likely the term used when it was actually spoken.

It was interesting that when the Passion was released it was in Aramaic with the English subtitles, and not one protestant objected to it. They all seemed to understand and accept that reality. I live in a primarily Hispanic area of the country, and while the Hispanics speak English, they usually will only do this as a courtesy to Anglo-saxons who don’t speak Spanish. When you have a group of them together they are speaking Spanish 99% of the time. Likewise, get a group of 1st century Jews together and they are going to be speaking the Semitic language.

Pax

 

[susanlo]

Greetings, Ben.

Talk to 10 different protestant scholars and you will get varying opinions depending on what Protestant branch they favor.

But no, in general, they will not be in agreement with us on the nature of the offices that were established.

But with this modern petros/petra argument, most seem to understand Aramaic was the primary language spoken then and Kepha was very, VERY likely the term used when it was actually spoken.

It was interesting that when the Passion was released it was in Aramaic with the English subtitles, and not one protestant objected to it. They all seemed to understand and accept that reality. I live in a primarily Hispanic area of the country, and while the Hispanics speak English, they usually will only do this as a courtesy to Anglo-saxons who don’t speak Spanish. When you have a group of them together they are speaking Spanish 99% of the time. Likewise, get a group of 1st century Jews together and they are going to be speaking the Semitic language.

Pax

When the book of Matthew was being written in Greek, why didn’t the inspired author write that the church would be built on ‘Petros’ or ‘you’?

…you are Petros, and upon Petros I will build my church…
or
…you are Petros, and upon you I will build my church…

What did the first century author mean to be represented by this petra?

 

[susanlo]

Proper Names do not have the same impart as similes and metaphors. Christ is never referenced as petros because the word does not exist in the NT beyond being a proper name. The word Petros (masculine) is only ever Peter. It is actually hard to find the Greek word Petros in external sources either.

I understand petra is used in the NT 4 times.

Matthew 16:18 - I also say to you that you are [a]Peter, and upon this rock (petra)** I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

Matthew 27:60 - and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away.

1 Corinthians 10:4 - and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petra) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was [a]Christ.

1 Peter 2:8 - and,
“A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense”;
for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.
This is about the prophecies about Jesus in Isaiah 8:14.

Are there any other uses of Petros or petra?**

 

[Darryl_B]

When the book of Matthew was being written in Greek, why didn’t the inspired author write that the church would be built on ‘Petros’ or ‘you’?

…you are Petros, and upon Petros I will build my church…
or
…you are Petros, and upon you I will build my church…

What did the first century author mean to be represented by this petra?

That would eliminate the word play between the proper name Peter and the metaphor ‘rock’ which Jesus was establishing. Why not just say “you are Simon”?

What did the first century author mean to be represented by this petra? Obviously Peter because of that word association, and the fact that he was named Peter by Jesus Christ when they first met. Little did Peter know why at the time.

 

[Darryl_B]

I understand petra is used in the NT 4 times.

Matthew 16:18 - I also say to you that you are [a]Peter, and upon this rock (petra)**** I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

Matthew 27:60 - and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away.

1 Corinthians 10:4 - and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petra) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was [a]Christ.

1 Peter 2:8 - and,
“A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense”;
for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.
This is about the prophecies about Jesus in Isaiah 8:14.

Are there any other uses of Petros or petra?

You can find an answer to this question reasonably easy using the appropriate resources and I believe it fits with what I said.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

When and where did he make it a commandment? to do it?

.

“Do this in rememberance of me.” Luke 22. Look it up.

 

[Darryl_B]

Something can be both symbolic *and *have spiritual significance at the same time.

If you are using the term “spiritual” just to mean “deeper” as is a fairly recent understanding of the word, then yes it can. But if you are using the term “spiritual” in the way that is actually meant here you will better understand what was being said.

Remembrance:
: the act of remembering a person, thing, or event
: something that is done or made to honor the memory of a person, thing, or event
: a memory of a person, thing, or event

When the thief said remember me when you come into your kingdom, did Jesus just think to himself I remember that thief on the cross, or did he mean something more than that?

When and where did he make it a commandment? to do it?

An imperative is a mood. It is a method of expression. Language.

 

[benhur]

When the thief said remember me when you come into your kingdom, did Jesus just think to himself I remember that thief on the cross, or did he mean something more than that?

Hi D,

The remembrance had a purpose, which was for allowance into the kingdom due to the thief’s expression of desire and faith. Jesus said what the purpose was, “you will be with me in Paradise”. Nothing about transubstantiating him into paradise.

The "Supper’’ is for remembrance of Calvary and of His future coming/return.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Greetings, Ben.

Talk to 10 different protestant scholars and you will get varying opinions depending on what Protestant branch they favor.

But no, in general, they will not be in agreement with us on the nature of the offices that were established.

But with this modern petros/petra argument, most seem to understand Aramaic was the primary language spoken then and Kepha was very, VERY likely the term used when it was actually spoken.

It was interesting that when the Passion was released it was in Aramaic with the English subtitles, and not one protestant objected to it. They all seemed to understand and accept that reality. I live in a primarily Hispanic area of the country, and while the Hispanics speak English, they usually will only do this as a courtesy to Anglo-saxons who don’t speak Spanish. When you have a group of them together they are speaking Spanish 99% of the time. Likewise, get a group of 1st century Jews together and they are going to be speaking the Semitic language.

Pax

Hi La,

I question “modern” as if the first church was “old fashioned” in knowledge and history. They very well knew of Aramaic, and many other languages, including the universal Greek. The debate then is almost the same as today. Aramaic is not a stumbling block for anyone.

Kepha is most probable but not the only Aramaic word evolving around rocks ans stones. One must not rule out gesturing, which is just as probable as any gender rationale.

Anyways, the inspired, inerrant text is Greek with two distinct words. Like many truths it is left to “interpretation”, to the eyes of the beholder, conditional as always upon divine illumination.

Finally, I do not rigidly object to Peter being both petras/petros *in principal *because in the end the church is indeed built upon Peter, and the other eleven apostles, per Revelations. It is scriptural that our forefathers in the faith were then stones (kephas) laid upon that foundation. Peter finaly says we are “living " stones” being hewn into place today.

Blessings
Blessings

 

[benhur]

First among equals is still first

And equal is still equal.

You are “equal” to your wife, yet you are different in that you are head of your household. (wives submit to your husbands

Last I heard the apostles were all male, all part of the Bride.

Or at least that’s how God intended because He is a God of order not chaos and confusion…

Indeed there is no confusion within a kings rule, but from king to king there is some variance,and evntually, some confusion (else no schisms).

Only when the King returns will every knee bend and confess in unity.

We can call it supremacy, or primacy or whatever,

We are not theologians (at least not I) but words have distinct meanings and reasoning’s for their use. Far from “whatever” for dialogues of this topic thru the ages.

Blessings

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

And equal is still equal.
We are not theologians (at least not I) but words have distinct meanings and reasoning’s for their use. Far from “whatever” for dialogues of this topic thru the ages.

Blessings

Not so.

In the Book of Acts, we can easily see that whatever Peter proposed was immediately accepted. So the Bible does give examples of the supremacy of Peter.

 

[JonNC]

Not so.

In the Book of Acts, we can easily see that whatever Peter proposed was immediately accepted. So the Bible does give examples of the supremacy of Peter.

And James was in charge of the council.

That they all agreed with Peter doesn’t mean they were required to, or somehow knew he was supreme among them, particularly if the listened to Paul’s rebuke of him, or Christ’s admonition against setting up one above the others.

Jon