Confused

  • Thread starter Thread starter Luke_4_4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If the CC really taught what these links claims it does, I would be out of the CC quicker than lightning. These claims are all false.
I noticed how the last three do not have a home address or an “about us” so that nobody can reply to those accusations.
I recommend this site to answer and explain what the CC really teaches,ic.net/~erasmus/RAZHOME.HTM also the Catechism of the Catholic Church and even go to Catholic Answers “Home” and do a search to help you understand what the CC really teaches. Please do not be afraid. What you find will surprise you. Believe what Catholic sites say about the Catholic Church, not what some anti-catholics say what they “think” the church teaches. They are wrong my friend. Open your heart and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you.

You may want to look at these two sites. They are NOT Catholic but its taking a look at HWA
wcg.ndirect.co.uk/Article28.htm

home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/why_hwa.htm
 
Catholic Dude said:
(I wrote some other stuff, but the forums shut down and I dont think it went through)
First of all it is very odd that this link relies so much on history to “prove” the Deutero-Canonical books are un Scriptural, when on the flip side we use history to easily destroy your position you shrug it off.

The thorn in the side of that article is Wisdom 2:12-20 it is a classic. I suggest everyone to scroll down to the part of that link (towards the end) where this passage is “refuted”. The attempt at destroying the credibility of that passage is so sad all respect for “scholarship” in that article is lost.

Peace be with you!

lol! You know what my favorite part of that article is? When they use Hebrews to try to disprove the canonicity of the Deuterocanonicals!!! You know, the book that cites one of them!!! Note that this comes AFTER they claim that 2 Maccabees is uncanonical…but that’s the book Paul cites!!!
That “disproving” of Wisdom was pretty bad, too. I almost laughed out loud a couple of times reading it.
Wait, I changed my mind…this is my favorite part: the fact that in his endnotes, the guy lists some of the Church Fathers as sources. Well, those SAME FATHERS, in other writings, cite the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture!!! That is some very selective researching and citing…or what we in the history department at the university refer to as “bad research” and “a D paper”. Not to mention the books are all listed in the canon of Scripture from the 4th Council of Carthage (which is readily available online, Dave).

In Christ,
Rand
 
Hi Luke 4:4,

May I jump into your discussion?

In the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18, our Lord Jesus told us to baptize in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Yet in Acts 2:38, the Apostle Peter preaches the first sermon of the Christian era and tells his hearers that they need to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

Should people be baptized in the name of the Trinity or only in the name of Jesus Christ?

Can we do both or should we only stick to one formula?

Please use Scripture in your answer and please don’t give me your interpretation of these Scriptures. Show me in Scripture where Scripture tells me what to do.

Grace and peace to you,

Gene
 
40.png
TobyLue:
I noticed how the last three do not have a home address or an “about us” so that nobody can reply to those accusations.
Yep. If you go to the root URL, studytoanswer.net/ , you get a page which says:
“Communicate With Me” (but read the Contact Guidelines first)
So you go the “Contact Guidelines” and they include such gems as:
Don’t email me if all you want to do is write me “scathing” letters about something you didn’t like on this website. (Okay, no one wants to get “scathing” emails - you can’t hold this against him.) I will simply yawn and drop your correspondence down the memory hole. (What’s the matter, Mr. Dunkin? Afraid a litle truth might corrupt that massive pile of donkey droppings you’ve concocted and put out there on the internet?) Don’t assume that my lack of a response somehow signifies that I “couldn’t” answer whatever point you may have been trying to make. (Gee, that’s what happens when the opponent doesn’t hold up their side of the debate, Mr. Dunkin.) Please, utilise a little common sense and email unto others as you would have them email unto you. (It’s okay to falsely and maliciously slander another religion, as long as it’s not Mr. Durkin’s?)

Don’t insist on resending something which has been deleted over and over again, as if I will suddenly answer it after the umpteenth time. I won’t. I have very great patience when it comes to standing by something I’ve posted on here. Longer than you have. Guaranteed. You will be blocked before you will be answered.
Longer than you have. Guaranteed. = “Stand Back! I have a delete key and I’m not afraid to use it!” :rotfl:

Mr. Dunkin, all kidding aside, you may well be able to petulantly and stolidly hold out against all arguments from mere humans for Truth, but I guarantee you that if God wants to get your attention, you will not be able to “stand by something you’ve posted on here.” Maybe not even ANYTHING you have posted on here!

I have 20 years of refusing Truth in human voices under my belt, but when I finally heard Jesus, there was nothing even resembling a refutation coming from me, I assure you! :nope:

Only the wonder of salvation, adoration of Our Savior and extreme gratefulness that I was not left to die in my own filth and ignorance. I still don’t know why - I certainly never merited His faithfulness to me. I was as stubborn and arrogant in my ignorance as you are in yours. There is hope - if our Creator thought I was worth saving, I’m sure He wants you to be saved too.

Lying about Christianity might not be a good way to do that - trust me, I have a lot of experience with that, too. 😦 ** It is a terrible sorrow and shame.** I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.
This website is an Authorised King James Version site ONLY
And that really tells you a lot - you can go to his page that describes why he supports the KJV if you’re interested. It’s not quite as chock-full of fallacies as the anti-Catholic page, but only by virtue of the fact that it’s much shorter. :rolleyes:
 
Thanks you guys. Hah!!! all that is missing is “in 25 words or less”
 
Luke 4:4:
I have no idea what sola scriptura is. I follow the Bible.
The Sabbath.
bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.showResource/CT/HWA/k/695
Christmas
bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.showResource/CT/HWA/k/464
Easter
bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.showResource/CT/HWA/k/465

Not sure about you but every calender I’ve ever seen says that sunday is the first day of the week. Which calender are you refering to?
why don’t you just check the calendar in your bible - it wouldn’t omit something so important would it? :rolleyes:

Philthy
 
Luke 4:4:
Communion is a Catholic tradition. Plain and simple. Where does the bible teach us to have communion as part of our sabbath worship? It doesn’t. This is something that the catholic church has created for themselves.
Are you sure the apostles didn’t devote themselves to “daily prayers and the breaking of the bread”?

You might want to go read your bible again. Hint: Acts

Phil
 
Luke 4:4:
So your saying that the Bible is not the directly inspired word of God? Your saying that God founded a church so this means we just beleive everything the church says and forgett everything the bible taught us?
That doesn’t sound quite right to me.

Dave
Im sorry to be joining so late - I would have focused your queries early. Can you tell us:
  • Where, exactly, you got your bible?
  • And why, exactly, do you believe it to be the directly inspired word of God - particularly the NT?
  • And where, exactly, is the table of contents that tells you what belongs in it?
Thanks,

Phil
 
Luke 4:4:
You truley think that these holidays just “happen” to be on the same days as the pagen festivals. The origins of these festivals are the pagen festvals. Do a little reseach. Its out there for everyone to find. Unless you just want to go on believing your church is right about everything. God tells us not to add to or take away from his word.
Not quite. In revelation John says not to add to this “book” -referring to his own prophecy - not all of Scripture. You seem to be just applying it as a blanket statement to all of Scripture. God did not produce a canon of Scripture for us - plain and simple. If he did, show it to me.
Before you can use the bible as your source for truth you need to humble yourself to the reality of how GOD CHOSE to reveal that truth to you.

Phil
 
Luke 4:4:
Did you even bother to read the links I posted. Obviously not or you would have read these things.
No. No one is reading your stuff - weve heard it all a hundred times if not more. Here is the question for you: Do you believe the birth of Jesus Christ is worthy of celebration? If so, please what day your bible says is better than Dec 25th.

Phil
 
Luke 4:4:
So your saying that the BIble isn’t the Word of God.
Nobody ever said that! We want to know why YOU claim it is! On what do you base your claim?
Luke 4:4:
God didn’t inspire the Bible.
Never said that either! You’re starting to sound desperate…
Luke 4:4:
If God didn’t write the book then this means there is no basis for any christian religion. Yours or mine.
False conclusion based on your faulty belief that the only foundation for a religion is a book ALONE. Where did you get that silly idea? You are so close - I wish I could remove the veil for you - but that is His job, not mine. Keep thinking and praying…
Luke 4:4:
Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

You can read those scriptures and truthfuly tell me that God is not talking about the Bible? Interesting.

Dave
Dave - Honestly, that’s your big verse? You are hanging your entire theology on this? Sorry buddy but unless you believe someone has added to or taken away from the book of revelation **itself **you are done. I guess it would be pretty easy to determine - who’s been hit by the plagues promised in the verse?

I love the Bible too,

Phil
 
Luke 4:4:
Did you even bother to read the links I posted. Obviously not or you would have read these things.

Christmas
*Since the celebration of Christmas has come to the world from the Roman Catholic Church, and has no authority but that of the Roman Catholic Church, let us examine the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911 edition, published by that church. Under the heading “Christmas,” you will find:

“Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church . . . the first evidence of the feast is from Egypt.” “Pagan customs centering around the January calends gravitated to Christmas.”

And in the same encyclopedia, under the heading “Natal Day,” we find that the early Catholic father, Origen, acknowledged this truth: “. . . In the Scriptures, no one is recorded to have kept a feast or held a great banquet on his birthday. It is only sinners [like Pharaoh and Herod] who make great rejoicings over the day in which they were born into this world” (emphasis ours).

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1946 edition, has this: “Christmas (i.e., the Mass of Christ). . . . Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the church. . . .” It was not instituted by Christ or the apostles, or by Bible authority. It was picked up afterward from paganism.

The Encyclopedia Americana, 1944 edition, says: “Christmas. . . . It was, according to many authorities, not celebrated in the first centuries of the Christian church, as the Christian usage in general was to celebrate the death of remarkable persons rather than their birth. . . .” (The “Communion,” which is instituted by New Testament Bible authority, is a memorial of the death of Christ.) “. . . A feast was established in memory of this event [Christ’s birth] in the fourth century. In the fifth century the Western Church ordered it to be celebrated forever on the day of the old Roman feast of the birth of Sol, as no certain knowledge of the day of Christ’s birth existed.”*
bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.showResource/CT/HWA/k/464

Easter
*What is the meaning of the name “Easter”? You have been led to suppose the word means “resurrection of Christ.” For 1600 years the Western world has been taught that Christ rose from the dead on Sunday morning. But that is merely one of the fables the Apostle Paul warned readers of the New Testament to expect. The resurrection did not occur on Sunday!

The name “Easter,” which is merely the slightly changed English spelling of the name of the ancient Assyrian and Babylonian goddess Ishtar, comes to us from old Teutonic mythology where it is known as Ostern. The Phoenician name of this goddess was Astarte, consort of Baal, the sun god, whose worship is denounced by the Almighty in the Bible as the most abominable of all pagan idolatry.

Look up the word “Easter” in Webster’s dictionary. You will find it clearly reveals the pagan origin of the name.

In the large five-volume Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, only six brief lines are given to the name “Easter,” because it occurs only once in the Bible—and that only in the Authorized King James translation. Says Hastings: “Easter, used in Authorized Version as the translation of ‘Pascha’ in Acts 12:4, ‘Intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.’ Revised Standard Version has substituted correctly ‘the Passover.’”*
bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.showResource/CT/HWA/k/465
But those are EXTRA-BIBLICAL SOURCES, Luke4:4! I thought you believed only what the Bible says - ?

Now I’M confused. ; )

Mimi
 
I feel that I should say a few things.
Yes I grew up in the worldwide curch of God. Does this mean I believe everything they taught. No. I do not believe that Mr. Armstrong was correct in everything that he said, but I beleive that there were also many things he said that were correct. For most of my life I didn’t question the things I was taught. How many children usualy do? But I have begun slowly studying into the things I have been taught to prove to myself what I beleive is right. A few of my belliefs have allready changed and others I am not 100% sure on yet. But the majority of my beliefs are still the same.

Why do I believe that the Catholic church is not the church spoke of in Mathew 16:18? Because to me it doesn’t add up. The scripture says, “thou art petros, and apon this petra i will build my church.” The word Petros meaning stone or small rock and the word petra meaning cliff or boulder. THere is no denying that there is some sort of importance in peters name, a name change in the bibile is a very important thing, but I don’t believe jesus was saying he was goin to build the church on peter. Why would jesus use two different words if they were supposed to have the same meaning?
Thoughout the new testimant jesus is refered to as the Rock. In eph 2:20 he is refered to as the chief cornerstone or foundationstone of the church.
What then was the significance of peter being called petros? Maybe jesus was contrasting peter and himself. Saying that Peters foundation was like a small stone but the foundation that the church was to be built on was a large boulder. As strong as peter was (a stone) Jesus was that much stronger (a boulder).
I am in no way saying that this is the end of the story, no questions asked. I am just presenting this as an idea.

Another thing that doesn’t add up for me is the way the word Ekklesia is translated. This is the word translated as church. A more acurate translation or understanding of this word would probably be assembly or group. In Strongs it is defined as a group, or a company of believers. A group of like mind.
Most people read church and think jesus was talking about an organisation or a specific church with a specific name. Or they think of a church as a building. Personally I believe jesus was talking about a select group of people in the world who lived thier lives according to his teachings. I do not believe he formd a church in the sence that we see it today. I believe it was an assembly of true beleivers.
As we can see throughout the new testiment Gods people were scattered all over the place. By no means were they an organised group. Jesus knew this is how it would be. He referd to his people as a little flock. Not a large corporate church.

Keep in mind that these are not things I have been told. These are things I have decided for my self.

I think that you would all be surprised that I am alot more open minded then you may think I am. I have alot of ideas that do not neccesarily fit with what I have been tauhgt my whole life. As I said before I in no way feel at this time that this is the end of discussion on these topics. This is only what I have come up with so far in my ongoing bible study.

Cheers 👍
Dave
 
Luke 4:4:
Not sure about you but every calender I’ve ever seen says that sunday is the first day of the week. Which calender are you refering to?
All my calendar weeks start with a Monday. That’s the custom in Europe.
 
Luke 4:4:
*The name “Easter,” which is merely the slightly changed English spelling of the name of the ancient Assyrian and Babylonian goddess Ishtar, comes to us from old Teutonic mythology where it is known as Ostern. *
As a native Teuton I can assure you, “Ostern” is the German word for “Easter” (the feast), while “Ostera” is the word for “Easter” (the Goddess).
 
Luke 4:4:
Why do I believe that the Catholic church is not the church spoke of in Mathew 16:18? Because to me it doesn’t add up. The scripture says, “thou art petros, and apon this petra i will build my church.” The word Petros meaning stone or small rock and the word petra meaning cliff or boulder. THere is no denying that there is some sort of importance in peters name, a name change in the bibile is a very important thing, but I don’t believe jesus was saying he was goin to build the church on peter. Why would jesus use two different words if they were supposed to have the same meaning?
First off, Petra is feminine so calling Peter a girls name would have been weird. Second, in koine Greek petros and petra are interchangeable. Finally, Jesus was speaking Aramaic at the time and would have said “Thou art Kepha and upon this kepha…”.
Thoughout the new testimant jesus is refered to as the Rock. In eph 2:20 he is refered to as the chief cornerstone or foundationstone of the church.
This is why it’s a big deal the Jesus would call Simon Bar-jona “Rock.”
Another thing that doesn’t add up for me is the way the word Ekklesia is translated. This is the word translated as church. A more acurate translation or understanding of this word would probably be assembly or group. In Strongs it is defined as a group, or a company of believers. A group of like mind.
Most people read church and think jesus was talking about an organisation or a specific church with a specific name. Or they think of a church as a building. Personally I believe jesus was talking about a select group of people in the world who lived thier lives according to his teachings. I do not believe he formd a church in the sence that we see it today. I believe it was an assembly of true beleivers.
The Catholic Church is one big assembly or group of believiers of like mind following the teachings of Christ. Any group needs leadership. The hierarchy, "deacons, presbyters (the greek of this word is where we get the word priest), and an episcopate are spelled out in the Bible; remember, cardinals and the pope are bishops).
As we can see throughout the new testiment Gods people were scattered all over the place. By no means were they an organised group. Jesus knew this is how it would be. He referd to his people as a little flock. Not a large corporate church.
Cathlics are scattered all over the world too and faithful Catholics are definitely a minority in the world
Keep in mind that these are not things I have been told. These are things I have decided for my self.
I’ve been told the above things by the successors of the apostles. You can trace what they have been told back to Christ. I suggest you read some Ignatious of Antioch. He was a desciple of St. John the Apostle and author of a Gospel, some epistles, and Revelation. Ignatious had this to say in 110 AD "Let that be deemed a proper(18) Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
I think that you would all be surprised that I am alot more open minded then you may think I am. I have alot of ideas that do not neccesarily fit with what I have been tauhgt my whole life. As I said before I in no way feel at this time that this is the end of discussion on these topics. This is only what I have come up with so far in my ongoing bible study.
That’s a good attitude:thumbsup:
 
Hi Dave- :tiphat:

I probably should have started my posts with this statement:

please know that I don’t judge you - I know I am not worthy to do so. I enjoy discussion and sometimes have a confrontational approach which some find obnoxious. But that is simply discussing the basis for our theologies - it is not personal! You and I both know that we are commanded to “love one another” I had to leave this forum for a while because of my failures in this regard - I will apologize in advance if I say anything you percieve as uncharitable. Now that much being said, I am comfortable debating theology and disagreeing with you while at the same time I wish you the fullness of truth and I trust you wish the same for me as well…
Luke 4:4:
… But I have begun slowly studying into the things I have been taught to prove to myself what I beleive is right. A few of my belliefs have allready changed and others I am not 100% sure on yet. But the majority of my beliefs are still the same.

Why do I believe that the Catholic church is not the church spoke of in Mathew 16:18? Because to me it doesn’t add up. The scripture says, “thou art petros, and apon this petra i will build my church.” The word Petros meaning stone or small rock and the word petra meaning cliff or boulder. THere is no denying that there is some sort of importance in peters name, a name change in the bibile is a very important thing, but I don’t believe jesus was saying he was goin to build the church on peter. Why would jesus use two different words if they were supposed to have the same meaning?

When all is said and done this justification you just articulated will be solidly refuted, but that will not necessarily change your heart if you are not open to it. Are you open? Acknowleging when someone has shown you something you didn’t think of is an important step. It doesn’t mean you have to agree with all the person is saying, but you must be open to saying, " You make a good point, I hadn’t thought of that, I will need to reconsider and pray for guidance - thanks".

BTW, it may appear that I am applying a double standard here - asking you to be so open while at the same time we seem close minded. But the reality is that we have dealt with these issues and, at least so far (thats me being open-minded!), have not heard anything new from your perspective that would cause us to reconsider at this point…
Luke 4:4:
Thoughout the new testimant jesus is refered to as the Rock. In eph 2:20 he is refered to as the chief cornerstone or foundationstone of the church.

What then was the significance of peter being called petros? Maybe jesus was contrasting peter and himself. Saying that Peters foundation was like a small stone but the foundation that the church was to be built on was a large boulder. As strong as peter was (a stone) Jesus was that much stronger (a boulder).

I am in no way saying that this is the end of the story, no questions asked. I am just presenting this as an idea.

Not a bad thought at all! We still need to deal with the reality that Jesus changed his name - such an action ALWAYS means something of GREAT significance is happening associated with the individual.

Con’d…
 
Luke 4:4:
Another thing that doesn’t add up for me is the way the word Ekklesia is translated. This is the word translated as church. A more acurate translation or understanding of this word would probably be assembly or group. In Strongs it is defined as a group, or a company of believers. A group of like mind.

Most people read church and think jesus was talking about an organisation or a specific church with a specific name. Or they think of a church as a building. Personally I believe jesus was talking about a select group of people in the world who lived thier lives according to his teachings. I do not believe he formd a church in the sence that we see it today. I believe it was an assembly of true beleivers.

I am weak when it comes to translations - it seems like a never ending, insurmountable obstacle to universal understanding. It’s one of the reasons the concept of the holy Spirit guiding the Church makes sense to me. As far as your comments regarding the exact nature of the Church I will agree with you that Scripture leaves us with many important questions unanswered…
Luke 4:4:
As we can see throughout the new testiment Gods people were scattered all over the place. By no means were they an organised group. Jesus knew this is how it would be. He referd to his people as a little flock. Not a large corporate church.

Again, reasonable observations, but by no means definitive. Did Christ explicitly condemn a large Church? Absolutely not - he commissioned the Apostles to “make disciples of all nations” while Paul tells us that there is “one faith”, one body of Christ, and that he teaches “these things to all the churches”. Therefore, can we assume something was meant to unify the body christ which is his Church? Did Christ, or any apostle ever once say that a NT would be coming forward to serve this purpose? Nope. The church is what Christ left us and what Paul, writing to Timothy( who Paul says “knows” Scripture) calls the "pillar and foundation of Truth.
Luke 4:4:
Keep in mind that these are not things I have been told. These are things I have decided for my self.

I think that you would all be surprised that I am alot more open minded then you may think I am. I have alot of ideas that do not neccesarily fit with what I have been tauhgt my whole life. As I said before I in no way feel at this time that this is the end of discussion on these topics. This is only what I have come up with so far in my ongoing bible study.

Cheers

Dave

You’ve done a great job so far! Keep up the good work and the open mind. I will say that significant progress usually comes from stepping BACKWARD (reviewing core assumptions we have) before going forward…

Peace,

Phil
 
Luke 4:4:
… Why do I believe that the Catholic church is not the church spoke of in Mathew 16:18? Because to me it doesn’t add up. The scripture says, “thou art petros, and apon this petra i will build my church.” The word Petros meaning stone or small rock and the word petra meaning cliff or boulder. THere is no denying that there is some sort of importance in peters name, a name change in the bibile is a very important thing, but I don’t believe jesus was saying he was goin to build the church on peter. Why would jesus use two different words if they were supposed to have the same meaning?
Thoughout the new testimant jesus is refered to as the Rock. In eph 2:20 he is refered to as the chief cornerstone or foundationstone of the church.
What then was the significance of peter being called petros? Maybe jesus was contrasting peter and himself. Saying that Peters foundation was like a small stone but the foundation that the church was to be built on was a large boulder. As strong as peter was (a stone) Jesus was that much stronger (a boulder).
I am in no way saying that this is the end of the story, no questions asked. I am just presenting this as an idea …
I already addressed this here
The words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant “rock.” If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368.
Additionally, Jesus did not speak Greek. He spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’
What’s more, in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form). And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’
When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock.
Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. – I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.
… What part did you not understand or not agree with?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top