S
savedsinner
Guest
How can some Christians even believe Peter is the rock, when the KJV translates the Greek word “Petros” in John 1:42 as “stone” instead of “Peter”
How can people believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic?
- Status
J
JRKH
Guest
The question of interpretation/translation of the words used was thoroughly and scholarly clarified in a series of Posts in this thread by two gentleman, Claudius and Ronydish.
Take a look back around page 5, 6 or 7 I’m not sure where it started, but it is truly worth the reading.
Peace
James
S
savedsinner
Guest
Thanks, I have seen the arguments by PC Master before trying to use the Peshitta version of the bible to argue Peter being a “stone” or “shua”, but unfortunately in the main passage in Matthew 16 the word used was “Kepha”. He tried to claim that it was a copy error.
The issue I have with the KJV is that this passage is the only place where “Petros” was translated “stone”, it is translated as “Peter” every other time it is used in the KJV. And it is the only instance were the word “Stone” is not translated from the Greek word “Lithos”.
M
MIZER
Guest
Are you sure you’re not already catholic?
M
MIZER
Guest
5pintlutheran posted:
The world will see further fracturing and eventual elimination. The mainline protestant churches are already suffering a great loss of membership in rejection of their liberalism. This began at the beginning of the last century with revivalism and gave rise to the many sects of fundamentlism/evangelicalism.
Churches are splitting all over the place. In my community, which is fairly small, we have more than 5 Baptist churches, 4 or 5 Methodist churches, three Episcopal churches and many, many asundry denominational/non denominational churches. There is only one Lutheran church and one Presbyterian church (that must be because they are a part of a council or network or something, and of course only one Catholic Church.
I believe it was Kaycee who asked if you’ve looked into “reformed” protestantism. What is that? Another division? Apparently the Baptist’s (who don’t consider themselves protestant, what a blind spot that is) and the mainline protestant churches are seeing another reformation of sorts. At least that’s my understanding. They are reforming themselves. Interesting don’t you think? I wonder why they don’t take an honest look at the Catholic Church. Instead many continue to believe the lies told about her over the past 500 years and persist in spreading the tabloid like rumors.
Anyway, the past is the best predictor of the future so Protestantism will continue to divide until eventually in ceases to exist.
“A house divided against itself cannot stand”.
The world will see further fracturing and eventual elimination. The mainline protestant churches are already suffering a great loss of membership in rejection of their liberalism. This began at the beginning of the last century with revivalism and gave rise to the many sects of fundamentlism/evangelicalism.
Churches are splitting all over the place. In my community, which is fairly small, we have more than 5 Baptist churches, 4 or 5 Methodist churches, three Episcopal churches and many, many asundry denominational/non denominational churches. There is only one Lutheran church and one Presbyterian church (that must be because they are a part of a council or network or something, and of course only one Catholic Church.
I believe it was Kaycee who asked if you’ve looked into “reformed” protestantism. What is that? Another division? Apparently the Baptist’s (who don’t consider themselves protestant, what a blind spot that is) and the mainline protestant churches are seeing another reformation of sorts. At least that’s my understanding. They are reforming themselves. Interesting don’t you think? I wonder why they don’t take an honest look at the Catholic Church. Instead many continue to believe the lies told about her over the past 500 years and persist in spreading the tabloid like rumors.
Anyway, the past is the best predictor of the future so Protestantism will continue to divide until eventually in ceases to exist.
M
MIZER
Guest
JRKH makes an excellent point:
This is a generalization:
First they divide the Gospel into at least two halves. That which is “essential for salvation” and that which is “not essential for salvation.” Then they won’t discuss the "not essential for salvation stuff because Christ dosen’t care what you believe as it is non-essential. (This includes the Eucharist and the 6th chapter of John’s Gospel because, of course it is non-essential) They can say the world wide (invisible) church is unified because everyone believes in the “essential for salvation” part of the Gospel (some will call this the bottom line). Finally they ignore the fact that without Church authority in the early years the believers would have had no way of knowing what was heresy and what was not heresy as most, if not all of the early heresies where an attack on the bottom line, or the “essential for salvation” part of the Gospel. Keeping in mind that the NT wasn’t cannonized until the 4th century this is mind boggeling.
Why don’t the non-C’s on the board comment on this fact? I’ve tried to point this out to Baptists I’ve debated to no avail. Why are they so blind to simple reason? I just don’t get it.
This is a generalization:
First they divide the Gospel into at least two halves. That which is “essential for salvation” and that which is “not essential for salvation.” Then they won’t discuss the "not essential for salvation stuff because Christ dosen’t care what you believe as it is non-essential. (This includes the Eucharist and the 6th chapter of John’s Gospel because, of course it is non-essential) They can say the world wide (invisible) church is unified because everyone believes in the “essential for salvation” part of the Gospel (some will call this the bottom line). Finally they ignore the fact that without Church authority in the early years the believers would have had no way of knowing what was heresy and what was not heresy as most, if not all of the early heresies where an attack on the bottom line, or the “essential for salvation” part of the Gospel. Keeping in mind that the NT wasn’t cannonized until the 4th century this is mind boggeling.
T
Tracy10
Guest
Why concern yourself with such things? Jesus is the key rocker. Lead your life by his examples and nothing else will matter.
M
MIZER
Guest
Will you please you define “such things” so we can be clear what it is exactly you don’t consider worthy of our concern?
Are those things the things Jesus did and taught and died for?
5
5pintLutheran
Guest
In a sense… Yes. I knelt on the altar rail, with the book in hand (very informal) and read from what was written. Toward the end of the reading, I was allowed to speak on what was really bothering me, but even then… I felt like I was being rushed. The counseling part of the confession was lost to me, and I thought that’s what it was mainly composed of.
Don’t get me wrong, I love the pastor… He’s a great guy, but it just seems like the confession was void of “confession”! It just seemed like I was reading out of a book. The words weren’t mine, but I still had to read them. It didn’t “feel” heartfelt afterward, and I certainly didn’t feel forgiven, if you will.
5
5pintLutheran
Guest
I don’t know… I’m pretty confused right now.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
You don’t sound confused to me. You sound like you already know what you need to do.I don’t know… I’m pretty confused right now.
5
5pintLutheran
Guest
Right, I think so as well.You don’t sound confused to me. You sound like you already know what you need to do.
I just got back from my parents house for father’s day, and I finally won an argument. After doing much research, I have come to the conclusion that “Sola Scriptura” is one of the “traditions” that scripture speaks out against!
I asked my father if “Sola Scriptura” wasn’t in Scripture itself, then wasn’t that a “man-made tradition”? He finally said: “Yeah, I guess so”, but quickly changed the subject afterward. Also…
I just got through reading “Suprised by Truth” by Patrick madrid, and it was a real eye opener. In Bob Sungenis’ testimony… He relates: “I also saw the Bible warns us that it contains difficult and confusing information, which is capable (if not prone) to be twisted into all sorts of fanciful and false interpretation (2 Pet 3:16).”
I’m starting to seriously question if the “reformers” (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley, etc…) were really “reformers” at all, or were they just liberal scholars bent on causing confusion throughout Christendom? Sure the RCC had some corruption at that time, but don’t ALL denominations have bad apples from time to time?? :dts:
A
Always_For_Him
Guest
Not to highjack this thread, but this is for you 5pint, so you don’t have to spend time finding it. I said I would provide scripture that supported purgatory, I am sorry it took so long.
Purgatory is a temporary state of purification for the imperfect saints. In Purgatory, all remaining reparation for sin is made; all remaiing self-love is purged and purified until only love of God remains.
In order to defend the doctrine of Purgatory, we must explain two preliminary distinctions between guilt and punishment and between mortal and veniel sin.
John 5:16-17 proves degrees of sin, distinguishing between deadly sin and sin that is not deadly. “If any one sees his brother committting what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal. I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.”
James 1:14-15 reads:
“each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full grown brings forth death.” St. James distinguishes desire from sin, and beginning sin from mature sin which brings death. Sin that kills the life of grace in the soul is mortal. Sin that only wounds and disfigures the soul is venial.
The sould of those who die in the perfect state of grace, without the least sin or reparation due to sin, go directly to heaven. THe souls of those who die in the state of unrepented mortal (deadly) sin go directly to hell. What about the middle sort of people: those wo die in the state of grace, but with venial sin or with unpaid reparation due to forgiven sin: They do not merit hell: they are still in the state of grace; yet they are not p ure enough for heaven, where “nothing unclean shall enter” (Revelation 21:27).
Purgatory is a temporary state of purification for the imperfect saints. In Purgatory, all remaining reparation for sin is made; all remaiing self-love is purged and purified until only love of God remains.
In order to defend the doctrine of Purgatory, we must explain two preliminary distinctions between guilt and punishment and between mortal and veniel sin.
John 5:16-17 proves degrees of sin, distinguishing between deadly sin and sin that is not deadly. “If any one sees his brother committting what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal. I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.”
James 1:14-15 reads:
“each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full grown brings forth death.” St. James distinguishes desire from sin, and beginning sin from mature sin which brings death. Sin that kills the life of grace in the soul is mortal. Sin that only wounds and disfigures the soul is venial.
The sould of those who die in the perfect state of grace, without the least sin or reparation due to sin, go directly to heaven. THe souls of those who die in the state of unrepented mortal (deadly) sin go directly to hell. What about the middle sort of people: those wo die in the state of grace, but with venial sin or with unpaid reparation due to forgiven sin: They do not merit hell: they are still in the state of grace; yet they are not p ure enough for heaven, where “nothing unclean shall enter” (Revelation 21:27).
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
winning arguments doesn’t win souls! In our own immediate family, religion is a forbidden subject, even though we are all Catholic! My dad was LCMS. His sister and all her children converted to Catholic. They talk a lot about how much they love their holy Catholic Church. Their expressions of love did a lot to help me ‘love’ the Church.
My dad was very, very hurt by the split of ELIM in the '70’s. Had he lived, I believe he would have converted. I didn’t realize they are facing another split.
My favorite is the pastor who got tired of reinventing the wheel over neutral language. He was tired of everything being up for vote. He realized truth was not a Democracy. He said he wanted to be free to worship.
I think ML began as a genuine Reformer. There are a lot of “reformers” in the Catholic Church today. See Womenpriests, Nuns for Choice. Very sad for people who should know better.
A
Always_For_Him
Guest
cont.
Don’t get thrown off because the word Purgatory is not found in Sacred Scripture, neither is Trinity and Incarnation. The Bible teaches that an intermediate state of purificatioin exists. We call it Purgatory. What is important is the doctrine, not the name.
Matthew 12:32 - Jesus implies that some sins can be forgiven in the next world. Sin cannot be forgiven in hell. There is not sin to be forgiven in heaven. Any remission of sin in the next world can only occur in Purgatory.
1 Corinthians 3:15 - This cannot refer to eternal loss in hell, for there no one is saved. Nor can it refer to heaven, for there no one suffers. It refers, then, to a middle stae where the soul temporarily suffers loss so that it may gain heaven. This is essentially the definition of Purgatory.
1 Peter 3:18-20
1 Peter 4:6
Note, that it is a prison for disobedient spirits, and yet they were saved when Jesus preached to them. This is not hell, because no one is saved from hell. This is probably not the “limbo of the fathers,” (often called “Abraham’s bosom,” where the righteous sould of the OT waited until Christ opened the gates of heaven), because this is a place for disobedient spirits. One cannot imagine that St. Peter is describing the waiting place of such righteous OT saints as David and John the Baptist when he mentions disobedience spirits.
St. Peter is describing a temporary state for disobedient sould who were eventually saved. At the very least, it proves that a third place can exist between heaven and hell. At the very most, it proves the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory.
The clearest affirmation of the existence of Purgatory comes from the Greek Septuagine: the Old Testament Scriptures used by Christ, all the NT writers, and the councils of Hippo and Carthage (which authoritatively determined the “canon” of inspired books of the Bible.
Do you have 2 Maccabees in your Bible? Read 2 Maccabees 12:42-45. Judas took up a collection…sent it to Jersalem to privide for a sin offering…taking in account of the resurrection. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin. This passage proves the distinction between mortal and venial sin. …fell asleep in godliness… They sinned, but still died in godliness, so their sin had to be non-mortal, or venial. Venial sin is forgivable after death. It also proves the existence of a middle state where venial sins can be forgiven. Souls in heaven have no need. Souls in hell have no hope. Praying for the dead presumes souls in the middle state where venial sins can be forgiven and atonement can be made.
This particular passage is a proof text. It explicitly affirms an intermediate state where the faithful departed make atonement for their non-mortal sins. Martin Luther’s reaction demonstrates the strength of this passage. It was so contrary to his “justification by faith alone” theology that he removed 2 Maccabees, along with six other books from his Old Testament.
Do we rely on the private judgment of Luther, who also wanted to throw out Ester, James and Revelation, and thought nothing of adding the word “alone” to his translation of Romas 3:28? Or, do we accept the divinely protected judgment of the CC who used her authority in 397AD to determine the official canon of the Bible? This is the same Bible, minus the seven books removed by Luther) Protestants use to attack the very authority of the Church who gave it to them.
Even if one rejects 2 Maccabees as Scripture, there can be no doubt that, as history, the book acurately reflects the religious character of the Jews of the second century BC. A little more than one hundred years before Christ. Jews prayed for their dead (and still do to this day).
Some of the earliest Christian liturgies ( worship services) include prayers for the dead. Ancient Christian tomb inscriptions from the second and third centuries frequently contain an appeal for prayers for the dead (Abercius). This practice makes sense only if early Christians believed in Purgatory even if they did not use that name for it.
Don’t get thrown off because the word Purgatory is not found in Sacred Scripture, neither is Trinity and Incarnation. The Bible teaches that an intermediate state of purificatioin exists. We call it Purgatory. What is important is the doctrine, not the name.
Matthew 12:32 - Jesus implies that some sins can be forgiven in the next world. Sin cannot be forgiven in hell. There is not sin to be forgiven in heaven. Any remission of sin in the next world can only occur in Purgatory.
1 Corinthians 3:15 - This cannot refer to eternal loss in hell, for there no one is saved. Nor can it refer to heaven, for there no one suffers. It refers, then, to a middle stae where the soul temporarily suffers loss so that it may gain heaven. This is essentially the definition of Purgatory.
1 Peter 3:18-20
1 Peter 4:6
Note, that it is a prison for disobedient spirits, and yet they were saved when Jesus preached to them. This is not hell, because no one is saved from hell. This is probably not the “limbo of the fathers,” (often called “Abraham’s bosom,” where the righteous sould of the OT waited until Christ opened the gates of heaven), because this is a place for disobedient spirits. One cannot imagine that St. Peter is describing the waiting place of such righteous OT saints as David and John the Baptist when he mentions disobedience spirits.
St. Peter is describing a temporary state for disobedient sould who were eventually saved. At the very least, it proves that a third place can exist between heaven and hell. At the very most, it proves the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory.
The clearest affirmation of the existence of Purgatory comes from the Greek Septuagine: the Old Testament Scriptures used by Christ, all the NT writers, and the councils of Hippo and Carthage (which authoritatively determined the “canon” of inspired books of the Bible.
Do you have 2 Maccabees in your Bible? Read 2 Maccabees 12:42-45. Judas took up a collection…sent it to Jersalem to privide for a sin offering…taking in account of the resurrection. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin. This passage proves the distinction between mortal and venial sin. …fell asleep in godliness… They sinned, but still died in godliness, so their sin had to be non-mortal, or venial. Venial sin is forgivable after death. It also proves the existence of a middle state where venial sins can be forgiven. Souls in heaven have no need. Souls in hell have no hope. Praying for the dead presumes souls in the middle state where venial sins can be forgiven and atonement can be made.
This particular passage is a proof text. It explicitly affirms an intermediate state where the faithful departed make atonement for their non-mortal sins. Martin Luther’s reaction demonstrates the strength of this passage. It was so contrary to his “justification by faith alone” theology that he removed 2 Maccabees, along with six other books from his Old Testament.
Do we rely on the private judgment of Luther, who also wanted to throw out Ester, James and Revelation, and thought nothing of adding the word “alone” to his translation of Romas 3:28? Or, do we accept the divinely protected judgment of the CC who used her authority in 397AD to determine the official canon of the Bible? This is the same Bible, minus the seven books removed by Luther) Protestants use to attack the very authority of the Church who gave it to them.
Even if one rejects 2 Maccabees as Scripture, there can be no doubt that, as history, the book acurately reflects the religious character of the Jews of the second century BC. A little more than one hundred years before Christ. Jews prayed for their dead (and still do to this day).
Some of the earliest Christian liturgies ( worship services) include prayers for the dead. Ancient Christian tomb inscriptions from the second and third centuries frequently contain an appeal for prayers for the dead (Abercius). This practice makes sense only if early Christians believed in Purgatory even if they did not use that name for it.
A
Always_For_Him
Guest
cont, (and final)
Tertullin, in 211AD presents the practice of praying and sacrificing for the dead as an established custom: “We offer sacrifices for th tedead on their birthday anniversaries.” This practice of praying for the dead was univeral among Christians for fifteen centureis before the Reformation.
NT passages that refer to prayers and practices performed for benefit of the deceased:
2 Timothy 1:16-18 - St Paul prays for his departed friend, Onesiphorus, which makes sense only if he can be helped by prayer.
1 Corinthians 15:29 - his argument for the resurrection of the body, St. Paul mentions (without condemning or approving) the practice of people being baptized for the benefit of the dead, who cannot be helped if there is not intermediate state of purification.
St. Peter, addressing born-again Christians who are undergoing trials, tells them that their sufferings are purifiying their faith like fir purifies gold (1 Peter 1:6-7.) Hebrews chapters 5-13 is an extended passage describing how trials lead to spiritual growth.
There is more information, but this will get you started. Protestants don’t teach praying for the dead, that the Communion of Saints includes those who have died and gone to heaven before us and of course don’t have scripture that supports Purgatory.
I hope this is enought to help you.
Tertullin, in 211AD presents the practice of praying and sacrificing for the dead as an established custom: “We offer sacrifices for th tedead on their birthday anniversaries.” This practice of praying for the dead was univeral among Christians for fifteen centureis before the Reformation.
NT passages that refer to prayers and practices performed for benefit of the deceased:
2 Timothy 1:16-18 - St Paul prays for his departed friend, Onesiphorus, which makes sense only if he can be helped by prayer.
1 Corinthians 15:29 - his argument for the resurrection of the body, St. Paul mentions (without condemning or approving) the practice of people being baptized for the benefit of the dead, who cannot be helped if there is not intermediate state of purification.
St. Peter, addressing born-again Christians who are undergoing trials, tells them that their sufferings are purifiying their faith like fir purifies gold (1 Peter 1:6-7.) Hebrews chapters 5-13 is an extended passage describing how trials lead to spiritual growth.
There is more information, but this will get you started. Protestants don’t teach praying for the dead, that the Communion of Saints includes those who have died and gone to heaven before us and of course don’t have scripture that supports Purgatory.
I hope this is enought to help you.
5
5pintLutheran
Guest
Absolutely! I’ve never seen 1 Cor 15:29, or looked over it, but it does seem plausible if not almost certain that the Apostles, or at least Paul, believed in a state of purgatory… I’ll have to study it some more. Thanks.
M
MIZER
Guest
Que est ce,
Is this true for us all. Is this because of the passage surrounding Jesus not being embraced by his own community and the verse that says, we are not a prophet in our own home? Do you think it’s a sin to converse (or debate) religion with one’s own family? Is there a Catholic Church teaching in this regard?
Always for Him,
How’s that for hyjacking?
Thanks Que, I just wondered what exactly you mean by this and if this is Catholic teaching.
M
mercygate
Guest
As a convert myself, I had no problem with Purgatory once I examined the question dispassonately and divorced it from a lot of the mediaeval “furniture” it acquired in devotional literature and practice. Much of this was fueled by private revelation, and thank the Good Lord, no Catholic is bound to accept private revelation.Absolutely! I’ve never seen 1 Cor 15:29, or looked over it, but it does seem plausible if not almost certain that the Apostles, or at least Paul, believed in a state of purgatory… I’ll have to study it some more. Thanks.
For my money, all the graphics obscured the main point: God calls us to be “perfect.”
Actually, Dante’s “Purgatorio” in the Divine Comedy helped me to understand that Purgation is a joyful thing, that even when painful, it results in final union with the Lord.
Once, on the way to confession – a “difficult” confession – the Lord gave me the insight that my sin is not my self. Being purified of the last vestige of the illusion that my sin and my self are inseparable is something I look forward to both in this life and in the next.
In more than one place, Scripture refers to God as “a consumng fire.” To be able to stand in the fire, we must be tempered by it,
Luther’s notion that sanctification involves the legal fiction of “covering” our ‘dung-heap’ rather than actually DOING something to us, just didn’t seem to work for me. “Nothing unclean shall enter the City.”
Moreover, the idea that many Protestants have the Purgatory takes away from the perfect Sacrifice of Christ is simply loony. Christ is the effector of everything related to our salvation.
Back to topic anybody? I apologize for contribute to the derailing.
K
kaycee
Guest
Did Jesus love his step father? His brothers and sister? Not sure I can agree with His following perfectly the 10 commandments = Marian doctrine.
The early did not have a pope for 400 years, then it did not function like the modern version. I suppose It would be unifying if it were biblical and historical, but if fails on both counts.
Yikes, It is a dreadful witness to protestants to hear the ridiculous 35,000 sect numbers. The same “source” lists well over 250 Catholic Churches. If they want to be taken seriously a little bit more truth in numbers would refreshing.
hmm, 2 Pet 1:20 is talking about the prophets own interpretation, not the readers interpretation. Peter is saying the prophecy is from God and the prophet was in no way interpreting this prophecy from God.
2 Pet 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Why? It did not work too well for the Orthodox church. And before that id did not work at all for first 400 years. Jesus said He would send the Holy Spirit, is the Pope the Holy Spirit?
- Status