Info on SDA

[CatholicLover]

CatholicLover;6904848:

I don’t agree that we are aberrant and I don’t know much about the JWs and Mormons so I won’t comment on them. I will say that the 28 fundamental beliefs of Adventist are all based firmly in the Bible and I challenge you to show me that they are not. adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html

FYI JWs and the Mormons were also founded in the 19th century same w/ SDA, one reason why I said SDA belong to the same aberrant group.
If according to you Adventists beliefs are based firmly on the Bible,” pls. comment therefore on my earlier post to apologetics 101 w/c he did not answer.
“If truly you believe in your heart that Jesus is your Lord and Savior, believing in his words, why do SDA can’t believe when Jesus said “This is my body, this is my blood.” Why do you claim that Jesus’ words here were not to be understood literally because they were meant to be symbols? When Jesus said this to his disciples, “truly, truly I tell you unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood there is no life in you” his disciples departed. Jesus did not call them back, ‘hey fellows, I only meant symbols.’ But Jesus let them go. As a matter of fact Jesus asked his disciples if they would also leave and Peter said no, for they truly believe what he said. But there was one who did not believe and Jesus knew who he was – Judas Iscariot. If you guys can’t believe either, don’t you think you belong to Judas’ company? Anyway, I thought w/ all your affirmation as Bible believers it seems to me you’re being hypocritical. Your answer will definitely help me understand your position better. For other challenges, benedict, et al are giving you hand full already. Just focus on theirs.

The Adventist view of the Lord’s Supper can be traced back to the Swedish reformer Ulrich Zwingli. Zwingli believed that the bread and wine were symbolic and interpretted when Jesus said “This is” as “This signifies”. He looked at John 6:63 “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life” as his guide to understanding what Jesus meant.

Zwingli rightly pointed out that Jesus said many symbolic things like “I am the door,” “I am the vine,” “I am the living water”. None of those statements were literal and he concluded that Jesus’ words at the Last Supper were not literal either.

 

[emarc]

Question for SDA members:Why is it that your religion forbids members to wear jewelries,but would allow them to purchase Louis Vitton,Prada etc products e.g. handbag.I know members that do this.Also,I attended yesterday an SDA wedding,where the guests were forbidden to wear jewelries.The pastor even confiscated the wedding rings of the couple being married and hid them under his table.He told them that the Bible is the only gift that a couple can possess,not the rings .BTW,an SDA friend of mine,is exploring Catholicism .He stop going to his church for quite sometime now and felt that he is finally liberated and is deprogramming himself from being brainwashed by his pastor and his parents ,about Catholicsm,thru research.

Truly the Holy Spirit has opened his eyes. Tell him to see a priest and discuss his intent to be a Catholic. God bless.

 

[Javl]

I don’t think you have been ignored. I think you have been disagreed with. I have made many points here also that have gone unanswered.

This is what it always comes down to. You can’t show in the Bible where Jesus changed the Sabbath Day.
The Catholic Church’s position is clear; it claims it changed the day to Sunday based on the perceived authority given to Peter in Matthew 16. “That thou art Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church”. Adventists, among others, do not believe that Matthew 16 is passing that kind of authority to Peter.

It was never said that Jesus changed the Sabbath day. The Catholic Church HAS the authority. Matt 16:18 has Jesus telling Peter "And I tell you that you are rock ( Cephaseter ) and on this rock I will build my Church". ( The New International Version Bible, published by Zondervan ) Of course you do not believe it or accept it, for if you did then that would mean that the SDA Church is false in all respecr and your whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

vs. 17, 18

‘Petros’ means a stone, a piece of rock, a moving stone which can be thrown by the hand.
‘Petra’ means a rock or cliff or crag, immovable, firm, and sure. When Jesus uses petra here he is referring to Himself.

The Greek word for stone is Petra, a feminine noun. Since the Apostle Simon ( Peter ) is a male the word was translated to male by making it petros so that it would fit. Also Jesus spoke to Peter in Aramaic and not Greek.

Also Jesus is called petra as the rock of our faith and if you read and understand the scriptures where it is used for Jesus it always is used in reference as to building the faith.

Remember Jesus’ question that Jesus had just asked. “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?”
Peter’s answer: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus was pleased with the answer, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona… that thou art petros (a rolling stone), and upon this rock (petra, referring to Himself as Peter had just answered) I will build my Church.”

Jesus WAS NOT referring to Himself. Why would he build on a Church on Himself and then Change Simon-Peter’s name to rock? This is where sola scriptura results in personal spin and error.

Jesus is saying He will build His church on the fact that He is Christ, the Son of the living God. That is much firmer ground than Peter ever could be.

If that is the case then Jesus would just have to say “I am building my Church…”. No need to mention rock or change Simon’s name, since we Know Jesus is the rock of our faith and salvation. Of what use would it serve to cange Simon’s name to “rock”

vs. 19
I’m no student of ancient Greek but this is what I’ve been taught. My NIV bible says “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
A more accurate translation is “whatever you bind on earth will have already been bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will have already been loosed in heaven.”
Not a very big change in the wording but a big change in the meaning. Man is no longer telling God what to do; the church on earth will require only what heaven requires and will
prohibit only what heaven prohibits.The authority does does not extend to changing God’s word, it ends at requiring or prohibiting only what God has clearly intended in His Word.

From the bit of Greek that I know. the NIV translation is quite accurate. I accept it as it is since it is the Word of God. Remember, what will happen to whoever adds to ( changes ) the Word of God. Therefore what ever is bound on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever is loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven. The can be no other meaning.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[CatholicLover]

In the chapter where Paul was telling others to imitate him (1 Cor.), he does not mention the Saturday sabbath anywhere. However, he does mention hardships and his endurance. He admonishes Christians to imitate his perseverance. Then you jumped to Acts where it says that Paul was proselytizing the Jews (and others) who were in the Jewish synagogue on Saturday. It says he went there to preach to them – and not to engage in the worship style of the Old Testament because the New Testament believers were conglomerating on the Lord’s day (Sunday) instead of on the Jewish Saturday sabbath.

And in Acts 13? Why did the Gentiles ask that the “words might be preached to them the next sabbath”? By your reconning shouldn’t the Gentiles have been able to hear Paul again the very next day? Sunday? vs. 44 - “the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.” Why did the non-jews wait until Sabbath?

Acts 13:42 “And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.”
Acts 13:44 “And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.”

There was friction in those days. Those who chose to stay yoked under the Old Testament with the Jews worshiped on the Jewish Saturday sabbath. Those who chose to be released from the bondage of the Old Testament chose to follow Jesus and to celebrate His resurrection on Sunday (on the Lord’s day).

Friction or not, the record is there for all to see. Paul and the other Jews and Gentiles were worshipping together on the Sabbath day. Not Sunday.

Here’s the yoke of the Mosaic covenant**:**

Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the [Saturday] Sabbath day. (Deut. 5:15)

Still quoting Deut 5:15. That was binding on the Isreallites, not on the Sabbath Day. The Sabbath day predates Abraham, Moses, the Isreallites and the 10 commandments. It was made for us. Deut 5:15 does not change any of that.

 

[Javl]

If this were true there would not have been a protestant movement. Martin Luther would not have felt the need to post his thesis. The long line of reformers who followed him would not have been impressed by the Holy Spirit to do so. If the Church stood where it did in the time of the Apostles the protestant movement would not have been sustainable.

Even if you discount the protestant movement, you need only look at the various Catholic Churches themselves to know that something must have changed. If there had been no change there would be no distinction between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches.

The Church DID need reforming for the secularist took control of the Church and there were many abuses going on. Luther had the right idea, if only he followed through. But, with the nobility trying to gain control of the Church ( because of it’s so called “riches” and the supposed oppression of the nobility by the Church ) and willingly backing Luther, Luther became a pawn for them. Sorry to say it all went to his head, and many were willing to throw off the “yoke of oppression” of the Church. It’s a long and complicated story that never should hve happened if the Church heirarchy were truly God fearing men. But, whatever the case, the Church itself never wavered from or changed, added to, or modified any of the teachings given it by Jesus and the Apostles. What it teaches today is exactly what was taught 2000 years ago.

There is really no basic difference between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. They are both valid and licit. They both adhere strictly to Christ’s commission. The difference between the two is more cultural and/or political than theological. We are both in schism with each blaming the other for the split. As for the various Catholic Churches, each is in communion with the Roman see and with each other, confesses the exact same faith, and is identical in all aspects and respects. The only difference is that each is an ethnic Church that follows it’s own culture in it’s liturgy ( the mass ). So, there really has been no change.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[CatholicLover]

It was never said that Jesus changed the Sabbath day. The Catholic Church HAS the authority. Matt 16:18 has Jesus telling Peter “And I tell you that you are rock ( Cephaseter ) and on this rock I will build my Church”. ( The New International Version Bible, published by Zondervan ) Of course you do not believe it or accept it, for if you did then that would mean that the SDA Church is false in all respecr and your whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

Correct me if I’m wrong but Matthew was written in Greek so it does not matter what language was used to speak the words. The only record we have that close to the source is Greek. Are you saying that you know of an Aramaic record of the book of Matthew that was not based on the original Greek?

I will do more research on this topic because I am not familiar enough with the translations to comment further than I already have.

 

[Javl]

Correct me if I’m wrong but Matthew was written in Greek so it does not matter what language was used to speak the words. The only record we have that close to the source is Greek. Are you saying that you know of an Aramaic record of the book of Matthew that was not based on the original Greek?

I will do more research on this topic because I am not familiar enough with the translations to comment further than I already have.

From what I know and understand, Mathew was translated into Greek from the Aramaic strictly for the Hellenized (Greek ) Jews. This information should be available in any Bible concordance.

Please understand that I am presenting these items as facts in our dialogue. I am not arguing them.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[emarc]

emarc;6904974:

The Adventist view of the Lord’s Supper can be traced back to the Swedish reformer Ulrich Zwingli. Zwingli believed that the bread and wine were symbolic and interpretted when Jesus said “This is” as “This signifies”. He looked at John 6:63 “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life” as his guide to understanding what Jesus meant.

Zwingli rightly pointed out that Jesus said many symbolic things like “I am the door,” “I am the vine,” “I am the living water”. None of those statements were literal and he concluded that Jesus’ words at the Last Supper were not literal either.

Zwingli was only one among other 16th century reformers whose own bible interpretations on the Body and Blood of Christ were in error. How about you believing the words coming from the mouth of Jesus Christ himself?: “I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” (Jn 6) No less than 4 times our Lord repeated himself about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, how many times do you need before you believed? How about Paul warning those who eat Jesus’ flesh or drink his blood unworthily bringing judgment upon themselves? Why would Paul warn them if these were merely symbols? Bringing judgment on symbols? (1 Cor 11:27-29). Early fathers wrote extensively about the Body and Blood of Jesus to be truly his own – 1st century vs. 16th century writers. Who would you believe?

 

[me_again]

And in Acts 13? Why did the Gentiles ask that the “words might be preached to them the next sabbath”?

Those particular Jews, gentiles and others were at the Jewish synagogue. That’s where they went to fulfill their Old Testament obligations. The unconverted Jews continued to proselytize gentiles to accept the yoke of the Old Testament because they rejected the yoke of Jesus.

vs. 44 - “the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.” Why did the non-jews wait until Sabbath?

What else would you expect for a Jewish city in a Jewish nation?

Paul and the other Jews and Gentiles were worshipping together on the Sabbath day. Not Sunday.

Paul specifically proselytized the Jews about Jesus in the synagogue on the Jewish Saturday sabbath. He was seeking to convert unconverted Jews and the synagogue was the best place to find them because they were ordered to be there, per the Mosaic command. Paul was telling them about Christ’s resurrection from the dead. Paul did this until the Lord re-directed him away from the Jews and unto the gentiles.

The Sabbath day predates Abraham, Moses, the Isreallites and the 10 commandments.

You are unable to provide one sola scripture that indicates that people had to worship God on Saturday, prior to issuance of the Mosaic covenant.

Here is the Mosaic covenant**:**

Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the [Saturday] Sabbath day. (Deut. 5:15)

 

[Richard_Kastner]

It was never said that Jesus changed the Sabbath day. The Catholic Church HAS the authority. Matt 16:18 has Jesus telling Peter “And I tell you that you are rock ( Cephaseter ) and on this rock I will build my Church”. ( The New International Version Bible, published by Zondervan ) Of course you do not believe it or accept it, for if you did then that would mean that the SDA Church is false in all respecr and your whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

vs. 17, 18

The Greek word for stone is Petra, a feminine noun. Since the Apostle Simon ( Peter ) is a male the word was translated to male by making it petros so that it would fit. Also Jesus spoke to Peter in Aramaic and not Greek.

Also Jesus is called petra as the rock of our faith and if you read and understand the scriptures where it is used for Jesus it always is used in reference as to building the faith./

Jesus WAS NOT referring to Himself. Why would he build on a Church on Himself and then Change Simon-Peter’s name to rock? This is where sola scriptura results in personal spin and error.

Seems like the only one spinning anything here is you Javl.

Here’s Matt. 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. From the NIV
Not
Matt 16:18 has Jesus telling Peter "And I tell you that you are rock ( Cephaseter ) and on this rock I will build my Church".

The word tanslated to PETER is Petros. There is no indication in the bible or anywhere else that it was ever translated from anything else. The word petros MEANS PETER or a rolling stone. This is the only word in the bible used to designate Peter. Yet does Jesus use this word when He says “on this rock I will build my church” No He doesn’t He uses a word that if it is not used to designate a very large rock it is used to designate Himself.

Matt.7:24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock. (petra)
25And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. (petra)

Luke 6:48
He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock.(petra) and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.(petra)

Romans 9:33
As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock (petra)of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

1 Corinthians 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock(petra) that followed them: and that Rock(petra) was Christ.

There is absolutely no doubt when Jesus says “and on this rock I will build my church” He is talking about HIMSELF.

If that is the case then Jesus would just have to say “I am building my Church…”. No need to mention rock or change Simon’s name, since we Know Jesus is the rock of our faith and salvation. Of what use would it serve to cange Simon’s name to “rock”

Jesus doesn’t need any corrections from you. He did this so that we would not make a mistake as to who He was talking about. You just aren’t listening.

From the bit of Greek that I know. the NIV translation is quite accurate. I accept it as it is since it is the Word of God. Remember, what will happen to whoever adds to ( changes ) the Word of God. Therefore what ever is bound on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever is loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven. The can be no other meaning.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem

The only one changing anything around here is you Javl.

 

[RonTheNewJew]

You are doing a nice job of “debating” my friend. It is interesting that when you go back in history, just a bit further than these Roman Catholic greats that you mentioned; we can see the Apostles themselves; along with Jesus preaching and practicing Adventist doctrines; especially the Sabbath, the second coming, judgment, and a few others. But I can name names from the OT that would also reflect Adventist teachings.

I know that Roman Catholic apoligetics prides itself in being able to trap Protestants with their history argument; but that is the one that worries me the least.

It is iteresting to add that Polycarp of the Eastern Patriarchate of the Judeo-Christian Church not only observed the Shabbat (seventh day Sabbath as did many Christians, including those at Rome at that time), but also he, and the rest of the churches within the area that had previously been most under the influence of the Apostle, John, continued observing Pesach (Passover), beginning each year on whatever day Nisan 15 began (sundown on Nisan 14). The particular day of the week for the beginning of Passover changed each year. This was according to God’s command to Moses in the New Covenant that had not been ratified with any form of sacrifice until Jesus sacrificed Himself on the cross to pay the once-for-all price for our transgressions.

Shalom in Yeshua

 

[CatholicLover]

Those particular Jews, gentiles and others were at the Jewish synagogue. That’s where they went to fulfill their Old Testament obligations. The unconverted Jews continued to proselytize gentiles to accept the yoke of the Old Testament because they rejected the yoke of Jesus.

What else would you expect for a Jewish city in a Jewish nation?

Antioch? It certainly had a Jewish population but it was not a Jewish city in a Jewish Nation.

Paul specifically proselytized the Jews about Jesus in the synagogue on the Jewish Saturday sabbath. He was seeking to convert unconverted Jews and the synagogue was the best place to find them because they were ordered to be there, per the Mosaic command. Paul was telling them about Christ’s resurrection from the dead. Paul did this until the Lord re-directed him away from the Jews and unto the gentiles.

You are unable to provide one sola scripture that indicates that people had to worship God on Saturday, prior to issuance of the Mosaic covenant.

Here is the Mosaic covenant**:**

Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the [Saturday] Sabbath day. (Deut. 5:15)

You continue to ignore all the evidence provided in this thread from the Bible and continue to repeat Deut. 5:15 as if it’s some magic wand that will make the Sabbath go away. It’s not, the Sabbath predates the Isrealites. Just because God commanded them to observe the Sabbath day does not mean noone else should. There are examples of Sabbath observance all over the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments by both Jews and Gentiles from before and after the death of Christ.

You have also avoided answering the main point of the texts I provided again. The Gentiles in Antioch were asking Paul to preach to them on Sabbath after he had preached in the synagogue. If it was his custom to worship on Sunday as you maintain, he would have simply told the Gentiles to come hear him preach on the very next day, Sunday. But he didn’t, instead they had to wait until the following Sabbath. Why do you think he didn’t invite them to hear him on Sunday? They weren’t Jews, they were Gentiles. It wasn’t their tradition to meet on Sabbath right? Unless of course they were Christians or interested in Christianity and Paul was only preaching on Sabbath in the synagogue.

 

[adrift]

It is iteresting to add that Polycarp of the Eastern Patriarchate of the Judeo-Christian Church not only observed the Shabbat (seventh day Sabbath as did many Christians, including those at Rome at that time), but also he, and the rest of the churches within the area that had previously been most under the influence of the Apostle, John, continued observing Pesach (Passover), beginning each year on whatever day Nisan 15 began (sundown on Nisan 14). The particular day of the week for the beginning of Passover changed each year. This was according to God’s command to Moses in the New Covenant that had not been ratified with any form of sacrifice until Jesus sacrificed Himself on the cross to pay the once-for-all price for our transgressions.

Shalom in Yeshua

I am interested in your source for the above statement. It isn’t Passover that was observed but the Resurrection of Jesus. Polycarp had always celebrated on the 14th day of the old Jewish month Nisan, the day of the the Crucificion, regardless of the day of the week on which it fell; They fasted during the day and celebrated the Eucharist commemorating the Resurrection in the evening. The Church other places. uniformly celebrated on the first Sunday following the 14 Nisan, with the Crucifixion commemorated the preceding Friday. (Ecclesiatical History V,24)

 

[Javl]

Seems like the only one spinning anything here is you Javl.

Here’s Matt. 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. From the NIV
Not
Matt 16:18 has Jesus telling Peter “And I tell you that you are rock ( Cephaseter ) and on this rock I will build my Church”.

The word tanslated to PETER is Petros. There is no indication in the bible or anywhere else that it was ever translated from anything else. The word petros MEANS PETER or a rolling stone. This is the only word in the bible used to designate Peter. Yet does Jesus use this word when He says “on this rock I will build my church” No He doesn’t He uses a word that if it is not used to designate a very large rock it is used to designate Himself.

Matt.7:24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock. (petra)
25And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. (petra)

Luke 6:48
He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock.(petra) and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.(petra)

Romans 9:33
As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock (petra)of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

1 Corinthians 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock(petra) that followed them: and that Rock(petra) was Christ.

There is absolutely no doubt when Jesus says “and on this rock I will build my church” He is talking about HIMSELF.

Jesus doesn’t need any corrections from you. He did this so that we would not make a mistake as to who He was talking about. You just aren’t listening.

The only one changing anything around here is you Javl.

No Richard. I change nothing. I would not dare to, for I know what will happen if I change one word. I listen to the word of God and understand and do what He says. You and the SDA are just like the Jehovahs Witnesses who pervert the scriptures to make them fit what you want them to say. And like Christian Science you insist that you have the key to the scriptures.

If I ( we ) am wrong I will admit it, but you refuse to do so. You follow that old saw " I may not always be right, but I am NEVER wrong"!

We give you book, chapter, and verse, for proof and you toss it away as if it were garbage. Some day you may realize that you are wrong and in error. I hope it comes soon.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[adrift]

Correct me if I’m wrong but Matthew was written in Greek so it does not matter what language was used to speak the words. The only record we have that close to the source is Greek. Are you saying that you know of an Aramaic record of the book of Matthew that was not based on the original Greek?

I will do more research on this topic because I am not familiar enough with the translations to comment further than I already have.

Peter the Rock

As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, 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. The missionary’s argument didn’t work and showed a faulty knowledge of Greek. (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).

"We know that Jesus 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,” I said, "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).

"Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.

"You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.
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.

 

[adrift]

You have also avoided answering the main point of the texts I provided again. The Gentiles in Antioch were asking Paul to preach to them on Sabbath after he had preached in the synagogue. If it was his custom to worship on Sunday as you maintain, he would have simply told the Gentiles to come hear him preach on the very next day, Sunday. But he didn’t, instead they had to wait until the following Sabbath. Why do you think he didn’t invite them to hear him on Sunday? They weren’t Jews, they were Gentiles. It wasn’t their tradition to meet on Sabbath right? Unless of course they were Christians or interested in Christianity and Paul was only preaching on Sabbath in the synagogue.

I would suggest to you that Sunday was a day to Worship God not to preach. They gathered on Sunday to share Euchrist.

 

[Protestant101]

Thank you! Now that you confirmed there were no writings supporting SDA doctrines prior to 1863, while Catholics show numerous evidence in writings to back up its historicity, the question becomes “how SDA” managed to be comfortable with their own interpretation of the word of God knowing these are contrary to what Jesus, his Apostles and disciples taught? Don’t ask me how your doctrines are different. Just read again the posts of Benidict, me again, SteveVH, greggy53, Javl, KathleeGee and others who articulated why SDA doctrines run contrary to what the Bible teaches. The early church fathers spoke/wrote intelligibly of their beliefs, practices and traditions for posterity w/c the Catholic Church faithfully did follow for 2,000 years. This is why history is very important. I said earlier I’m just a simple man and the way I see it you cling to your prophetess and Saturday interpretation obstinately at the peril of your own souls.

People have been wrong for longer than 2000 years; or Jesus woul not be necessary. Alleged length of time in existence proves absolutely nothing.

You keep saying that when we show you a passage in the Bible that clearly says “the seventh day” that it is “our interpretation.” But how else can one read the words “seventh day?” Please fill us in instead of dredging up the same old tired excuses. about being the “first.”

You point to “writings” other than the Bible, and proudly proclaim that your beliefs are “proven” yet they are not proven because you can’t point to them in the Bible. You can only say “writings.”

 

[Javl]

People have been wrong for longer than 2000 years; or Jesus woul not be necessary. Alleged length of time in existence proves absolutely nothing.

You keep saying that when we show you a passage in the Bible that clearly says “the seventh day” that it is “our interpretation.” But how else can one read the words “seventh day?” Please fill us in instead of dredging up the same old tired excuses. about being the “first.”

You point to “writings” other than the Bible, and proudly proclaim that your beliefs are “proven” yet they are not proven because you can’t point to them in the Bible. You can only say “writings.”

Just because it’s not in the Bible does not mean it’s not so. There are many things that Jesus did and said that are not in the Bible.

Keep in mind that the Bible is a product of the Catholic Church. As such it had ample opportunity to delete, add, or change, wording to make it agree with what it wanted. But it did not. It was/is faithful to Jesus’ commission and it has heeded John’s warning about changing the Gospel. The Church believes that the Scriptures ( Bible ) are the irrefutible Word of God and are to be taken and understood as such.

PAXDOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Richard_Kastner]

No Richard. I change nothing. I would not dare to, for I know what will happen if I change one word.

You changed this.
“And I tell you that you are rock ( Cephaseter ) and on this rock I will build my Church”.

I listen to the word of God and understand and do what He says. You and the SDA are just like the Jehovahs Witnesses who pervert the scriptures to make them fit what you want them to say. And like Christian Science you insist that you have the key to the scriptures.

Again just hollow accusations Javl. Show me one scripture I have perverted.

How about this one Javl
1 Corinthians 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock(petra) that followed them: and that Rock(petra) was Christ.
Do you believe this or is your pope your spiritual rock?

If I ( we ) am wrong I will admit it, but you refuse to do so.

Oh I admit that you are wrong.

You follow that old saw " I may not always be right, but I am NEVER wrong"!

I am not always right, but the word of God is.

We give you book, chapter, and verse, for proof and you toss it away as if it were garbage. Some day you may realize that you are wrong and in error. I hope it comes soon.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem

Where have you given anything but a misrepresentation of Matt. 16:18?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Just because it’s not in the Bible does not mean it’s not so. There are many things that Jesus did and said that are not in the Bible.

Everything that we need for our salvation is in the bible.

Keep in mind that the Bible is a product of the Catholic Church.

This is just laughable. The bible is the WORD OF GOD.

As such it had ample opportunity to delete, add, or change, wording to make it agree with what it wanted. But it did not.

What do you think it should have changed to “agree with what it wanted”

It was/is faithful to Jesus’ commission and it has heeded John’s warning about changing the Gospel. The Church believes that the Scriptures ( Bible ) are the irrefutible Word of God and are to be taken and understood as such.
PAXDOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Except for this one though huh?

1 Corinthians 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock(petra) that followed them: and that Rock(petra) was Christ.