G
- Status
H
happygal
Guest
I would like to highlight in little unclear statement you made, whom ever now in Heaven are not separated by denomination, what Catholic what Baptist, All of them are Christ believers. In heaven God will not separate you and i as Catholic/Protestant…
C
CreosMary
Guest
Talking to the devil sounds distubingly like satanic worship to me as the word ‘‘pray’’ comes from to talk too.
I had a friend who went to see this Joyce woman when she visted Sydney some years ago, he had drug issues but what did her followers want to do for him? …cure him of the curse of catholicism!!!
By thier fruits
God Bless
T
TheGarg
Guest
and the fact that the Devil tried to use Scripture against Jesus when he tempted him…The Devil knows Scripture better than anyone, and how to use it to lead men astray…geesh…people should read it and not just wave it around all the time.
L
lak611
Guest
“Rock” in the Bible never refers to the Bible. It refers either to God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), Peter, or Israel (example, Abraham is referred to in Isaiah 51: 1). This is from Strongs’ Concordance, a Protestant guide to the Hebrew and Greek that the KJV is based upon.
G
Giovanni
Guest
We are wondering off of the subject a little here, but you are right, this is not the way to approach those who see the truth a little bit different.
I was a bit disturbed however by the remark, because that is case and point with many protestants who take words out of context, and voilha’, that is how it is.
I don’t need to say anything about Peter that has not been covered here already and that you already know, but I believe that Peter lived with his denial of our Lord all of his life, and it tormented him a great deal, even after beig forgiven by our Lord Himself.
But for someone to condemn Peter, Peter, who found himself not worthy to be crucified as our Lord, but to be crucified upside down.
D
DShreffler
Guest
I think that even great Protestants like Billy Graham will stand before God regretful that they failed to embrace his true church. They will understand at that point that they had practiced an edited version of the christian faith. With God all things are possible and certainly I am not saying that Protestants will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but first they will know the fullness of faith which is the Catholic Church.
H
happygal
Guest
Oh really you mean her followers mentioned to your frez that he have Catholicisim devil working in them?? Oh that is not good, well Joyce Meyer have being to my church couple of time (i’m from Singapore quite near Sydney
) but we hasn’t have such problem, because Singapore are religion tolerance thus foreign speaker have to be careful when preaching in Singapore we do not allow bashing of others faith in the church (which is not godly) we rather not to believe things that are not truth, even thought protestant here understand Catholic and Protestant practise are different in lots of way, however we never wanted to cross over to the other line to bash one another…because we don’t want to further to add sin into ourselve
Sorry to heard about such story of you frez, but i hope your frez don’t get effected by what Joyce’s members intention, we are all human so we have to forgive those who have hurt us.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
This message is auto-generated, please do not reply. 
Let’s summarize what all the Protestant scholars are saying in their commentaries on Matthew 16:18 –
(A) Peter is the Rock, the foundation stone of Jesus’ Church, the Church would be built on Peter personally;
(B) Peter’s name means Rock (petros or petra in Greek, Kepha or Cephas in Aramaic);
(C) The slight distinction in meaning for the Greek words for Rock (petros, petra) was largely confined to poetry before the time of Jesus and therefore has no special importance;
(D) The Greek words for Rock (petros, petra) by Jesus’ day were interchangeable in meaning;
(E) The underlying Aramaic Kepha-kepha of Jesus’ words makes the Rock-rock identification certain;
(F) The Greek word petra, being a feminine noun, could not be used for a man’s name, so Petros was used;
(G) Only because of past “Protestant bias” was the Peter is Rock identification denied;
(H) The pun or play on words makes sense only if Peter is the Rock;
(I) Jesus says “and on this rock” not “but on this rock” – the referent is therefore Peter personally;
(J) Verse 19 and the immediate context (singular “you”) shows Peter is the Rock of verse 18;
(K) Peter’s revelation and confession of Jesus as the Christ parallels Jesus’ declaration and identification of Peter as the Rock;
(L) Peter is paralleled to Abraham who also had his name changed, was a Father to God’s people, and was called the Rock (Isaiah 51:1-2; cf. Gen 17:5ff).
William F. Albright and C.S. Mann (from The Anchor Bible series) –
“Rock (Aram. Kepha). This is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times. On building on a rock, or from a rock, cf. Isa 51:1ff; Matt 7:24f. Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community (cf. I will build). Jesus, not quoting the OT, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose. In view of the background of vs. 19 (see below), one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. Cf. in this gospel 10:2; 14:28-31; 15:15. The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence (cf. Gal 2:11ff).” (Albright/Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew [Doubleday, 1971], page 195)
Oscar Cullmann (Lutheran) from Kittel’s Greek standard Theological Dictionary of the New Testament –
“The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and petros: petra = Kepha = petros…Since Peter, the rock of the Church, is thus given by Christ Himself, the master of the house (Is. 22:22; Rev. 3:7), the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he is the human mediator of the resurrection, and he has the task of admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection…The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story…For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art Rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom He has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Cullmann, article on “Rock” (petros, petra) trans. and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Eerdmans Publishing, 1968], volume 6, page 98, 107, 108)
Phil P
Let’s summarize what all the Protestant scholars are saying in their commentaries on Matthew 16:18 –
(A) Peter is the Rock, the foundation stone of Jesus’ Church, the Church would be built on Peter personally;
(B) Peter’s name means Rock (petros or petra in Greek, Kepha or Cephas in Aramaic);
(C) The slight distinction in meaning for the Greek words for Rock (petros, petra) was largely confined to poetry before the time of Jesus and therefore has no special importance;
(D) The Greek words for Rock (petros, petra) by Jesus’ day were interchangeable in meaning;
(E) The underlying Aramaic Kepha-kepha of Jesus’ words makes the Rock-rock identification certain;
(F) The Greek word petra, being a feminine noun, could not be used for a man’s name, so Petros was used;
(G) Only because of past “Protestant bias” was the Peter is Rock identification denied;
(H) The pun or play on words makes sense only if Peter is the Rock;
(I) Jesus says “and on this rock” not “but on this rock” – the referent is therefore Peter personally;
(J) Verse 19 and the immediate context (singular “you”) shows Peter is the Rock of verse 18;
(K) Peter’s revelation and confession of Jesus as the Christ parallels Jesus’ declaration and identification of Peter as the Rock;
(L) Peter is paralleled to Abraham who also had his name changed, was a Father to God’s people, and was called the Rock (Isaiah 51:1-2; cf. Gen 17:5ff).
William F. Albright and C.S. Mann (from The Anchor Bible series) –
“Rock (Aram. Kepha). This is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times. On building on a rock, or from a rock, cf. Isa 51:1ff; Matt 7:24f. Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community (cf. I will build). Jesus, not quoting the OT, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose. In view of the background of vs. 19 (see below), one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. Cf. in this gospel 10:2; 14:28-31; 15:15. The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence (cf. Gal 2:11ff).” (Albright/Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew [Doubleday, 1971], page 195)
Oscar Cullmann (Lutheran) from Kittel’s Greek standard Theological Dictionary of the New Testament –
“The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and petros: petra = Kepha = petros…Since Peter, the rock of the Church, is thus given by Christ Himself, the master of the house (Is. 22:22; Rev. 3:7), the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he is the human mediator of the resurrection, and he has the task of admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection…The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story…For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art Rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom He has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Cullmann, article on “Rock” (petros, petra) trans. and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Eerdmans Publishing, 1968], volume 6, page 98, 107, 108)
Phil P
C
Crumpy
Guest
As a lifelong Catholic, I don’t care to listen to many protestant evangelists. A few of them make me think, and my short list is Billy Graham, Charles Stanley, Tony Evans (when I could listen to his broadcasts), James Kennedy (but not all the time), and a couple others.
The semblance of a mega-church on a tv broadcast makes me change channels quickly.
I saw a local prot. pastor on an “Ask the Pastor” program deal with these verses about Peter the Rock. He pointed out that only four verses later, Jesus was saying to the “rock” “Get thee behind me Satan”
The semblance of a mega-church on a tv broadcast makes me change channels quickly.
I saw a local prot. pastor on an “Ask the Pastor” program deal with these verses about Peter the Rock. He pointed out that only four verses later, Jesus was saying to the “rock” “Get thee behind me Satan”
D
DShreffler
Guest
I thought Charles Stanley was okay until i got on the net and found all the websites calling him a heretic.
That’s part of what keeps me Catholic. Other than EWTN, I just avoid faith via mass media.
M
mikemck
Guest
Actually, Meyer belongs to an aberrant movement within the church called “Word of Faith”.
Outside of that small, fringe group, she isn’t respected at all by Christians.
Go to any Christian message board where her name comes up and you’ll find that the only people who aren’t blasting her for her false teachings are those who are in this small, fringe group.
She is not a fundamentalist.
No. Peter’s confession is the rock upon which the church is built.
Peter was just a man.
Yeah, about as crazy as calling her a fundamentalist.
S
sadie2723
Guest
Well, she calls herself a fundamentalist…so I just let her define herself.
As far as to your comments on Peter, I always love how fundamentalist christians who “believe what the Bible says…literally” can’t seem to read.
I think that fundamentalists should just own up to what they really think about the Bible: “We think it is literal…as long as we don’t disagree with what it says.”
Thanks for your comments…they are always good for a laugh.
J
Jaypeeto3
Guest
The poster above is wrong.
Joyce Meyer has a HUGE following,
and a huge income that comes from that huge following.
Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)
Joyce Meyer has a HUGE following,
and a huge income that comes from that huge following.
Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)
M
mikemck
Guest
I see. So then if she calls herself a Roman Catholic, then you’re going to say that she’s a Roman Catholic?
Anybody can call themselves anything they like, but looking at her beliefs and examining them in light of Fundamentalist beliefs (and I’ve been a Fundamentalist for nigh on fifteen years now) it is clear that she isn’t one.
Well, aren’t you sweet.
I read just fine, thank you. In fact, I’ll pit my grad degree against your certificate from Hamburger U. any day of the week.
So, are all Roman Catholics such idiots or just you?
M
mikemck
Guest
Really? Show me one person outside of the WoF movement who takes her seriously.
Show me one fundamentalist who doesn’t think she’s a false teacher.
J
Jaypeeto3
Guest
Hamburger U !! That’s cute.
I know of one very famous fundamentalist Ph.D. whose doctorates
college & Post grad were all from Diploma mills (Hamburger U’s),
namely one “Dr.” Walter Martin, author of THE KINGDOM OF THE CULTS.
I know of one very famous fundamentalist Ph.D. whose doctorates
college & Post grad were all from Diploma mills (Hamburger U’s),
namely one “Dr.” Walter Martin, author of THE KINGDOM OF THE CULTS.
S
sadie2723
Guest
Well, she would not call herself a Roman Catholic without the Bishop doing something about it. However, anyone can call themselves a fundamentalist…and she does. So, it is a little more complicated than that.
Well, at least you and I agree that she can call herself a fundamentalist.
Actually, yes, I am.
Well now, that was sweet. I have a PhD from Harvard…thanks for playing.
Thanks for proving my point. Rather than argue about your interpretation, you just start calling people names…now that is something that we are pretty familiar with.
Cheers!
T
tequilamac
Guest
Actually, you are both correct. The devil cannot stand against the Church nor can he stand against scripture properly proclaimed. OUr rock is yes, Peter, that is the Rock the Church is founded upon, and our Rock is also Christ who incidentally is also the Word. So either way, Church and scripture can both be considered rock.
S
sadie2723
Guest
That is an interesting point. Well put!
- Status