J
- Status
J
joe370
Guest
Never heard that one before. That makes more sense to you, than the idea of using a masculine noun, such as petros, for the man Simon, instead of a feminine noun which would be no different than you calling me Josephine?
"…just as it is written, "behold I lay in Zion a stone and stumbling and a rock…
Notice that Christ is also referred to as lithos, which describes a stone that is smaller than petros, which shows that these words were, at times, used interchangeably.
“and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.”
This, as you know, is not a proper name, like the name Jesus, so the female connotation matters naught. Petros was Simon’s new proper name, so it did matter.
J
joe370
Guest
David, just curious, why, in your opinion, the name change from Simon to Petros aka a small insignificant stone? Was it to indicate Simon’s weak human capabilities or something along those lines? I’m just trying to figure why Jesus would say to Simon, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven, and then, in the same breath, proceed to insult Simon by changing his name to something so diminutive in stature.
Your thoughts?
Your thoughts?
B
benedictus2
Guest
Oh yeah? I suppose I would agree with you.
Go back to Matthew 16. How did Jesus begin his speech to Peter? He said Blessed are you Simon bar Jonah? Bar is Aramaic for son. So do you think having started in Aramaic he then changes to Greek?
Well no. St Paul also refers to Simon as Cephas. Now why do you think someon like Paul would call Simon Cephas?
Ha! Now do you get it. Did the Bible refer to Christ as Petra? If so you are saying that Christ is female? You see in Greek Petra is a female name. Was Christ called Petra (i.e. as His name) or is it more as an adjective?
Sorry but Christ strongly disagrees with you as per the Bible.
Are you on drugs? Did you not just say that? Isn’t that what you have been saying all along?
Well sorry petal but that is not what the Bible says. Peter is Cephas. Don’t you even see that you are now arguing against the Bible?
You know what, you are so given over to the lies that you have chosen to believe that now you can’t even seem to see the tiniest glimer of truth.
Remember what I said about the Pharaoh. The more you insist in your will the more given over to your own will you become.
Learn to read and listen to what God is saying in His Word.
God the Father chose to reveal the truth to Peter and to Peter only. And this revelation is what caused Jesus to rename Simon as Rock. God the Father it seems picked Peter and yet here you are arguing with that choice. If you argue with that choice you argue with God. Which by the way is not surprising since throughout this discourse all you have been interested in is your own little persepctive.
They were all equally chosen by Christ, but guess what, it was Christ Himself who singled out Peter time and time again. If it happened only once then maybe your argument would have some credibility to it. But no, Christ singled Peter out many times.
You surely could not be that dense. Where exactly in Matthew 16 did it say that it was revealed to the others. How did the others answer? Did they give the same answer as Peter? What did Christ say? Christ said “My father revealed it to you”. And the “you” here was Peter because He was talking to Peter.
David. Read the Bible properly.
I am saying He CHOSE not to. The Church was His choice and His will. The apostles were His choice and His will.
Everytime you argue against this, you are arguing against His will. You are arguing against Scripture.
Notice how your latest answer have all been speculations rather than taken from Scripture. That is because you have finally realized that we are right so you have been reduced to speculations.
Being born again is being part of the Church. The early Christians did not consider baptism as you see it now. Being born again in baptism is being incorporated in the Church so that through this, we may become illumined by the light that Christ gives to His Church.
Huh?
When one is baptised, one is incorporated into the Church and so the baptised knows Christ but only through His Church.
Which by the way is true for you as well. You only know of Jesus because of the Catholic Church. Because the Catholic Church is the way that Christ has chosen to make Him know to the world.
[/quote]
B
benedictus2
Guest
Now you are trying to take refuge in “mystery”?
Cop out.Only the True Church rightly gives illumination. Not any other Church. Only the One Truth Church. All other sorts of “illumination” are either imperfect or downright guidance of the prince darkness cloaked as an angel of light.
You are talking nonsense. We are not talking about a garage. But then perhaps your church is one. After protestant churches these days are undiscernable from any ordinary building.
Yeah? Which spirit? The evil or the good one? And how do you tell which one considering that the devil masquerages as an angel of light.
Christ’s Church is not based on “fellowship” or “experience”. Christ Church was the one established by Him. Churches that came 1900 years later, we can definitely say that was not the one He established at 33AD.
And the one that truly meets that criteria is the Catholic Church. She is the only Church that can be truly said to be universal.
Whether you recognized it or not there is only one magisterium. If not the Catholic Church’s then it becomes a free for all. Everyone becomes their own magisterium. And I am sure you enjoy playing magisterium Because that essentially is what you have been doing all this time…
The Catholic Church’s. Yes, David, we gave you the Bible. But then of course your forefathers proceeded to mutilate it.
The Church who is inspired by Christ as He has willed. You see that is the one thing that you have decided that you will be blind to. Christ willed the Catholic Church. He did not will your Church. Some ordinary human person did that.
But then I suppose you prefer to follow an ordinary human being rather than Christ.
W
wmscott
Guest
Go benedictus2 Go, get busy, get busy……
Just to let you know there are those of us who have been watching this conversation between you and David. I wanted to let you know that your cheer leaders are still out there applauding your efforts to correct the errors against the faith. I really think that some folks think that if they keep repeating it long enough then it will be come true.
It reminds me of Einstein’s quote regarding Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Just to let you know there are those of us who have been watching this conversation between you and David. I wanted to let you know that your cheer leaders are still out there applauding your efforts to correct the errors against the faith. I really think that some folks think that if they keep repeating it long enough then it will be come true.
It reminds me of Einstein’s quote regarding Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
B
benedictus2
Guest
That is an excellent definition!
D
david_ruiz
Guest
D
david_ruiz
Guest
joe370;8584361Never heard that one before. That makes more sense to you said:Simon, instead of a feminine noun which would be no different than you calling me Josephine?
Not sure what you are getting at .Yes, Peter is petros , which has specific geological AND masculine meaning. Peter has no reference to feminine petra.
Yes, I saw that It could be both, but there may be reasons fro each specific use ,and perhaps not just whim. Aramaic also has different words for rock/stone.
Yes this scripture refers to jesus as rock -petra,so not sure waht you are getting at .Again ,besides masculine /feminine there are geological differences also. So maybe what you are saying is the type of rock/rockmass is applied to Jesus , and though not a proper name can be feminine.Is that what you mean ? Again ,no dispute on Peter /cephas/petros.It is the other rock.It’s funny but the 1 Corinthians 10:4 quote has similar pattern where first rock is petros, and second rock is petra, just like mat 16This, as you know, is not a proper name, like the name Jesus, so the female connotation matters naught. Petros was Simon’s new proper name, so it did matter.
D
david_ruiz
Guest
Well first I am not sure how insignificant petros is .It could be all relative as to what it is being compared to . I would not not use word stone but rock .If the rockmass is Jesus or something big and “Godly” then being a piece (rock) of that rockmass is not bad. However ,it might be as you propose to me containing the good, bad, and ugly of our regenerated selves, or at least our dependence on the motherload rockmass. For as you know , as soon as Peter forgot this, he “fell” and was rebuked harshly by Jesus with, “get behind me Satan.” in the same chapter. It is also significant that Christ calls him by his birth name ,which is limited as flesh yet with new life can receive divine illumination. Cephas was his “new” name given to him by Christ at the beginning of their ministry…It is said Christ gives us new names ,one that have special meaning ,known deeply between the Lord and the recipient .Perhaps it was a fitting reminder to Peter to remain humble , even after such a glorious confession and accolade given by His Lord. It is many things to be pondered. I know I would take and cherish even a fraction of that diminuative stature if from the hand of the Lord…What masterful, precise, prophetic, loving “wording” from the Lord…Thanks Joe370, you make me babble.David, just curious, why, in your opinion, the name change from Simon to Petros aka a small insignificant stone? Was it to indicate Simon’s weak human capabilities or something along those lines? I’m just trying to figure why Jesus would say to Simon, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven, and then, in the same breath, proceed to insult Simon by changing his name to something so diminutive in stature.
Your thoughts?
D
david_ruiz
Guest
D
david_ruiz
Guest
Oh, so close but so far .Yet it is the Gospel we are talking about, hence of grave importance. One must be born again to even see the kingdom . We are baptized by the Holy Ghost, into his Body, His Church. I do not think water baptism is regenerational ,as did Pope Stephen also (250AD). Water baptism has evolved in church history ,so please don’t think it is now what it was then entirely.If you repent of unbelief and finally believe that Christ is our only hope and messiah /Savior,indeed be water baptized,confessing the Lord before man, sealing your salvation .Illumination comes from the Holy Spirit to the individual.The Holy Spirit illumines what the church teaches ,or what the Word says etc .But there is NO middle entity in this Revelation .It is one on one .If you believe that Christ is Messiah ,and has saved you ,and that He set up his church/magisterium/catechism etc.,it is because the Holy Spirit told you so.
As you see our diversity as telltale ,many see this statement as telltale, of CC departing from original gospel,the “only thru His church” part .I read OT and think it is only thru Jews that salvation comes ,which it does .But God still can not be put into a box ,and you make a box when you define Church as your church and “the” church ,like, "I am of Peter ,or I am of Paul. Did not God speak to a pharoah (abraham passing thru), Nebuchanezzar,Darius etc.and they were not Jews…Bottom line ,when you are born again ,it is one on one with Christ .The Word ,the Church may lead you to Him and tell you about Him ,but ,but it is still you and the Lord,hand in hand, that walk from death unto life, and into the “Church”.You can not corner the market on this loving Lord. He is “universal”
read above.
J
jenetlen
Guest
Mine answer would be Literal …
J
joe370
Guest
joe370;8584326:
but only for Peter.As far as "grammar’ , man that is tough to say the inspired Greek erred if that is what you mean.
Can you show evidence that Jesus didn’t say: you are kepha and on this kepha…?
You would rather entertain the notion that the inspired Greek might be erroneous rather than entertain the notion that Jesus, the Divine Rock, built His church on Rock aka Simon?
J
joe370
Guest
All changed on Pentecost. He also said, much later: feed my sheep… feed my lambs…feed my sheep…making Peter Jesus’ earthly shepherd of His earthly church. Of course I am not sure what “get behind me Satan” has to do with anything, unless you believe that that verse proves that Peter couldn’t have been a shepherd of Jesus’ church?
So you do concede that Jesus re-named Simon Cephas aka mass-rock? Or are you sticking with the diminutive little stone?
B
benedictus2
Guest
Oh yeah? This answer of yours just shows your total disconnect with Scripture. Paul refers to Simon as Cephas because Jesus renamed Simon Cephas. Paul refers to Peter and Cephas because they are one and the same Rock.
See this is the kind of reply that gets us in circles. When you no longer have a rational reply you go for obfuscation and evation. You think I won’t see through it but I do.
Bible says it was Jesus who said what will be the foundation of the Church. Since Jesus spoke Aramaic then Jesus said: You are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my church. Only someone devoid of reason would even insist on the petros /petra non controversy this late in the thread.
Sorry but in Aramaic Kepha is Kepha. Period.
No, that is what YOU are inferring improperly. Cephas is Rock and the only reason the Greek changed it to Petros is because it would have been totally stupid to give a female name (Petra) to a man. And that totally stupid thing is what you seem to be arguing for.
No they aren’t. It is only so to those who are devoid of sense when it comes to interpretation.
If Love of God is the beginning of wisdom how then are we to account for it’s absence from your reply?
Only someone dense will use the same argument after it has been shown that Jesus spoke Aramaic. In that particular discourse He spoke Aramaic. He did not say petros or petra since He was not talking in Greek. He simply said Kepha. And Kepha means only one thing - Rock.
As a matter of fact, the change to Cephas from Kepha is the same masculinization of the term.
No you are totally blind to what you are reading. You are reading scripture but you are not seeing it. And you know what is frightening about that? It is not that you are naturally blind. It is a blindness that of your choosing. It is a blindness that you ensure will not go away. That is what is known as a hardening of heart.
Yes, David. Read more. Read mre of Peter, James and John and in each book you will see that Christ singles out Peter each time. In each book Peter takes primacy. Read Acts. Read. Read. Read.
But before you will absord it you first must get rid of that willfull blindness. Otherwise nothing will get through.
My goodness. How dense can you get? Did Christ not address Him saying: Blessed are you Simon bar Jonah. The rest of that discourse was addressed to Peter within hearing of the others. But it was addressed to Peter.
As I said before, you don’t seem to understand sentence structure.
Well hellooo, did He say to everyone of them the same thing? You really are inventing your own gospel.
Of course the others were “illumined”.
So let’s take a typical classroom. Teacher says to John Smith : John, you are a brilliant student and you do your homework well. I will make you the captain of the class.
So tell me, do you think the teacher was telling everyone that they will be captain of class just because they happened to in the classroom when the teacher was speaking?
Seriously, you’ve got to think before you fire or you’ll keep doing what you’ve doing - shooting yourself in the foot!
Divine illimunation is for all but it so happens that Christ courses that divine illumination through His Church. Any illumination not coming from his Church is suspect.
No, I am giving you facts. You are giving me fairy tales.
B
benedictus2
Guest
What Jesus said was “one must be born from above” which Nicodemus mistook for being "born again’.
The Holy Ghost baptizes ?
Where did you get that idea?Because it seems you are ignorant of large chunks of the NT. Peter wrote “baptism saves you now”
HUh?
Do you even know that baptism itself implies water. To baptize is to immerse in water.
That is a first stage. The spiritual life has many stages. It is a journey.
Sometimes not always. Sometimes it is actually the devil but the person mistakes it for the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit guides the Church as to what she should teach.
Yes, that happens too.
Yes, there is. Because the Bible you are fond of (but don’t follow) happens to have been written through the Church by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Know what? You owe the Church a huge debt of gratitude for the reason you are a Christian now is because of the Catholic Church.
Nope. Totally unbiblical. Even Paul had to submit himself to the magiserterium. He had to be annointed by Annanias and he had to ask the Apostles to what to do about the circumcision issue.
No, it is because Christ built a Church and this Church is the one that told the world so. If it weren’t for the Church writing the NT you would have no idea who Christ is. But the Holy Spirit does confirm in one what the Church teaches if one is truly open to the Holy Spirit.
Considering that the Catholic Church is the one who proclaimed the gospel, then it is not she who departed. It is those who left the Catholic Church who departed from the gospel.
You know what, the fact that they left the Church is itself the evidence that they have departed from the Gospel because that is so totally against Christ’s will. You can see this corruption of the gospel in the different teachings that you get from protestant chuches. Obfuscation is happening even in your own beliefs.
.
If that is a box then that is a box of God’s OWN MAKING. It was He who established it. So take that issue up with Him. Ask Him why He had to establish a Church instead of just writing a book? Ask Him why did He have to desire unity and just not let every Tom, Dirk and Harry decide for himself.
Well no because that is not what Jesus said and that is not what Jesus willed. You see, you will find out His will through His words and His actions. And guess what? His will was to build a Church.
You know what you have been doing all this time? Fighting against God. Fighting His will. Angry at His will.
Nope, not just you and the Lord. That is not what Jesus intended. Religion is not a private thing. That is why St Paul said the Church is Christ’s Body.
That is true. But you cannot be truly loving the Lord if you are always fighting against His will, angry at His will and annoyed at His Word such that you invent your own.
PS I will be busy in the next few days so will not be able to reply should you reply to this.
Peace and Joy of Christ!
D
david_ruiz
Guest
david ruiz;8588092:
What we have for sure is the inspired Greek ,and it does NOT have kepha twice but once. I am not implying error .It is what it is .Do you see kepha twice in the Greek ?Can you show evidence that Jesus didn’t say: you are kepha and on this kepha…?
You would rather entertain the notion that the inspired Greek might be erroneous rather than entertain the notion that Jesus, the Divine Rock, built His church on Rock aka Simon?
D
david_ruiz
Guest
Definitely not rockmass but “rock”All changed on Pentecost. He also said, much later: feed my sheep… feed my lambs…feed my sheep…making Peter Jesus’ earthly shepherd of His earthly church. Of course I am not sure what “get behind me Satan” has to do with anything, unless you believe that that verse proves that Peter couldn’t have been a shepherd of Jesus’ church?
So you do concede that Jesus re-named Simon Cephas aka mass-rock? Or are you sticking with the diminutive little stone?
J
jlhargus
Guest
, Saul, Saul, why me dost thou persecute? hard for thee against pricks to kick!] {Bible, YOUNG’S LITERAL TRANSLATION, Caps added by me}
- Status