Matt 16:18 - I want more insight

[SFLCatholic]

“Why don’t we wait til we see his stripes before we call him a leopard”, is all I’m saying.

Until then, it’s best to assume that he is honestly come here lookng for answers. Some people have been raised on anti-cathilic rhetoric for a long tie, and it may take a while beofre the Holy Spirit lifts the scales from their eyes.

True. Except that micas claimed to be Catholic for 44 years. He says he was “saved” 4 years ago. So, I can’t imagine him being raised on anti-Catholic sentiment.

And the tone of his posts have the flippant arrogance of a Jack Chick wanna-be. Sorry, I can’t sit idly by while people defame the One True Faith here in our own backyard. I do not go to thier web sites and combat them.

Seems if he was Catholic for that long, he might have a little more understanding of the One True Faith. I hope he would at least have more concrete reasons for leaving Catholicism than the fallacious ones he has been supporting on here.

However, the remark I orginally made in regards to his blasphemy, was a response to a comment that he made about calling the Pope the Holy Father. I was being sarcastic. I should have given my quote some more validity.

Here’s the quote to which I refer:

to have the nerve to take a name ment for our spiritual Father alone is blasphemey.Id be careful going around calling the pope Holy Father.That title is for God alone

Regardless, it seems as though micas and paarsurrey have left. Typical of the Chick tract crowd. They crumble under pressure.

 

[NotWorthy]

True. Except that micas claimed to be Catholic for 44 years. He says he was “saved” 4 years ago. So, I can’t imagine him being raised on anti-Catholic sentiment.

Do you think this is why he left the church? It certainly wasn’t because he was tired of Receiving Christ in the Eucharist. And remember, our good man micas does love the Lord with a great deal of zeal. That’s a good thing. With a little charity, he may come to realize what pearl he left behind in his search for Jesus. Reverts are not that uncommon, my friend! Let’s pray for the re-unification of all Christians! Amen!!!

And the tone of his posts have the flippant arrogance of a Jack Chick wanna-be. Sorry, I can’t sit idly by while people defame the One True Faith here in our own backyard. I do not go to thier web sites and combat them.

It’s been said that I’m flippant, yet anybody who knows me, knows I love the Lord and my Church. Flippant does not mean non-caring. It may mean, I don’t want to get into an argument.

Seems if he was Catholic for that long, he might have a little more understanding of the One True Faith. I hope he would at least have more concrete reasons for leaving Catholicism than the fallacious ones he has been supporting on here.

How many people that truly understand our faith, leave our faith? I know there are some, but they are rare indeed.

However, the remark I orginally made in regards to his blasphemy, was a response to a comment that he made about calling the Pope the Holy Father. I was being sarcastic. I should have given my quote some more validity.

I’m not going to degrade anyone for defending that biblical statement. It’s a common arguement. Our separated brothers just fail to realize that nearyly every faith called their ministers “Father” as a sign of respect. micas just doesn’t understand that Jesus was going a little deeper than the surface of what He said. St. Paul and other Sacred Writers certainly saw this in Jesus’ words.

Regardless, it seems as though micas and paarsurrey have left. Typical of the Chick tract crowd. They crumble under pressure.

They’ll be back. Don’t worry. But I don’t think they’re together. Even micas has to be offended by some of the things Paars says.

Regarding Paars, has he accurately quoted a single verse of our bible, yet? The poor guy has mis-represented everything he’s said. It’s very confusing to argue against.

 

[SFLCatholic]

They’ll be back. Don’t worry. But I don’t think they’re together. Even micas has to be offended by some of the things Paars says.

Regarding Paars, has he accurately quoted a single verse of our bible, yet? The poor guy has mis-represented everything he’s said. It’s very confusing to argue against.

All points taken.

How can Paars be expected to quote the bible accurately when he doesn’t seem to have a working knowledge of his own Muslim faith?

I am not sure about them not working together. Reading thorugh some of thier stuff I had the feeling its the work of one man using two voices.

 

[NotWorthy]

All points taken.

How can Paars be expected to quote the bible accurately when he doesn’t seem to have a working knowledge of his own Muslim faith?

I am not sure about them not working together. Reading thorugh some of thier stuff I had the feeling its the work of one man using two voices.

I may be a “trusting fool” but I haven’t seen the leopards’ spots yet.

Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt!

 

[micas]

And just when I thought we were going to be friends…

Yes, Jesus was given all authority. What does he do with it? Matthew tells us. He gives it to the Apostles. All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you…

We know that God alone has the power to forgive men’s sins. And yet John tells us that Jesus gave this authority to the Apostles. "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained. Notice that Jesus says, “As the Father has sent me”. It was the Father Who gave Jesus authority, Jesus says this Himself. Now Jesus passes on that authority to the Apostles.

BTW, In John 8:56, Jesus Himself used the term, for Abraham:*** "Abraham your father*** rejoiced that he was to see my day . . .

Paul tells the Philippians that the proof of Timothy’s loyalty is to be found in the fact that he had served Paul in the Gospel as “a Son with the FATHER.” (Phil. 2:22) micas, are saying that Paul means “a Son with the Lord our God”? Paul is comparing himself to God? I don’t think so!!!

BTW, spaces and paragraphs would sure be nice. It’s late and hard to separate what you are saying with it bunched up like that.

Noteworthy Iam sorry for putting that angry sign on the post i was convected all night about it,and would like to be your friend.Just wanted to tell you about a book i read once a few years back cant think of the name and someone borrowed it and didnt return it .anyway It was a true story of a Evangelical ,and a Catholic priest who were friends and were always trying to convert one another.So they thought it would be interesting if they started e-mailing each other and share the differances of each others faith then place there debates in a book .the bottom line is they would get into some pretty heavy debates and you would think there friendship was over but they would always come back with kindness and respect for each other the next time they would get toetherSo this scripture came to mind Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in loweliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself.Let each of you look out not only for his own interests,but also for the interest of others .Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.Philippians 2:3-5a.Iam not going to respond to your last post today my mind is fried,i will catch up with you Lord willing on monday.

 

[micas]

To respond to what you said above, I’ll use an answer you gave to me when I showed 19 Bible verses that supported Peter as the first Pope:

thats a bunch of reading into scripture were ther is nothing there Iam sure you and other Bereans who have been programed to believe such nonsence, will believe that Berean propaganda .But if some person who just happened to be reading those verses and thought to himelf yes thats speaking of the Rapture. By the way their Nicolaitans Jesus hates them( Rev.2:15) The Bereans take scripture to try and make it fit there false religious system.

The irony is that you deny Jesus handed authority to Peter when this is clearly in the Bible (Matthew 16:17-19), and the Church since the beginning has always believed this passage to mean Peter is the Rock on which Christ built his Church.

Then you accept a novel doctrine of men (the Rapture) because of a few verses (1 Thes & 1 Cor) that the Church since the beginning has always believed refer to the Second Coming of Christ, not to a secret Rapture.

Today, most mainstream Christians do not accept the various Rapture theories. The Rapture is largely an American phenonemon which was synthesized 1800 years after the Resurrection.

No its not.Why are you so desperate to show some kind of temporal power by humans .The bible teaches us to live quit lives,not build a monarchy and force RCC religion by force by the threat of death if they didnt,and I think you should really look into the forgerys and lies that were perpitrated by you religion throught the centurys.chistianity is faith in Jesus christ RC is a man made religion of men trying to force there doctrines of devils down peoples throats and Iam tired and wont respond any more today latter

 

[NotWorthy]

Noteworthy Iam sorry for putting that angry sign on the post i was convected all night about it,and would like to be your friend.Just wanted to tell you about a book i read once a few years back cant think of the name and someone borrowed it and didnt return it .anyway It was a true story of a Evangelical ,and a Catholic priest who were friends and were always trying to convert one another.So they thought it would be interesting if they started e-mailing each other and share the differances of each others faith then place there debates in a book .the bottom line is they would get into some pretty heavy debates and you would think there friendship was over but they would always come back with kindness and respect for each other the next time they would get toetherSo this scripture came to mind Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in loweliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself.Let each of you look out not only for his own interests,but also for the interest of others .Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.Philippians 2:3-5a.Iam not going to respond to your last post today my mind is fried,i will catch up with you Lord willing on monday.

micas, these Forums can become addictive. I’m supposed to be finishing up my Sunday School class preparations, and where do you find me? Here!!!

Don’t worry, my brother, I still love you. Any differences we have are nothing compared to our Love of God.

Always remember that.

Oh, and when you become un-fried on Monday, try to remember paragraphs and spaces!!! :bounce:

 

[adrift]

No its not.Why are you so desperate to show some kind of temporal power by humans .The bible teaches us to live quit lives,not build a monarchy and force RCC religion by force by the threat of death if they didnt,and I think you should really look into the forgerys and lies that were perpitrated by you religion throught the centurys.chistianity is faith in Jesus christ RC is a man made religion of men trying to force there doctrines of devils down peoples throats and Iam tired and wont respond any more today latter

Why do you ignore those post that show your error.
From Post 47

Quote:
Originally Posted by micas View Post
Hi LT,first of all any debate that you have with Evangelicals etc.will have to be biblically sound.Especially the claim that the Catholic church and the supremacy of the Pope lay on this verse.Matt16:18.So was Peter the rock on which Christ would build His church.Or is it the confession that Peter made. You are the Christ the Son of the living God. The word Peter,Petros means a small stone. start by looking at John 1:42 .It says —And he brought him to Jesus .Now when Jesus looked at him,He said you are Simon the son of Jonah.You shall be called Cephas(which is translated A stone).If you want to continue let me know,and I will continue with you if not see you around.
The word Peter means rock. There is no Greek word that is Petros.
Petros is masculine of the word petra. Cephas is translated as rock.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…ghlight=petros

jmcrae
had a good explanation
Quote:
With regard to the Petros/Petras question, it is, of course, very valuable to move back to the Aramaic, where we find that Peter’s name, “Kephas,” as he is referred to throughout the book of Acts and in many of St. Paul’s epistles, means “a large rock” - that is, “Petra” in Greek.

From this, along with the fact that the word “petros” was not in use in the Greek language at the time of Matthew, it is easy to see that Jesus’ new name for Simon, which we pronounce as “Peter” in English, means “a large rock” and that Jesus, indeed, intended to ordain Peter as head of His Church, as our Catholic Church history also confirms.

We can also quite profitably move forward to the English as it is used in modern times, by simply reversing the problem and asking ourselves, “What is the name given to little girls, when we wish to name them after the Apostle Peter?”

The name given to these little girls (at least, in larger towns and in cities) is “Petra.” Further, little Petra knows, usually by the time she is three years old, that the reason she is called “Petra” is that “Peter” is a boy’s name - this little three year old girl understands something very important here, which is that Petra is the girl’s name, and Peter is the boy’s name, but that both names are the same name, and that, when a boy or man is named after a Petra, he has to be called “Peter,” just as when a girl or woman is named after a Peter, she has to be called “Petra.”
If you diagram the sentence, you will see clearly that “Upon this Rock” is a prepositional phrase that modifies Peter.

The Rock IS Peter these versus are followed by

19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Keys are the symbol of authority that Jesus gave to Peter. Jesus is establishing a Church that is obvious because He says that He is. He is establishing this Church on Peter, because He says he is, He is giving Peter authority because Jesus says so. All biblical. Now you said that you don’t accept it unless it is biblical so here it is biblical be not unbelieving but believing.

 

[guanophore]

Thats an interesting concept except we find Jesus just a few verses down telling Peter(the rock)But He turned and said to Peter,Get behind Me satan !You are an offence to Me ,and are not mindful of the things of God,but the things of men.Matthew 16:23 pretty harsh words for someone who as you suggest has just been given the keys to the kingdom of God and complete authority over Christ church.I dont by it sorry:shrug:

Fortunately, it’s not for sale! It was already paid for by the precious blood of Jesus.

It is a good proof that infallible does not equal inerrant.

 

[adrift]

Thats an interesting concept except we find Jesus just a few verses down telling Peter(the rock)But He turned and said to Peter,Get behind Me satan !You are an offence to Me ,and are not mindful of the things of God,but the things of men.Matthew 16:23 pretty harsh words for someone who as you suggest has just been given the keys to the kingdom of God and complete authority over Christ church.I dont by it sorry:shrug:

Jn 21:1-19 or 21:1-14

“Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?”
Simon Peter answered him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
He then said to Simon Peter a second time,
“Simon, son of John, do you love me?”
Simon Peter answered him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
Jesus said to him the third time,
“Simon, son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was distressed that Jesus had said to him a third time,
“Do you love me?” and he said to him,
“Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.”
Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.

Jesus does not say this to any of the other disciples just to Peter.

 

[NotWorthy]

Jn 21:1-19 or 21:1-14

Jesus does not say this to any of the other disciples just to Peter.

Adrift, look at that scene in it’s larger context. What is Jesus sitting in front of? A Charcoal fire. Where was the last time that we see a charcoal fire in John’s Gospel? Peter is going to deny Christ three times.

Christ, evidently, is showing Peter by asking him three times for his love, that He is allowing Peter to “repent” from his denial.

Also, what are the verbs? Tend… Feed… Things a shepherd would do. Christ, the Good Shepherd, is asking Peter to be the Shepherd to His Flock.

Who are His Flock? The Lambs are the future Christians? The Sheep are the future Church leaders (priests and bishops).

 

[adrift]

NotWorthy,

Thank you for helping to jell what I was trying to point out.

 

[SFLCatholic]

No its not.Why are you so desperate to show some kind of temporal power by humans .The bible teaches us to live quit lives,not build a monarchy and force RCC religion by force by the threat of death if they didnt,and I think you should really look into the forgerys and lies that were perpitrated by you religion throught the centurys.chistianity is faith in Jesus christ RC is a man made religion of men trying to force there doctrines of devils down peoples throats and Iam tired and wont respond any more today latter

I think you need to read your Protestant history. You might want to start with Oliver Cromwell.

Once you do that micas, you won’t be so quick to throw stones.

 

[Janet_S]

I think you need to read your Protestant history. You might want to start with Oliver Cromwell.

Once you do that micas, you won’t be so quick to throw stones.

Keep in mind, Micas said this in one of his posts:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2122124&postcount=33

“thats why we also carry are bibles as to not be decieved. but to be like the Bereans who searched the scriptures daily to find out wether these things were so. Acts 17:11.”

I suspect he is a follower of Dave Hunt and the Berean Call who’s motto is “[The Bereans] searched the scriptures daily [to see] whether those things were so.–Acts 17:11”
thebereancall.org/

If Micas is a following of Dave Hunt (a popular anti-Catholic “writer” or more likely a"ghost-writer"), this explains his virulent anti-Catholic worldview. One of Hunt’s books, A Woman Rides the Beast is an ill-informed attack on the Catholic Church:
catholic.com/library/hunting_the_whore_of_babylon.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea4.aspt
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9410fea2.asp

If Micas is a Dave Hunt-ophile Berean, it’s not surprising he has such a warped view of history.

 

[SFLCatholic]

I suspect he is a follower of Dave Hunt and the Berean Call who’s motto is “[The Bereans] searched the scriptures daily [to see] whether those things were so.–Acts 17:11”
thebereancall.org/

I knew of that book from Catholic.com. But, I have never heard of the Bereans until now.

After reading thier statement of faith, I now have a better understanding of where micas is coming from. I now also understand his confusion. He’s following two false prophets who are applying a doctrine of devils.

For a group that wants to do away with doctrine, they sure have created convoluted set of rules for thier congregates to follow.

thebereancall.org/AboutTBC/statement.php

Do you know if this group subscribes to the idea that God will be coming down after the rapture in his 1000 mile long UFO from the third heaven located in the belt of Orion?

This is no joke. I have heard this “theology” preached before on the radio from rapture preachers. And last week, I saw it on Jack Van Impe’s show. Here’s the link to watch it yourself.

jvim.org/

Go to televsion program and watch the April 14 2007 show. Its really bizzarre.

 

[rando78]

You must also look into Jesus’ prayers to the Father that they would remain one in Jesus, as Jesus is one in you (the Father). The Early Church maintained this “oneness” by insuring that all churches were teaching the same thing, and resolving confusing issues when they were raised.

With the Reformation (and to a lesser degree the Schism) came about doctrines that directly conflicted with earlier teachings of the Church (Confession does not bring on forgiveness, Baptism does not save you, Assurance of Salvation, etc.). This does not reflect the one-ness that Jesus prayed for.

We see similar exhortations in Pauls letter to (I believe it’s) the Ephesians - We are one body, one baptism, … etc.

So what happens if you are teaching contradicting doctrines? Well, of course, at least one of them has to be wrong. If you are teaching a falsehood, then the gates of hell have obviously prevailed upon the Church, because that would mean the Holy Spirit is no longer guiding Her.

A few things to consider:
The long held belief that the Catholic Church was created by the Romans mixing pagan practices into Christanity contadicts “The gate of Hell shall not prevail against the Church”

In response to the Protestant Reformation, before this there was only the Catholic Church (with the exception of the Orthodox Church which is still not as old as the Catholic Church.) So to condemn the Catholic Church for teaching false docterine would to say that for many centuries all Christians were not following the right path and claims that the gates of hell did prevail against the church for many centuries using the “influence” of Roman paganism.

 

[NotWorthy]

A few things to consider:
The long held belief that the Catholic Church was created by the Romans mixing pagan practices into Christanity contadicts “The gate of Hell shall not prevail against the Church”

In response to the Protestant Reformation, before this there was only the Catholic Church (with the exception of the Orthodox Church which is still not as old as the Catholic Church.) So to condemn the Catholic Church for teaching false docterine would to say that for many centuries all Christians were not following the right path and claims that the gates of hell did prevail against the church for many centuries using the “influence” of Roman paganism.

[sign] BINGO! [/sign]

 

[Ferdinand_Mary]

Please stick to the topic of the thread – i.e., Matt 16:18.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary

 

[guanophore]

In response to the Protestant Reformation, before this there was only the Catholic Church (with the exception of the Orthodox Church which is still not as old as the Catholic Church.) So to condemn the Catholic Church for teaching false docterine would to say that for many centuries all Christians were not following the right path and claims that the gates of hell did prevail against the church for many centuries using the "influence" of Roman paganism.

I think the Orthodox would vigorously dispute this characterization. Since there was only one church the first 10 centuries, they also trace their identity back through apostolic succession. In many ways, the Orthodox are actually “older” since the Eastern churches were established before anyone went to Rome.

 

[benjoy07]

I had the my own issues with Mat 16:18. Here are a couple links to my posts via other related threads I hope it helps. It did for me!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2075737#post2075737
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2075572#post2075572