MATTHEW 16: 17 - 19, "The Rock"!

[Vincent]

Sei:

Read what I said in later posts. Maybe earlier it was unclear but theres an obvious distinction between asking someone who is currently alive to keep you in their prayers and praying to someone who is dead and asking them to talk to God for you. That latter part is what mediating is, not the first part, because they are completely different.

What’s unclear is the mediating distinction you posit between asking people who are in Heaven to pray for you and asking people who are on earth to pray for you. There’s a difference in locality-- one’s “here” and the other’s “there”-- but I don’t see how that makes a difference to your mediation objection, which is what really matters.

Your objection that those in Heaven aren’t omnipresent or omniscient doesn’t clarify the problem either, because those qualities aren’t necessary in regards to praying for one another. There are only a finite number of prayers coming from a finite number of people and so all you need is a little dose of Grace. If it’s possible for the Saints in Heaven to see the infinite God face to face, then it’s not impossible for them to pray with us and for us, who are asking with finite means.

As I wrote in my last post, “to pray” means “to ask”. In this sense, even if you were to ask your pastor to for you, you could be said to be praying to him. This is clear in the archaic “prithee,” which was commonly used in England until not too long ago.

 

[Sei]

The difference is that you are asking them to talk to God for you instead of talking to Him yourself about the matter. That is what mediation is. And the saints of the catholics in themselves are an abomination to God because of how they are treated. They are reveered and bowed down to, made statues of and pictures of. Didn’t God say:

4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5Thou shalt not** bow down thyself to them**, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exodus 20:4-5

Yes, the prayers of the saints rising to the throne of God. That would be everyone that is Christian on earth praying to God and their prayers going directly to him. If you believe on God you are called a saint.

6Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
7To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 1:6-7

2Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their’s and our’s:
1 Corinthians 1:2

2Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
1Corinthians 6:2

1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:
2 Corinthians 1:1

1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
Ephesians 1:1

1Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
Philippians 1:1

1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,
2To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
3We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,
4Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the** love which ye have to all the saints**,
Colossians 1:1-4

These are all letters to churchs of current believers. Each one addresses the believers at the church as saints. We are all saints.

 

[Vincent]

Sei:

The difference is that you are asking them to talk to God for you instead of talking to Him yourself about the matter.

Again, this objection would mean that Paul was asking his readers to talk to God for him instead of talking to God himself— which you and I would agree to be absurd. The location of Paul’s readers doesn’t change the argument.

Didn’t God say:

4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5Thou shalt not** bow down thyself to them**, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exodus 20:4-5

As I explained in a previous reply, the giving of honor due to God alone is the point of this passage, and the Catholic Church doesn’t do that.

Yes, the prayers of the saints rising to the throne of God. That would be everyone that is Christian on earth praying to God and their prayers going directly to him. If you believe on God you are called a saint.

You’ll note that “saint” ἅγιος] literally means “holy thing” (see also the LSJ). Since you expressed a difficulty with calling a certain office '“holy” (post 29), maybe this changes something. Here’s a hint: we don’t call any ἅγιος “holy” in the same sense we call God “Holy”.

Moreover, Revelations 5:8 describes the prayers of the saints (whether on Heaven or on earth) being presented to God by “the four living creatures and twenty-four elders,” who are presumably in Heaven.

If you say that the prayers of earthly saints are going directly to God, then, as Jimmy Akin points out, that means that “those in heaven are aware of prayers which weren’t even directed to them!”

The imagery actually describes well the kind of activity that we’re talking about: when I ask a fellow brother in Christ on earth to pray with me and for me to God, my request ultimately ends up with God. Notionally there is no difference if this fellow brother in Christ were seeing God face to face.

 

[Maccabees]

Sei:

The difference is that you are asking them to talk to God for you instead of talking to Him yourself about the matter. That is what mediation is. And the saints of the catholics in themselves are an abomination to God because of how they are treated. They are reveered and bowed down to, made statues of and pictures of. Didn’t God say:

4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5Thou shalt not** bow down thyself to them**, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exodus 20:4-5

The very first century christians did not interpret these verses in the way you do. The first christians were not inconoclast such as yourself. Spend a few dollars go the catacombs you will see the followers of Peter, Paul, John leaving their mark of images all over the place. Unlike the Jews they had no problem with making icons of God incarate Jesus. Jews would view this as blasphemy but the apostles and their followers did not. They also drew pitcutres of earthy things such a lamb, fish, dove, the apostles, Mary etc all these images would be forbidden according to your fundamentlist interpretation. You have a different interpretation than the early christians perhaps you need to reevaluate your view of scripture as it Islamic and not Christian nor incarnational.
How may evangelicals have a nativity scene or a fish or dove symbol on their car all this is catholic in origin and against the law in your warped interpretation. We don’t worship statues or icons of the saints but rather honor what the symbols represent how may protestants kiss a picture of a passed love one? They are not committing sacriledge of love of the picure but they are expressing love for what the picture represents. Catholcism unlike fundamentalism requires one to think and its expresses itself in expressions of love nothing wrong with that. Of course the earliest catacombs have inscripted Peter and Paul pray for us and many other inscptons asking for intercession. The communion of saints is clearly a historical reality in the earlies days of Christianity your view is unhistorical and requires us to beleive that the christians who followed Peter and Paul didn’t really understand what they were really talking about.

 

[Church_Militant]

Sei:

You’re completely avoiding my point. Ok, their physical bodies are dead but they are alive in Christ, fine. My point is you can’t ask them anymore to pray for you on your behalf. They are in heaven and they are not omnopotent and omnipresent. God is the only one that hears prayers. By praying to a person in heaven, you are asking for them to mediate your prayer to God and God said that Jesus was the only mediator.

Do you ask other people to pray for you?
they are not Omnipotent …
Does your asking them to pray for you diminsh God? Are you worshipping the people you ask to pray for you?

If the dead in Christ are unaware of us then what is that great cloud of witnesses in Hebrews 12:1? And why does Revelation say that the saints in heaven carry the prayers of their brothers on earth to God?

(P.S. On the Rock topic…What language did Jesuis and the apostles speak? And what language was the Gospel of Matthew originally written in? see here: catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp )

 

[mercygate]

Sei:

No, Paul asked for believers to pray for him. Catholics pray to dead people asking them to pray to God for them. There’s a difference there. And about the wealth, what is the Catholic church doing with all that wealth? And what is the point in having so much riches? Didn’t God say to stack your riches in heaven and not on earth?

The Saints are not “dead;” they are more alive than we are. They are alive in their Lord.

 

[mercygate]

Sei:

The difference is that you are asking them to talk to God for you instead of talking to Him yourself . . .

Are you suggesting that Catholics do not pray to God directly? You can’t possibly believe that.

Yes, the prayers of the saints rising to the throne of God. That would be everyone that is Christian on earth praying to God and their prayers going directly to him. If you believe on God you are called a saint.

The demons believe in God. The demons believe Jesus is the Son of God; they are certainly not saints. Do the holy ones (“saints”) on earth STOP being saints when they enter Heaven? Get a grip!

 

[RobedWithLight]

Sei:

Paul did pray to the father, free of charge. He also asked personally if other believers could keep him in their prayers. Do you think that the saints and the bishops and such can hear your prayers? Are they omnipresent and omnipotent upon death? Or are they in heaven, which is a completely differnet place than earth? Why do you think we’re told to pray directly to God? Because He’s the only one that can hear our prayers, being God who is omnipresent and omnipotent. Any mediator that isn’t God is pointless because how would they even hear your prayers?

Sei, Hebrews 12:1 tells us that:

Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.

This cloud of witnesses, refers to the holy ones of God, and who can these be but the saints in heaven. If they be witnesses, it means they can know us, and see us, just like spectators watching a race with deep interest. This is precisely why the writer of this passage tells us to reject sin, because it cannot be hidden from those who see.

Saints pray to God as Revelation 8:4 clearly tells us:

The smoke of the incense, together with the prayers of the saints, went up before God from the angel’s hand. **

Who are the saints praying for? Themselves, who are already saved? Or for those still on earth, who are still fighting the good fight? Clearly, the latter reason is far more likely than the former.

Gerry

 

[RomanRyan1088]

liber8ed217:

IF Peter is the Rock of which the church is built upon… then why does the Bible say that God is the ONLY Rock…

Do not be startled or afraid.
Have I not told you and declared it long ago?
You are my witnesses!
Is there any God but Me?
There is no [other] Rock; I do not know any.* — Isaiah 44:8*

Peter professed His faith in the deity of Christ— that is the ROCK of the Church–> Jesus Christ and no other.

Correct me if im wrong, but last time I checked, we don’t say Peter was a God…

 

[RobedWithLight]

Perhaps it is time to get this thread back to the original topic. We have veered too much from this thread’s original question, on Peter as the Rock in Matt. 16:17-19.

Gerry

 

[RobedWithLight]

liber8ed217:

IF Peter is the Rock of which the church is built upon… then why does the Bible say that God is the ONLY Rock…

Do not be startled or afraid.
Have I not told you and declared it long ago?
You are my witnesses!
Is there any God but Me?
There is no [other] Rock; I do not know any.* — Isaiah 44:8*

Peter professed His faith in the deity of Christ— that is the ROCK of the Church–> Jesus Christ and no other.

The passage is quite clear and straighforward. Don’t make it more complicated than it actually is.

**You are Peter [Petros=rock] and upon this rock I will build my church. **

Peter is clearly that rock, **not **his profession faith! Otherwise, why would Jesus even bother changing Simon’s name to Peter, for no reason at all, to Peter[Rock] if after all, he would not be that rock upon which Jesus would found his church, referred to in the passage in Matthew. In those days, a change of name, indicates a profound change in a person’s status, just as Jacob being renamed Israel in Genesis, or Abram becoming Abraham.

Gerry

 

[MaggieOH]

angel_crooks:

This made me loose respect for your post! Jewish is a very ancient language and as with all languages should be neutrally respected!

Also I was reading something about THe Rock, St Peter, and apparantly in Aramaic, the word rock is KEpha I think it said, also another issue is that there were two different dialects of Greek used. But the author did say that in Aramaic and in English and in one of the Greeks, St Peter is definately the Rock and the first Pope. Those who denie this are the typical non Cath fundy who has been brainwashed not to reserach history and they therefore denie historical facts!

I think that you misunderstand what is meant by vulgar in this instance. It is not mocking the Hebrew language at all. What he is trying to say is the common language.

I am not sure if you are aware that the Latin word “vulgate” means in the common language of the Latins. The word I prefer to use is “vernacular”. It means the same thing.

MaggieOH

 

[Vincent]

RobedWithLight:

Peter is clearly that rock, **not **his profession faith!

I’d argue that that’s the case as far as the literal sense of the passage is concerned.

However, I wouldn’t exclude Peter’s profession of faith as one of the spiritual senses of “this rock,” since the Catechism uses it that way.

 

[MaggieOH]

Sei:

Alright, so lets break this down here. The verses in question are:
15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
20Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
21From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Well, first of all we should just recap what’s going on here. Jesus is asking Peter who he thinks he is. To this Peter responds that he thinks he is the Christ, the son of God. Jesus blesses him and says that is isn’t because of any person that he knows this, but only because of God. Then heres where it gets crazy. He says that he’s Peter, and upon this rock he’ll build his church. Well, lets look at some things first to figure out whats going on.

.

Before getting into the balance of what you are saying, there is an error in what you are saying here. If you go back to the Scripture, Jesus is not asking “who do you think I am”, but He is saying “Who do you say I am”. It is to this question that Simon has answered, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the ever living God.” This is not Peter saying he is thinking this, but he is proclaiming it. Then we go onto what Jesus says next:

“Blessed are you Simon, son of John, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but the Father in Heaven” (paraphrased)

Let us stop right there and take another good look at what Jesus is saying in this one verse. First of all, Jesus was addressing all of the Apostles when he asked “who do you say I am”. The question we need to ask is why did Jesus ask this question? Why did he want such a precise response? Why did He want the Apostles to tell Him who they thought He was? The answer comes with the response from Simon, son of John, who says:

"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God".

This is a dogmatic statement that has been uttered by Simon. He is acknowledging exactly who Jesus is. Now look at the response from Jesus who says that it was not a man who revealed this statement to Simon, but “The Father in Heaven”. In other words, Jesus is saying that Simon was motivated to give his response by the workings of the Holy Spirit, and that it was the Father who had chosen Simon, son of John who has been specially chosen for this role:

“I say to you thou art Peter (ROCK) and upon this Rock I will build my Church”

This statement is directed to Simon Peter alone. It is not directed to the other Apostles, and it is not directed to the declaration that was made by Simon, son of John.

 

[MaggieOH]

Sei:

If you go to John 1:42 you see something interesting. It says:
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

So Jesus calls Simon Peter Cephas, which means a stone or a rock. Alright, so Jesus really did call Peter a rock. That’s fine because that actually helps.

Go to the original Greek that the New Testament was translated from. What word do they use for Cephas in John 1:42? They use πετρος. If you don’t have that font it looks like netpoc. So if we go to Matthew it should be the same word for both places because it should read, technically “you are a rock, and upon this rock I will…”

Well, when Jesus say’s “Peter” the word used is πετρος or netpoc. Is it the same further down the sentence? No, it’s πετρα or netpa. The first is masculine, the second is feminine. Jesus isn’t talking about Peter because he uses a different word. Unless Peter suddenly turned into a girl or Jesus is a really funny joker but I’m sure that isn’t the case.

.

Let us continue to break down the arguments that you are developing here. Having looked at Matthew’s Gospel, you jump to John’s Gospel where John incorporates into his Gospel the fact that Jesus called Simon, “Rock”.

You then argue from the point of view that the New Testament was written in the Greek. However, this is an argument that is without validity because we have evidence from the early Church Father, Papias, that Matthew was in the language of the Hebrew. He also says that the manuscript is no longer extant.

It is important to note “no longer extant”. That means the manuscript disappeared at an early date, but what we have or rather what was approved by the Church as being canonical is the Greek copy of the original Matthean manuscript.

Another factor that has not been taken into consideration is that the use of the masculine and the feminine in the Greek comes not from the earliest of the Greek manuscripts but from later manuscripts, as a result of language changes.

Since the Matthean Gospel was not written originally in the Greek we need to move backwards from the Greek, and translate into the Hebrew, and then into the English to get some clear understanding of the language that is being used. When this happens what we discover, is not the use of the Greek masculine and feminine for the Greek word “rock” but we come back to the word that was in the original Greek translation, the Hebrew “Kepha” which means rock and is not divided into both masculine and feminine.

Another reason that the argument based on the Greek language fails is that this argument presupposes that Jesus and the Apostles were speaking in Greek. This is an absurd presupposition because Jesus spoke in the common language of the area, not in Greek.

 

[MaggieOH]

Sei:

Furthermore, a littler farther down in verse 23 Jesus horribly rebukes Peter, calling him satan and saying he savours the things of men and not of God. Harsh words for someone that he supposedly just made the first pope and made infallible, don’t you think? Maybe he wasn’t talking about Peter…

Now that I have addressed the first few errors, let me continue to address the next set of errors, specifically the reason that Jesus rebuked Simon:

"From that day Jesus began to make it clear to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem; He would suffer many things from the Jewish authorities, the chief priests and the teachers of the Law. He would be killed and be raised on the third day. Then Petr took him aside and began to reproach him, “Never Lord. No this must never happen to you” (Matt 16: 21-22)

Then comes the rebuke from Jesus. Why did Jesus rebuke Simon because he showed concern and fear for Jesus and stated that this must never happen? That is the question that must be asked to see why Jesus was upset by this statement made by Simon. To answer the question we have to go back to see what Jesus was teaching the disciples. He was predicting his own torture and death at the hands of the chief priests and the teachers of the Law.

At this point in time the Apostles had maintained their own ideas about what the Messiah should be. Just like their counterparts today, the Apostles believed that the Messiah would come as a king who would lead them in battle against their enemy (the Romans) and they had not as yet comprehended the role that Jesus had come to play. When Jesus said He was going to suffer and die, Peter was still uncomprehending about the Truth. Yet there is something more in the rebuke. Jesus is not calling Simon “Satan”, no what is happening here is that Simon’s words are a temptation to Jesus, who as a man does not want to be tortured and to die. Therefore, he was rebuking the one responsible for the temptation, not Simon per se.

Sei, the conclusion that you have reached, about the rebuke to Peter is that these were harsh words for the one who had been chosen by the Father to be the leader of the Apostles after Jesus had returned to the Kingdom of Heaven, and you sneer at the fact that Peter has been chosen to be their leader and that he has “infallibility”. However, in this case you have shown that you have not understood what is meant by infallibility because you are attempting to attach this to the person, and not to the office that is being held. Therefore the conclusion that you have drawn is one that is proven to be false.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

Sei:

Jesus was not talking about Peter, he was talking about himself. God is the only way and the only one that is infallible, not a sinfull man of this earth. People tend to undermine that and forget that in this time.

The taking of quotes out of context as you have done, in accordance with the writings of James White etc. does not help your case or provide evidence that Jesus was talking about himself. That is a distortion of the context of the original quote as well as the quotes that have been taken out of context.

The final error within your argument is the claim about infallibility, that only God is infallible. As I have already stated this is an indication that you do not understand what the Church means by infallibility.

Catholics do not argue against the inerrancy of Scripture, however this is not what you are arguing at all. By claiming that only God is infallible you are also denying the role that was given to the Church to interpret the Scripture. In other words you are not challenging the position of the Bishop of Rome, but you are challenging the authority of the Church to be the sole interpreter of the Scripture that has been passed down through Sacred Tradition.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

God did write the scripture. All those men were talking and writing by the Holy Spirit. Scripture is divinely inspired and says nothing that God didn’t want it to say. He said his word is pure and truth and he would preserve it. If you say that we can’t be sure if today’s bible is accurate or inspired then you’re calling God a liar. If Jesus meant for Peter to be the rock He would have made no confusion on the topic and** He wouldn’t have used a different word.** He did that so that we’d know he wasn’t talking about anyone but himself. If Peter is the rock then why is it never talked about again at all through scripture? And why is any mention of a rock tagged on to Jesus alone? Peter being the rock is based on one poorly translated and misunderstood verse in scripture and nothing else. And the NIV bible can’t be taken too seriously seeing as how hundreds of verses are completely missing from the bible.

Once again we have the false position that is created by a false dichotomy in the arguments that are used. First of all, it was man who did the writing, and because man was inspired by the Holy Spirit, man was also influenced by his own biases. That is why, when we study the Old Testament we see the influence of the traditions of the writers, although I agree that there are many who dismiss these traditions as being too modernist for their understanding.

The second error in your comments is based upon the fact that you dismiss out of hand the prior existence of a Hebrew text for the Gospel of Matthew, that was translated into the Greek. Also you dismiss the possibility that the original Greek manuscript did not contain the Greek words for rock and stone.

Therefore, your own claims are based upon a lack of good scholarship (not your own, but that of your original source) that has led to the drawing of some false conclusions about who is the Rock.

 

[MaggieOH]

The traditions talked about in 2 Thess are the traditions the apostles taught in there books and epistles. Look at what the purpose of Thess was. It was a letter, to a church, consisting of believers. Were any of the catholic traditions already in place at that time? No. So what other traditions could he have meant when he said that but the traditions already taught. The catholic church is based so heavily on traditions. They even try to say that the church traditions and the pope’s word are on the same level of authority as God’s word. If we’re to get all that we know from the pope as well as God’s word, why was this verse written?

"

There are at least two errors in the above statement. First of all, you state erroneously that 2Thessalonians is speaking of the traditions that the apostles taught in their books and epistles. However, this is not what the the author of this Epistle is actually saying!! The tradition that is mentioned is that of Sacred Tradition which has been passed on both in the oral form and by letter. That Sacred Tradition includes the Scriptures that were already known to the people i.e. the Old Testament. Not one of the letters of the Apostles were recognized as Scripture when Paul wrote to the Thessalonians. On top of this your statement negates the veracity of both the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation, as well as the Acts of the Apostles, since all were written after this letter from St. Paul to the Thessalonians.

Therefore the second error within your statement is based upon the lack of differentiation between traditions and Sacred Tradition and of course the negation of the fact that all Christian churches come with the baggage of their own traditions. What is the difference between Sacred Tradition and “tradition”. I think that it is best to illustrate this by looking at a song from Fiddler On the Roof titled “Tradition”. In this song there are a number of practices that have been handed down through the generations, including the practice of the use of prayer shawls, and the use of a matchmaker in order to arrange marriages between the villagers. The kinds of traditions that are listed in this song are the true traditions of men. Sacred Tradition on the other hand is the handing on of the Scripture, the Liturgical Rites etc. as handed down from Jesus to the Apostles and then passed from generation to generation. Sacred Tradition is the deposit of faith.

Yet another error in the statement is the leaping to the conclusion that church traditions and the pope’s statements are on the same level as Scripture. The conclusion is false because it is based upon a false premise as to what comprises tradition and what comprises Sacred Tradition. It is also false because the Catholic Church does not teach what has been claimed.

Oddly enough, when one looks at other “cults” such as the SDA, JWs and Mormons, there is evidence that the thoughts and writings of the founders of these organizations are considered to be either on a par with Scripture or even above Scripture, by at least one of the above sects. My list of sects that have this false teaching is very much incomplete. The SDA have a belief that states that Ellen White had the spirit of prophecy and that here writings are on the same level as Scripture. The Mormons place emphasis on the Book of Mormon and the JWs are led to believe that the Watchtower is God.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

Sei:

And if the pope is infallible, why were these verses written?

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” Romans 3:23 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" Romans 3:10

Does it say “there is none righteous, no, not one, except the pope”? No, it doesn’t. And the pope wants you to call him holy? Then what about this verse?

"Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy…" Revelation 15:4

Or even this one?

"I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another…" Isaiah 42:8

As I have already pointed out the arguments that you use to trash the Catholic Church are based upon false premises or hypotheses. The same it true of the selection of your post above. We started out talking about Jesus naming Simon as Rock (Peter) and have ended up making false claims about the infallibility of the Papacy. Once again I point to the multiple errors within your argument:

1. you confuse impeccability with that of infallibility as far as the Pope is concerned. This is no doubt due to the fact that you have not done any of your own private study on what is meant by infallibility. In making this error you then misapply a statement from Paul’s letter to the Romans “There is none righteous, not one” In plucking out this quote and attempting to apply it the Pope you have twisted and distorted the Scripture out of all proportion.

The context of the verse from the Epistle to the Romans is addressing the Jews and Gentiles in ancient Rome. It does not have the universal application that is taken and applied by so many other Christians. The point of the context of this verse is that there neither Jew nor Gentile have the right to hold themselves above their neighbour to the point of considering himself/herself to be more holy than anyone else. The original context of the quote is that of a Psalm and was lamenting the fact that the people had fallen into apostasy through their wickedness. The verse in The Epistle of Romans does not address these points.