S
sara888
Guest
**Abortion is wrong since you are killing a human being, which is created at the moment of conception.
Jan**
- Status
Jan**
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Petros is the masculine form of rock.
Petra is the feminine form of rock.
The masculine and femine of the Greek normally has the feminine being larger and/or prominent. It actually fits into Dan Brown’s theory of Sacred Feminine.
Now back on the topic.
Jesus when he named Simon has Petra he used the proper gender for the name, but Matthew goes on to show the significance of the naming by referring to the larger feminine.
Take note, that the Petra/Petros heresy may have had already been an issue, so by the time that John wrote his Gospel which was after all the other Gospels and Epistles of Paul were written, He used the transliteral Aramaic of Rock (Kephas or Cephas) to attack this uprising heresy.
Here are the verses that use the Aramaic:
Joh 1:42 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.
1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
1Co 3:22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are your’s;
1Co 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Mat 16:18 And1161 I say also2504, 3004 unto thee,4671 That3754 thou4771 art1488 **Peter,4074 **and2532 upon1909 this5026 rock4073 I will build3618 my3450 church;1577 and2532 the gates4439 of hell86 shall not3756 prevail against2729 it.846
G4074Πέτρος
Petros
pet’-ros
Apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than G3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle: - Peter, rock. Compare G2786.
G4073
πέτρα
petra
pet’-ra
Feminine of the same as G4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): - rock.
Joh 1:42 And2532 he brought71 him846 to4314 Jesus.2424 And1161 when Jesus2424 beheld1689 him,846 he said,2036 Thou4771 art1488 Simon4613 the3588 son5207 of Jona:2495 thou4771 shalt be called2564 **Cephas,2786 **which3739 is by interpretation,2059 A stone.4074 **
**
G2786
Κηφᾶς
Kēphas
kay-fas’
Of Chaldee origin (compare H3710]); the Rock; Cephas (that is, Kepha), surname of Peter: - Cephas.
H3710
כּף
kêph
kafe
From H3721; a hollow rock: - rock.
A HOLLOW ROCK THAT CONTAINED WATER…
S
santaro75
Guest
My point exactly. The scripture does not clearly define when life starts. Therefor the need for the church to have authority and teach from the Gospels with the spirit of the Gospels guiding them!
S
santaro75
Guest
Of course peter in his humility would disagree. however Jesus Named Peter ROCK! He made peter the Rock!
These are all very weak arguments
M
MariaG
Guest
I am the one in denial?
You can’t even admit you were at best wrong and at worst lying about the fact that the Catholic teaching of the first commandment omits Exodus 20:4-6.
As for the translation of the KJV, you are obviously unaware of this fact.
To say that you PREFER the translation of the KJV is fine. But to say that using Strange Gods “changed” scripture is an out and out lie since both KJV and DRV are translations of the original. Further, contrary to what you prejudice fails to allow you to see, the meaning is the same.
What do you claim using Strange Gods means?
Here, below, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, they even use “no other Gods” instead of the “traditional”. Once again, the “traditional” rendering was simply from a translation that PREDATES the KJV. And the KJV did use the DRV when translating.
Whether you wish to acknowledge the truth or not, in Catholic teachings
Strange gods = no other gods.
It is the same teaching.
If you had ever done any Catholic Bible studies, you would be aware of this fact. So did you ever go to any Catholic Bible studies or even read the Bible for yourself while attending the Catholic Church? Or were you ignorant of Christ and just a pew warmer?
Interesting that most Catholics who leave and then find Christ never knew Christ to begin with yet the Protestant who become Catholic have a very intimate and personal relationship with Christ. Who do you think is in more danger of being misled, a pew warmer in a Catholic Church or a person who worships the Risen Lord in a Protestant Church?
May God Bless you and keep you safe.
Maria
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Hey Believers.
H312
אחר
‘achêr
akh-air’
From H309; properly hinder; generally next, other, etc.: - (an-) other (man), following, next, strange.
Maybe you had better do a little better research.
H312
אחר
‘achêr
akh-air’
From H309; properly hinder; generally next, other, etc.: - (an-) other (man), following, next, strange.
Maybe you had better do a little better research.
M
MariaG
Guest
As a few others have pointed out, it would appear that you worship God’s inspired word as if it were actually God. That would be idolatry in it’s most basic form.
To say that the Word in John 1:1 was written at creation, contradicts scripture that tells us the the Word, refering to Christ, was with God in the beginning. Scripture further tells us that the Word was begotten not made. You view implies that the Word was created in the beginning. That is directly contrary what scripture itself says.
I and others may certainly be wrong about what you are saying but if it is as presented above, it is definitely not scriptural and you could even ask almost any non-Catholic Bible Christian Church and get the same answer, that this view of the “Word” being created at Genesis is completely contrary to Scripture.
At this point in your walk with Christ, I would advise you to change churches, to a solid Bible Church. The one you are attending is not grounded in the Word of God.
May God Bless you, keep you safe and lead you to all truth.
Maria
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Hey Believers
Gen 3:15 And I will put7896 enmity342 between996 thee and the woman,802 and between996 thy seed2233 and her seed;2233 **it1931 shall bruise7779 thy head,7218 and thou859 shalt bruise7779 his heel.6119
**
H1931
היא הוּא
hû’ hîy’
hoo, he
The second form is the feminine beyond the Pentateuch; a primitive word, the third person pronoun singular, he (she or it); only expressed when emphatic or without a verb; also (intensively) self, or (especially with the article) the same; sometimes (as demonstrative) this or that; occasionally (instead of copula) as or are: - he, as for her, him (-self), it, the same, she (herself), such, that (. . . it), these, they, this, those, which (is), who.
Here are some translations:
Douay Rheims : I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for **her **heel.
KJV And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; **it **shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
KJV took the neutral form to sidestep the issue.
And here is the wonderful one from the HEBREW Bible: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; **they **shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel.’ THEY!
Gen 3:15 And I will put7896 enmity342 between996 thee and the woman,802 and between996 thy seed2233 and her seed;2233 **it1931 shall bruise7779 thy head,7218 and thou859 shalt bruise7779 his heel.6119
**
H1931
היא הוּא
hû’ hîy’
hoo, he
The second form is the feminine beyond the Pentateuch; a primitive word, the third person pronoun singular, he (she or it); only expressed when emphatic or without a verb; also (intensively) self, or (especially with the article) the same; sometimes (as demonstrative) this or that; occasionally (instead of copula) as or are: - he, as for her, him (-self), it, the same, she (herself), such, that (. . . it), these, they, this, those, which (is), who.
Here are some translations:
Douay Rheims : I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for **her **heel.
KJV And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; **it **shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
KJV took the neutral form to sidestep the issue.
And here is the wonderful one from the HEBREW Bible: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; **they **shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel.’ THEY!
M
MariaG
Guest
Thanks Joey. Since I have not spent alot of time studying the original or early languages the Bible has been translated from, I could not contribute this fact nor did I notice that “strange” being “changed” to “other” was part of believers first argument. My mistake, that you have done a good job in helping to correct.
Not that I expect any such admission from believers.
But then again, I am supposed to be the one in denial.
It would be funny if it were not so sad and have such serious implications for a Catholic who rejected the apostolic teachers and may be held guilty of rejecting Christ.
God Bless,
Maria
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
I PMd Believers with thes same comment. Believers has yet to respond either to the PM or this thread.
Where for art thou ole Believers?
Where for art thou ole Believers?
M
MariaG
Guest
Give em a chance. Believers has not been back to the forums since the 17th.
Some do not come here as much as we do
But keep up the good work:thumbsup:
God Bless,
Maria
R
RCCDefender
Guest
Yeah, you won’t see me on here on the weekends. Or at night.Give em a chance. Believers has not been back to the forums since the 17th.
Some do not come here as much as we do
But keep up the good work:thumbsup:
God Bless,
Maria
R
rbarcia
Guest
Our faith causes us to work, not for reward, but out of gratitude. Our works may determine our rewards in heaven. But not if we get to heaven, that is by grace.
Likewise, for those that are not saved, the degree of punishment will vary in Hell.
We are not capable of keeping the Commandments without Jesus, we have all ready broken the Law (that’s why its called a law).
M
MariaG
Guest
While I do not know whether or not the if the degree of punishment in hell is a Catholic teaching, that we get to heaven on grace alone is Catholic teaching as is the fact that our works will determine our rewards in heaven. Also that we are not capable of keeping the commandment without Jesus is completely a Catholic teaching.
And while I would not disagree with the thought that our works are out of gratitude, Catholics tend to see it more as a choice to keep following Him. Sometimes we do not do works out of gratitude. Like the two sons who the Father told to go and work in the fields. One said no, but ended up going to do the work anyway. Sometimes we don’t “feel like” doing the work or even “feel” like we are doing the work out of gratitude. But we choose to do it because we know it is the Father’s will. We are choosing to continue to follow Him even if we don’t “feel” like doing a particular work.
God Bless,
Maria
B
believers
Guest
Hey Joey,
Well… If Jesus wanted it changed, He would have don’t when He came. He obviously knew the Law. The Jews kept it that way in the Torah so it stays. Only the Catholic version says “strange”. But if you feel that it it’s ok to say strange then that’s your choice.
B
believers
Guest
Gen 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
“It” in Genesis 3:15 obviously refers the SEED which also refers to Christ. Now, let’s look at Romans 16:20
“And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you. Amen.”
How can SHE be the God of peace?
B
believers
Guest
Peter was anwering the question, “But whom say ye that I am?”
Mat 16:16
“And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Mat 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (PETROS), and upon this rock (PETRA) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
I will maintain that the Rock (PETRA) that Jesus was referring to was a Spiritual rock, in other words a confession or belief that Jesus was the Son of God.
Notice in these verses…
1Cr 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock (PETRA) that followed them: and that Rock (PETRA) was Christ.
Rom 10:9 ( I will use this verse but it was for the gentiles or uncircumsized)
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
B
believers
Guest
I forgot to add…
Rom 10:10
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Just like Peter did when he said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. (which is the gospel to the jews or circumcized)
You’ll have to know about the Abrahamic Covenant for this one. I’ll assume you know about that.
Rom 10:10
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Just like Peter did when he said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. (which is the gospel to the jews or circumcized)
You’ll have to know about the Abrahamic Covenant for this one. I’ll assume you know about that.
Q
Quatsch
Guest
No one says that what is taught at an individual CCD session is representative of what the Church teaches. The RCC is made up of fallible individuals.
R
RCCDefender
Guest
“to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter’s leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter - you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom).”
"to further rebut the notion that Jesus was calling Peter a small pebble, Simon in Aramaic means “grain of sand.” If Simon’s name meant “grain of sand,” it would be pointless for Jesus to change his name from “grain of sand” to “pebble.”
Aramaic also has a word for “little rock, or pebble”. This word is Evna. In His native language, if Jesus meant to call Peter a “small rock or pebble” then he would have called Him “evna”. But He doesn’t, He clearly gave Peter the name of “Kephas”. (phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=36950)
Furthermore, to say that the rock was Peter’s confession doesn’t make any sense grammatically. Grammatically, this rock must refer back to the nearest noun, which would be Peter and not hie confession of faith.
Hat tip: scriturecatholic.com and Surprised By Truth by Patrick Madrid
"to further rebut the notion that Jesus was calling Peter a small pebble, Simon in Aramaic means “grain of sand.” If Simon’s name meant “grain of sand,” it would be pointless for Jesus to change his name from “grain of sand” to “pebble.”
Aramaic also has a word for “little rock, or pebble”. This word is Evna. In His native language, if Jesus meant to call Peter a “small rock or pebble” then he would have called Him “evna”. But He doesn’t, He clearly gave Peter the name of “Kephas”. (phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=36950)
Furthermore, to say that the rock was Peter’s confession doesn’t make any sense grammatically. Grammatically, this rock must refer back to the nearest noun, which would be Peter and not hie confession of faith.
Hat tip: scriturecatholic.com and Surprised By Truth by Patrick Madrid
- Status