Name one Catholic teaching that contradicts Scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter MariaG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
daro2096 said:
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.

Petros {pet’-ros}
Peter = “a rock or a stone”
  1. one of the twelve disciples of Jesus
    Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 162
    AV - Peter 161, stone 1; 162
petra {pet’-ra}
  1. a rock, cliff or ledge
    a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground
    b) a rock, a large stone
    c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul
    Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 16
    AV - rock 16; 16
Jesus was saying on this rock will I build my church. Peter is not the foundation of the church. Jesus is the foundation.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t answer my question.

Why would Jesus specifically make the distinction between Peter’s name meaning little rock, and Petra meaning big rock??

Can you not see that the Catholic interpretation makes complete sense?
 
kellie said:
That doesn’t answer my question.

Why would Jesus specifically make the distinction between Peter’s name meaning little rock, and Petra meaning big rock??

Can you not see that the Catholic interpretation makes complete sense?
Click to expand...
The Catholic interpretation is the only interpretation that makes any sense. All other explainations fail the logic test.

First and foremost, Jesus changed Peter’s name here from Simon. This is no small gesture in the Bible. Some will argue “Saul” had his name changed to “Paul” in an attempt to minimize the symbolism of Peter’s name change, but that is not really the same. Jesus never specifically told Saul “you are Paul”, and furthermore, Paul and Saul are two versions of the same name, and are used pretty much interchangably in Scripture.

The supporting evidence that Peter was the head of the Apostles is overwhelming. (we won’t go into that here. If you think this is a weak argument, then start another thread, and most of us will be happy to go over the evidence that Peter was the head of the Apostles one more time).

Next, noone is saying that Peter decides who enters Heaven. Keys are symbolic of authority in the Bible, going back to the O.T. When Jesus gave Peter the “keys to the Kingdom”, it was very clear what He meant to Peter and the rest of the Apostles. There are remnants of this symbolism even in our culture today. When the official gives some dignitary a “key to the city”, does that mean that dignitary then decides who can enter the city ? Your logic on that point is completely misconstrued.

I fail to see how it makes any sense logically for the author of the Gospel to specifically note Jesus changed Simon’s name (which means something like “grain of sand”) to Peter (meaning “Rock”), knowing full well that this act would OBVIOUSLY signify to the audience that Simon (now Peter) was given a special comission, then give Peter the keys to the Kingdom, knowing full well that the audience would OBVIOUSLY draw the inference that this comission carries with it a blatant reference to receiving an official delegation of some sort of real authority, only for Jesus to then basically NEGATE everything that had just taken place by saying, in effect, “I am changing your name to signify you have a special comission, and handing authority over to you as a part of this comission, BUT I’m building my Church on myself.”

If the whole purpose of this passage is that Jesus is the rock and will build His Church on Himself, and that was truly how the Apostles interpreted that episode, then the writer of the Gospel would have not felt it neccessary to record Simon’s name change to Peter or the handing of the keys. Remember, the Gospels were written to specific audiences in a cultural and social context far removed from our own. You may not grasp the implications of the exchange through 21st century western eyes, but the people the Gospel was written for originally would not have missed what, to them, was blatant and obvious symbolism that something important was happening here…and it was happening TO PETER !
 
daro2096 said:
Can you show me the Scripture for purgatory?
Click to expand...
Yes. From Scripture Catholic there are many, many scripture verses.

My favorites are from corinthians. Here are the explanations from Scripture Catholic.

1 Cor. 3:10-15 - works are judged after death and tested by fire. Some works are lost, but the person is still saved. Paul is referring to the state of purgation called purgatory. The venial sins (bad works) that were committed are burned up after death, but the person is still brought to salvation. This state after death cannot be heaven (no one with venial sins is present) or hell (there is no forgiveness and salvation).

1 Cor. 3:15 – “if any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” The phrase for “suffer loss” in the Greek is “zemiothesetai.” The root word is “zemioo” which also refers to punishment. The construction “zemiothesetai” is used in Ex. 21:22 and Prov. 19:19 which refers to punishment (from the Hebrew “anash” meaning “punish” or “penalty”). Hence, this verse proves that there is an expiation of temporal punishment after our death, but the person is still saved. This cannot mean heaven (there is no punishment in heaven) and this cannot mean hell (the possibility of expiation no longer exists and the person is not saved).

1 Cor. 3:15 – further, Paul writes “he himself will be saved, “but only” (or “yet so”) as through fire.” “He will be saved” in the Greek is “sothesetai” (which means eternal salvation). The phrase “but only” (or “yet so”) in the Greek is “houtos” which means “in the same manner.” This means that man is both eternally rewarded and eternally saved in the same manner by fire.

1 Cor. 3:13 - when Paul writes about God revealing the quality of each man’s work by fire and purifying him, this purification relates to his sins (not just his good works). Protestants, in attempting to disprove the reality of purgatory, argue that Paul was only writing about rewarding good works, and not punishing sins (because punishing and purifying a man from sins would be admitting that there is a purgatory).
1 Cor. 3:17 - but this verse proves that the purgation after death deals with punishing sin. That is, destroying God’s temple is a bad work, which is a mortal sin, which leads to death. 1 Cor. 3:14,15,17 - purgatory thus reveals the state of righteousness (v.14), state of venial sin (v.15) and the state of mortal sin (v.17), all of which are judged after death.

I will address your other posts later, but maybe first you would like to delve into purgatory further?

God Bless,
Maria
 
bump…

okay daro, what are we talking about here, purgatory or Peter ?

I’m trying not to divide this thread into an out of control mess. (BTW MariaG, nice to see you again, but didn’t I tell you this was going to happen way back when you started this, and if I did, how did I end up back in here and involved in it ?)

And remember, the purpose of the O.P. was to name a Catholic teaching that CONTRADICTS Scripture, not one that MAY (or may not) be a correct interpretation of Scripture.
 
daro2096 said:
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.

Petros {pet’-ros}
Peter = “a rock or a stone”
  1. one of the twelve disciples of Jesus
petra {pet’-ra}
  1. a rock, cliff or ledge
Jesus was saying on this rock will I build my church. Peter is not the foundation of the church. Jesus is the foundation.
Click to expand...
First of all your defintions are all jacked up.

Let us look at some real definitions:

Mat 16:18And1161I say also2504, 3004untothee,4671That3754thou4771 art1488Peter,4074and2532
upon1909this5026rock4073
Iwillbuild3618my3450church;1577and
2532thegates4439ofhell86shallnot3756
prevail against2729it.846

G4074
Πέτρος
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.

G3037
λίθος
lithos
lee’-thos
Apparently a primary word; a stone (literally or figuratively): - (mill-, stumbling-) stone.

Your definitions fail to point out what is obvious in the Greek language. And that being that Petra and Petros are the same word but different genders.

One is masculine and the other feminine.

Furthermore 99% of all Scholars and Theologians agree that Jesus probably spoke to the Apostles in Aramaic. England has Muslims. What language do they speak in when they are conversing with each other? Surely not English.

So since in the Aramaic their is only one word for Rock and that is Cephas. Jesus would have used Cephas in both the instances of Petros and Petra.

G2786
Κηφᾶς
Kēphas
kay-fas’
Of Chaldee origin (compare [H3710]); the Rock; Cephas (that is, Kepha), surname of Peter: - Cephas.
 
daro2096 said:
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.

Petros {pet’-ros}
Peter = “a rock or a stone”
  1. one of the twelve disciples of Jesus
    Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 162
    AV - Peter 161, stone 1; 162
petra {pet’-ra}
  1. a rock, cliff or ledge
    a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground
    b) a rock, a large stone
    c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul
    Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 16
    AV - rock 16; 16
Jesus was saying on this rock will I build my church. Peter is not the foundation of the church. Jesus is the foundation.
Click to expand...
Jesus spoke Aramaic. The word for rock IN Aramaic is Kepha. There no difference between small or big rock.

Jesus said unto Simon Peter,

Blessed are you Simon, Bar Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Kepha, and On this Kepha I will built My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. (Catholic Bible RSV).

Jesus built Only One Church. He built it upon Simon Peter, and Jesus grafted Peter into Himself. In the Catholic Church, the Head is Jesus Christ. Peter is his stewart of His Kingdom, a Prime Ministerial Office a post held temporary post until the King returns.

Jesus is in indeed the rock but Jesus in this passage is not the Rock. He said, You ARE KEPHA!"

This is plainly clear that Jesus built His Church upon Peter.
 
joshua_b said:
bump…

okay daro, what are we talking about here, purgatory or Peter ?

I’m trying not to divide this thread into an out of control mess. (BTW MariaG, nice to see you again, but didn’t I tell you this was going to happen way back when you started this, and if I did, how did I end up back in here and involved in it ?)

And remember, the purpose of the O.P. was to name a Catholic teaching that CONTRADICTS Scripture, not one that MAY (or may not) be a correct interpretation of Scripture.
Click to expand...
👋

Nice to see you again too! And yup, you did say it would get messy, but I never can seem to resist this one no matter how crazy it gets:whacky:

God Bless,
Maria
 
MariaG said:
Yes. From Scripture Catholic there are many, many scripture verses.

My favorites are from corinthians. Here are the explanations from Scripture Catholic.
Click to expand...
That passage is refering to a sinner being saved. The sinner receives the baptism of the Holy Spirit and his bad works are burned up. It happens while a person is alive not after they have died.

There is no such place as purgatory or hell for that matter. God is not going to punish people before judgment is passed on the wicked. Nobody is burning right now in a literal burning fire. You make my loving God out to be some sadist.
 
Infant baptism is not Bibical.

Priests being able to forgive sins is not Bibical. Only God can forgive sins.

Popes claiming to be God hidden behind a veil of flesh is not Bibical.
 
JoeyWarren said:
First of all your defintions are all jacked up.

Let us look at some real definitions:

Mat 16:18And1161I say also2504, 3004untothee,4671That3754thou4771 art1488Peter,4074and2532
upon1909this5026rock4073
Iwillbuild3618my3450church;1577and
2532thegates4439ofhell86shallnot3756
prevail against2729it.846

G4074
Πέτρος
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.

G3037
λίθος
lithos
lee’-thos
Apparently a primary word; a stone (literally or figuratively): - (mill-, stumbling-) stone.

Your definitions fail to point out what is obvious in the Greek language. And that being that Petra and Petros are the same word but different genders.

One is masculine and the other feminine.

Furthermore 99% of all Scholars and Theologians agree that Jesus probably spoke to the Apostles in Aramaic. England has Muslims. What language do they speak in when they are conversing with each other? Surely not English.

So since in the Aramaic their is only one word for Rock and that is Cephas. Jesus would have used Cephas in both the instances of Petros and Petra.

G2786
Κηφᾶς
Kēphas
kay-fas’
Of Chaldee origin (compare [H3710]); the Rock; Cephas (that is, Kepha), surname of Peter: - Cephas.
Click to expand...
Let’s find out what the Word of God really says.

The Holy Spirit used Petros (pebble) and Petra (immovable rock).

1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: **and that Rock (Petra) was Christ.
**

If you have a problem with the Holy Spirit writing in Greek please refer to

Mar 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

If you’d like to believe in your aramaic, 99% scholar theologian theory please refer

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
 
daro2096 said:
Infant baptism is not Bibical.

Priests being able to forgive sins is not Bibical. Only God can forgive sins.

Popes claiming to be God hidden behind a veil of flesh is not Bibical.
Click to expand...
Show me where any pope has claimed to be God
 
Mannyfit75 said:
Jesus spoke Aramaic. The word for rock IN Aramaic is Kepha. There no difference between small or big rock.

Jesus said unto Simon Peter,

Blessed are you Simon, Bar Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Kepha, and On this Kepha I will built My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. (Catholic Bible RSV).
Click to expand...
Peter was blessed because he believed and confessed that Jesus was the Christ. He was saved by his confession.

Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Mannyfit75 said:
Jesus built Only One Church. He built it upon Simon Peter, and Jesus grafted Peter into Himself. In the Catholic Church, the Head is Jesus Christ. Peter is his stewart of His Kingdom, a Prime Ministerial Office a post held temporary post until the King returns.

Jesus is in indeed the rock but Jesus in this passage is not the Rock. He said, You ARE KEPHA!"

This is plainly clear that Jesus built His Church upon Peter.
Click to expand...
Jesus built His church on a confession that is believed in the heart. He who believes and turns from their sins is saved. Let’s see what the Word of God has to say.

Mar 9:23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things [are] possible to him that believeth.
Jhn 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Jhn 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 12:44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Rom 3:26 To declare, , at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him[his faith is counted for righteousness that justifieth the ungodly, .
Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed*.
Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.*
 
No one, who believes “rock” meant “Jesus” has yet shown me why Jesus in the middle of this conversation would make a distinct difference between Peter’s name and the name of rock.

If this is why Jesus said it, it sounds belittling, as in, ner ner I am a bigger rock than you, you are merely a pebble.

That sure doesn’t sound like the Jesus I know.

The Catholic interpretation is the only logical one.
 
kellie said:
No one, who believes “rock” meant “Jesus” has yet shown me why Jesus in the middle of this conversation would make a distinct difference between Peter’s name and the name of rock.

If this is why Jesus said it, it sounds belittling, as in, ner ner I am a bigger rock than you, you are merely a pebble.

That sure doesn’t sound like the Jesus I know.

The Catholic interpretation is the only logical one.
Click to expand...
Then prove it.
 
kellie said:
No one, who believes “rock” meant “Jesus” has yet shown me why Jesus in the middle of this conversation would make a distinct difference between Peter’s name and the name of rock.

If this is why Jesus said it, it sounds belittling, as in, ner ner I am a bigger rock than you, you are merely a pebble.

That sure doesn’t sound like the Jesus I know.

The Catholic interpretation is the only logical one.
Click to expand...
What must a person do to join the roman catholic church?
 
believers said:
What must a person do to join the roman catholic church?
Click to expand...
First thing would be speak to a priest at your local Catholic church.

He will tell you whether his church runs a RCIA program.

That is the teaching program for all converts.

You may attend Mass, but not receive the Eucharist.
 
kellie said:
First thing would be speak to a priest at your local Catholic church.

He will tell you whether his church runs a RCIA program.

That is the teaching program for all converts.

You may attend Mass, but not receive the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
Jesus said I could join His church by believing in the Gospel and repenting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top