Protestant interpretations...

[Ginger2]

i don’t know if your point is merely that there are different words for rock types in Sriac languages, or that different words were used in the Peshitta.

My point is that Catholics using the Peshitta as a proof source fails, because you can’t prove it contains the original words spoken by Jesus.

Our most reliable, and only source is the Greek text.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No one has a view of Peter other than the view he had of himself; it is the Catholic Church and the people that have chosen by their own free-will, that puts Peter on a large pedestal to propagate the influence of the Magisterium over the lives of people. Peter called this “Lording” over the church. We just try to bring you back to the reality of what Scripture says.

For the rest of the post, I see a more humble and accurate portal the real of Peter.Stay right there and you will be on to something. But then at the end you sunk a little and put Peter up a few notches, where he would not agree.

We don’t berate you for calling a man a Pope; we want you to examine the legitimacy of the notion of a Pope in light of the Scripture.

Hmmm…my only response would be that Jesus specifically appointed Jesus as head of the Christian Church by

a) giving him the keys, and
b) appointing him as the vicarious shepherd of the One flock.

Whatever else you might choose to say about the papacy, one thing is not in dispute: Catholics recognize Peter and his successors for what he and they truly are - the God-ordained leaders of the one visible Church on earth.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

**Isa. 22: 19 **I will thrust you from your office, and you will be pulled down from your station.

Shebna is described as having an “office” and a “station.” An office, in order for it to be an office, has successors. In order for an earthly kingdom to last, a succession of representatives is required.
This was the case in the Old Covenant kingdom, and it is the case in the New Covenant kingdom which fulfills the Old Covenant. snip

Isa.22:20 In that day I will call my servant Eli’akim the son of Hilki’ah,

Isa. 22:20 - in the old Davidic kingdom, Eliakim succeeds Shebna as the chief steward of the household of God. The kingdom employs a mechanism of dynastic succession. snip

Isa.22:21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.

Isa.22:22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Isa. 22:22 - we see that the keys of the kingdom pass from Shebna to Eliakim. Thus, the keys are used not only as a symbol of authority, but also to facilitate succession. The keys of Christ’s kingdom have passed from Peter to Linus all the way to our current Pope with an unbroken lineage for almost 2,000 years. {Oh Lord help em’-mine}

23: And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.

snip

Revelation 3:7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: `The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 16:19 - whatever Peter binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven / when the Prime Minister to the King opens, no one shuts. This “binding and loosing” authority allows the keeper of the keys to establish “halakah,” or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves. :nope:

Jer. 33:17 For thus saith the Lord: There shall not be cut off from David a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel.

Dan. 2:44 But in the days of those kingdoms the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, and his kingdom shall not be delivered up to another people, and it shall break in pieces, and shall consume all these kingdoms, and itself shall stand for ever.
snip

That is pretty good; however distorted and inaccurate, which it is. Revelation 3:7 with Isiah 22 tells us there is but a single key. Put that in context of Matthew 16:19 and “I will give each of you”, which is exactly what the Biblical record shows actually happened beginning at the day of Pentecost.

Sheba is representative of the OT Jewish leadership including all that was rotten and they ticked God off & have been replaced; whereas Eliakim represents the coming Messiah (the replacement and true way to Father through the Son.

There is no mistaken the inclusion of the following from verse 20 **"****son of Hilki’ah,"; this is a clear distinction of the intimacy that exists between the Father and the Son."

How you ignore the clear phrases that are distinctive of the Son of God is quite amazing; the veil seems to remain.

“**clothe him with your tunic”, “entrust him with your authority”, “set the key of the house of David on his shoulder” (Rev 3:7)

“he opens no one will shut” (Rev 3:7)
“he shuts no one will open” (Rev. 3:7)
“become a throne of glory to his father’s house”

Here is something each of us must reconcile and make sure we are unveiled.
2 Corinthians 3:12-18 12 Therefore having such a hope, we use great boldness in {our} speech, 13 and {are} not like Moses, {who} used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away. 14 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. 15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; 16 but ***whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. ***17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, {there} is liberty. 18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Hmmm…my only response would be that Jesus specifically appointed Jesus as head of the Christian Church by

a) giving him the keys, and
b) appointing him as the vicarious shepherd of the One flock.

Whatever else you might choose to say about the papacy, one thing is not in dispute: Catholics recognize Peter and his successors for what he and they truly are - the God-ordained leaders of the one visible Church on earth.

That is great, however untrue; you keep believing that all the way to the end; it was your choice.

 

[Randy_Carson]

**Didja ever notice how Protestants try to belittle Peter by pointing to 1 Peter 5:1 **

]

1 Peter
1 Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, 2 shepherd the flock of God among you,

How is this verse, in any way, belittling?

The verse itself is not belittling, and Catholics embrace that verse as they do every single verse contained in all 73 inspired books of the Bible.

The attempt by many non-Catholic apologists in this forum is to say, “See! Peter only referred to himself as a “fellow” elder. He didn’t view himself as anything special.” In this manner, they try to undermine the role that Peter played as head of the earthly Church and the vicar of Christ.

We admit that Peter was displaying great humility in the passage above, but being humble does not mean that he was not the leader nor that he himself understood himself to be the leader of the Church. Peter knew precisely the leadership role to which Christ had appointed him.

“Do you think that maybe” Peter considered himself an equal among Apostles?

Not really. He did not act in this manner; he exercised individual authority on many occasions.

Is there any place where Peter asserts his authority as head of the entire church? You know,… by saying something like, “With the authority given me by Christ,…”?

Let’s see…he infallibly interpreted an obscure passage from the Psalms concerning the enduring office held by Judas resulting in the election of Matthias, he was the first to preach to the Jews, he was the first to preach to the Samaritans, he was the first to preach to the Gentiles…c’mon…there are many examples.

Every non-Catholic preacher is not a Protestant Pastor. It would be good if Catholics would study the Bible and learn how to discern a false prophet from a fellow Christian.

I suspect I have been studying the Bible since before you were born, but I can always be encouraged to do more.

It would also help you learn to listen to what people are actually saying rather than assume you know what they believe in contradiction of their proclaimations.

I will strive to improve in this area, also. Thanks.

Again I ask, How is quoting Peter’s words about being a fellow elder, leader of the church, berating him?

Perhaps you should pay closer attention to what I have posted.

I did not say that the passage is “berating” Peter. I said that non-Catholics “berate” us Catholics for our view of Peter as the first pope than non-Catholics think is justified by Peter’s “fellow-elder” comment.

 

[Ginger2]

…Peter… exercised individual authority on many occasions.

…he infallibly interpreted an obscure passage from the Psalms concerning the enduring office held by Judas resulting in the election of Matthias,

Considering Psalm 109 had long been (and is still today) considered a prophecy of the Jewish Messiah, I hardly think it a miraculous feat.

…he was the first to preach to the Jews, he was the first to preach to the Samaritans, he was the first to preach to the Gentiles…c’mon…there are many examples.

According to Scriptures, Paul was the first to preach in Rome.

“Thus Philip went down to (the) city of Samaria and proclaimed the Messiah to them.”

Peter was indeed the first to preach at Pentecost if you don’t count the fact that they all came out speaking in tongues.

I suspect I have been studying the Bible since before you were born, but I can always be encouraged to do more.

:extrahappy: Thank you :extrahappy: I’ll take that as a compliment as too how young and youthful I sound on paper!!!

I did not say that the passage is “berating” Peter. I said that non-Catholics “berate” us Catholics for our view of Peter as the first pope than non-Catholics think is justified by Peter’s “fellow-elder” comment.

Oh so it is you who feel berated.
What you said was, " Didja ever notice how Protestants try to belittle Peter… "

Glad you cleared that up.

Ginger

 

[Randy_Carson]

Considering Psalm 109 had long been (and is still today) considered a prophecy of the Jewish Messiah, I hardly think it a miraculous feat.

“A prophecy of the Jewish Messiah”?

Peter did not apply the Psalm to the Messiah. He applied it to Judas Iscariot and more closely to the “bishopric” held by Judas.

Psalm 109
8 May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership.

Acts 1:21-22
21Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."

According to Scriptures, Paul was the first to preach in Rome.

Paul wrote the letter to the Romans - a church he had never visited and which existed before he ever step foot in Rome.

“Thus Philip went down to (the) city of Samaria and proclaimed the Messiah to them.” Good point. Allow me to clarify what I should have said more precisely; Peter went to Samaria, and as a Bishop would do today, he confirmed those who had come to believe in Christ.

Peter was indeed the first to preach at Pentecost if you don’t count the fact that they all came out speaking in tongues.

Wow. A concession.

Oh so it is you who feel berated.

Stick around this forum long enough and you will see this argument made against the Catholic understanding of the papacy.

What you said was, " Didja ever notice how Protestants try to belittle Peter… "

Correct. Protestants take great pains to minimize the roles of Peter and Mary in the history of the faith.

Glad you cleared that up.

My pleasure. :tiphat:

Now, we can continue along this rabbit trail if you like; however, I am really more interested to know what you thought of quotes from the 20+ Protestant scholars (giants, real heavy-weights) who have acknowleged that Peter - not Jesus, not Peter’s faith, not Peter’s confession - is the rock.

What do you think of the testimony of these two or three witnesses?

 

[GottaGo12345678]

“A prophecy of the Jewish Messiah”?

Now, we can continue along this rabbit trail if you like; however, I am really more interested to know what you thought of quotes from the 20+ Protestant scholars (giants, real heavy-weights) who have acknowleged that Peter - not Jesus, not Peter’s faith, not Peter’s confession - is the rock.

What do you think of the testimony of these two or three witnesses?

You are very funny; no one argues that Petros is a rock or stone; it is a non issue with almost everyone. The core issue is primacy and some invention of succession leading to a new office called the magisterium. It never has existed in Scripture or the early church. There was a church in Rome, but not a Roman Catholic Church. You have to go to Emperor Constantine and his forced marriage between Roman paganism and Christianity; what emerged? The Roman Catholic Church in my opinion based on historical evidence and the unBiblical doctrines which we see today and have no place on the pages of God’s word. But you are unable to see this at this point in your life and based on a post to Ginger2; you are getting up in age. Although no one knows how long they will remain on earth, we do know the older we get the closer to natural death we are.

You can say all you want pertaining to evidence of the existence of your Church, but from looking outside in at the Catholic Church; it is easy to see that things like the Pope, Your Mary, Your Peter, Your Priesthood, Your Saints & Your Purgatory are all off the pages of Scripture.

It puts many of us all in wonder and amazement that you cannot see what is so obvious; even to a secular pagans. There is that attraction to “a pious-royalty-looking church with many years of tradition” and being a part of that mythical adventure of a lifetime.

I do not mean any disrespect to you or any other person for we are all creations of the Father and as such we respect each other as people, but we also disagree on the things of God. It is all of God’s work to remove the veil or let it remain; no man’s words can change this fact.

 

[Luke65]

It is all of God’s work to remove the veil or let it remain; no man’s words can change this fact.

Well you got one thing right…

“And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.” (2 Corinthians 4:3)

“I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” (John 6:53)

“When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him” (Luke 24:30-31)

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Well you got one thing right…

“And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.” (2 Corinthians 4:3)

“I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” (John 6:53)

“When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him” (Luke 24:30-31)

**
Jn. 6:63**
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; *the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. *

Because I tell you the truth; you do not believe me?

 

[Des]

Jn. 6:63
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; *the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. *

Because I tell you the truth; you do not believe me?

Christ’s Flesh on the Cross didn’t profit a thing? Interesting.

 

[kepha1]

You are very funny; no one argues that Petros is a rock or stone; it is a non issue with almost everyone. The core issue is primacy and some invention of succession leading to a new office called the magisterium. It never has existed in Scripture or the early church. There was a church in Rome, but not a Roman Catholic Church. You have to go to Emperor Constantine and his forced marriage between Roman paganism and Christianity; opcorn:what emerged? The Roman Catholic Church in my opinion based on :hypno:historical evidence:hypno: and the unBiblical doctrines which we see today and have no place on the pages of God’s word. But you are unable to see this at this point in your life and based on a post to Ginger2; you are getting up in age. Although no one knows how long they will remain on earth, we do know the older we get the closer to natural death we are.

You can say all you want pertaining to evidence of the existence of your Church, but from looking outside in at the Catholic Church; it is easy to see that things like the Pope, Your Mary, Your Peter, Your Priesthood, Your Saints & Your Purgatory:hammering: are all off the pages of Scripture.

It puts many of us all in wonder and amazement that you cannot see what is so obvious; even to a secular pagans. There is that attraction to “a pious-royalty-looking church with many years of tradition” and being a part of that mythical adventure of a lifetime.

I do not mean any disrespect to you or any other person for we are all creations of the Father and as such we respect each other as people, but we also disagree on the things of God. It is all of God’s work to remove the veil or let it remain; no man’s words can change this fact.

Which of the following best reflects the above line of thinking:
Jack Chick
Dave Hunt
Alexander Hyslop
“Dr.” Pickering
Ellen White
The Grand Wizard

 

[Luke65]

Christ’s Flesh on the Cross didn’t profit a thing? Interesting.

Exactly…

**
Jn. 6:63**
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; *the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. *

Because I tell you the truth; you do not believe me?

Why do you try to make scripture contradict scripture? The flesh and blood of the Son of God most certainly profit us, as you yourself would testify. So why are you applying that saying to the flesh of Jesus? And why would you think that after all our Lord said about the necessity of eating His body and drinking His blood that He would negate it all with one swift word? Was this whole discourse, along with the other passages on the Eucharist, simply to tell us to think of Him when we eat?! Is it just some meaningless ritual that He commanded us to perform? And is it just a coincidence that the eyes of the disciples were “opened” when our risen Lord blessed the bread, even though they had been with Him all that time? No it wasn’t. It was the Spirit who opened their eyes, just as it was the Spirit who changed the bread into the body and blood of Christ. And you can go to your local Catholic church and see this same miracle of the Holy Spirit performed every day. You just have to believe.

 

[Ginger2]

“A prophecy of the Jewish Messiah”?

Peter did not apply the Psalm to the Messiah. He applied it to Judas Iscariot and more closely to the “bishopric” held by Judas.

Psalm 109
8 May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership.

**1. **You sound as tho this were some extra-ordinary event??? Casting lots was an ancient Hebrew custom for deciding a question like this. It is well documented in Scriptures. Here’s one example:

1Sa 14:42 And Saul said, Cast [lots] between me and Jonathan my son. And Jonathan was taken.

**2. **Awhile back I looked up a list of prophecies accepted by the Jews. (To my surprise Isaiah’s were not included. I guess they too clearly point to Jesus) The Psalms were included in the list.

**3. **Jesus had already opened the mind of the disciples to understand the Scriptures, not just Peter, but all the disciples. Here is one example:

Luke 24:13-35

[13] Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. [14] They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. [15] As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; [16] but they were kept from recognizing him. …

One of them, named Cleopas, … And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. …

Remeber too, Paul was given the Gospel in an instant on the road to Damascus.

Paul wrote the letter to the Romans - a church he had never visited and which existed before he ever step foot in Rome.

**What is the date of Peter’s first visit to Rome, according to the RC?
**

Good point. Allow me to clarify what I should have said more precisely; Peter went to Samaria, and as a Bishop would do today, he confirmed those who had come to believe in Christ.

I love the way Catholics state things as fact without any proof. Where is your documentation, cause the Bible does say that.

 

[Ginger2]

Which of the following best reflects the above line of thinking:
Jack Chick
Dave Hunt
Alexander Hyslop
“Dr.” Pickering
Ellen White
The Grand Wizard

Do you have a quote from EGW on this topic?

I would like to see it as I have dialoged with SDA and it might be helpful in the future.

Thanks.

 

[panevino]

**
Jn. 6:63**
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; *the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. *

Because I tell you the truth; you do not believe me?

extract of CA tract on eucharist …“In John 6:63 “flesh” does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. “The words I have spoken to you are spirit” does not mean “What I have just said is symbolic.” The word “spirit” is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).”

 

[benedictus2]

You are very funny; no one argues that Petros is a rock or stone;

Well I am arguing. Peter is a ROCK not a a stone.

it is a non issue with almost everyone. The core issue is primacy and some invention of succession leading to a new office called the magisterium.

It is an issue for almost all protestants becuase if it weren’t they would agree that Peter is the Rock upon which Christ built His church. And if he is the Rock, then everyone who is not Catholic is therefore sitting on something else other than the rock that Jesus built his church on

It never has existed in Scripture or the early church. There was a church in Rome, but not a Roman Catholic Church.

There was a Church in Rome and the Bishop of Rome was always considered the Prime Bishop.

You have to go

to Emperor Constantine and his forced marriage between Roman paganism and Christianity; what emerged?
This has nothing to do with Peter’s primacy.

The Roman Catholic Church in my opinion based on historical evidence and the unBiblical doctrines which we see today and have no place on the pages of God’s word.

And the Biblical pages of God’s Word came from God’s Church built upon Peter the Rock.

But you are unable to see this at this point in your life and based on a post to Ginger2;

But you are unable to see this at this point in your life becuase of your ignorance of Scripture and history.

you are getting up in age.

Therefore much wiser. The young are always considered foolish. Unless of course you have the wisdom of the Church that Christ built behind you.

Although no one knows how long they will remain on earth, we do know the older we get the closer to natural death we are.

Which absolutely has no bearing on the discussion is only posted by you because you have nothing substantial to contribute.

You can say all you want pertaining to evidence of the existence of your Church, but from looking outside in at the Catholic Church; it is easy to see that things like the Pope, Your Mary, Your Peter, Your Priesthood, Your Saints & Your Purgatory are all off the pages of Scripture.

Only because you don’t know how to read Scripture and this is very evident from your post. Not only that you don’t know how to read scripture, you are actually afraid of it hence your persistence in ignoring certain sections that contradict the lie you believe in.

It puts many of us all in wonder and amazement that you cannot see what is so obvious;

It leaves many more of us in perplexity how someone who claims to love Jesus refuses to believes his words.

even to a secular pagans. There is that attraction to “a pious-royalty-looking church with many years of tradition” and being a part of that mythical adventure of a lifetime.

And to so called Christians devoid of any real sense of the mystical, there is this inclination towards a modernity that borders on the delusional, which really all stems from that adherence to Adams sin of pride by demanding that they and they alone can interpret scripture. Such arrogance.

I do not mean any disrespect to you

Yes you do. Such hypocritical hat in hand posture does not wash any more.

 

[Ginger2]

…there is this inclination … that borders on the delusional, … by demanding that they and they alone can interpret scripture. Such arrogance.

Are you referring to the Catholic Church?

 

[Ginger2]

nuntym,

I don’t want you to miss my question, so here it is again:

I have considered this verse too, as one example.

Please compare this same story in Mark 15:46 in the Peshitta.

Which one is the correct translation? Why do you think so?

Ginger

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Why do you try to make scripture contradict scripture? The flesh and blood of the Son of God most certainly profit us, as you yourself would testify. So why are you applying that saying to the flesh of Jesus? And why would you think that after all our Lord said about the necessity of eating His body and drinking His blood that He would negate it all with one swift word? Was this whole discourse, along with the other passages on the Eucharist, simply to tell us to think of Him when we eat?! Is it just some meaningless ritual that He commanded us to perform? And is it just a coincidence that the eyes of the disciples were “opened” when our risen Lord blessed the bread, even though they had been with Him all that time? No it wasn’t. It was the Spirit who opened their eyes, just as it was the Spirit who changed the bread into the body and blood of Christ. And you can go to your local Catholic church and see this same miracle of the Holy Spirit performed every day. You just have to believe.

The better question and the issue is why do you follow the ones who turned around in disbelief because they believed Jesus was speaking of the literal eating of His flesh? Jesus clearly articulated the manner to which He spoke, which is why the passage was cited, John 6:63. You do not believe nor understand what the Lord has said. This is why in the book of Acts you hear of the breaking of bread, the cup did not come until later in church history. Why did Jesus say do this in remembrance of me? Because He was getting ready to shed His precious flesh and His precious blood for sinners to be reconciled to the Father through Him; so celebrate The Lords Supper in remembrance of this great sacrifice, which I, Jesus,do for you.

If He meant literal flesh He would have cut it up and passed it out at the Lords Supper; what better opportunity to show exactly what He meant? He did show exactly what He meant; "And when He had taken {some} bread {and} given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you (Where Lord? On the cross); do this in remembrance of Me.”

"And in the same way {He took} the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. What is the New Covenant - the one way agreement where God gives eternal life to those who believe from the heart the Son of God.

Transubstantiation of the Son of God, to be called down from heaven at the calling of a priest, to be broken into pieces and passed out to eat is no where in Scripture or the early church. They celebrated the braking of bread; giving spiritual sacrifice in remembrance of the Lords work on the cross.

God condemns eating of human flesh and raw blood; else He is a hypocrite to His own word and I know He is not.

You believe me not, when I show you what God has already said, but because you are unable to understand you do not believe; just as God as said in His word.