So, i hear...

[larkin31]

The Cephas, Petros, petra etc you know have differing interpretations as to rock, stone and all that for Catholics and Protestants. That hasn’t seemed to solve anything.

And never will.

 

[larkin31]

are you serious? are you saying that God doesnt care about moral issues because it was addressed only few times?

**

“To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it” St ignatious of Loyola**

I meant EXACTLY what I wrote. Not what you wrote as summary of my writing. Of the ten commandments, only one is about sexuality, and this concerns only adultery (explicitly). And this list, of course, is not a litmus test for who is Christian or not (or Jewish or not). Moreover, I explicitly referenced the statement of belief know as the Nicene Creed (or Apostle’s Creed), none of which references sexuality.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

???

When I have, I have stated so. I will repeat (since it seems to need repeating): I find orthodox presumptuousness and self-righteousness religiously suspect and logically unsound. To assign a Christian movement to apostasy because it questions papal succession–when the Bible does not set up such a succession–seems to me simply an act of authoritarianism rather than an act of fidelity to the central tenets of Jesus’ life and teachings.

though Prodigal and I have debated each other vigorously, I have never felt any condemnation other than his gentle reminders that some of my posts come off as offensive. When I post on a thread to defend my position. there are a few other posters I like to see defending the Catholic side, Prodigal is one of them.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

Sometimes, in the heat of explaining our views, we overlook the important things. I apologize that’s the first time you saw that was a part of my views.

You owe me no apologies. I am here to learn from you and others. I dont debate in an attempt to convert but rather to just explain why I believe as I do and to learn why you believe as you do.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Interesting comments. I’m sure you don’t think you do the same.​

I would not include Jesus in His teachings to His disciples. I sure you don’t either because if you did you’d have to say the disciples broken bodies and shed blood has redemptive qualities as the Broken Body and Spilled Blood of Jesus.​

Christ is first, His Church is second. That’s the order God gave them to us. It was through His Church that we received scriptures, through the men that Christ appointed over His Church and some of who they appointed with the authority given to them. How many of the New Testament writings were given by Apostles themselves? How many were written by those they appointed?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prod, I knew that was the Baptist. I didn’t think I said anything indicating I didn’t. But the Apostle John is writing the Gospel in which the story about the Baptist and Andrew and another disciple of the Baptist is told to us. Andrew and this other disciple of the Baptist learn of Christ being the Messiah before Peter did and then Andrew tells Peter according to the Apostle John.

How could Andrew not have known if he was the one who told Peter according to the Apostle John?

The Cephas, Petros, petra etc you know have differing interpretations as to rock, stone and all that for Catholics and Protestants. That hasn’t seemed to solve anything.

I can only speculate on Andrew telling His brother about the Messiah. Maybe at this point, he lacked a full belief, or knowledge, of exactly what that meant. Peter, with that which was revealed to him by the Father, stated, ‘Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.’

We see by the definition of Messiah, that it was a ‘liberator’ or ‘savior’.

**Mes·si·ah (m-s)
n.

1. also Mes·si·as (m-ss) The anticipated savior of the Jews.
2. also Messias Christianity Jesus.
3. messiah One who is anticipated as, regarded as, or professes to be a savior or liberator.**

It does not say the Son of the living God. That may well be the distinction between the brothers.

As for Peter’s name change, I am borrowing a quote from a friend.

A change in name in Scripture ALWAYS came with a significant change in stature and responsibility. It wasn’t a “whim” of Christ’s to change Simon’s name to Peter. And we know that change was real, as it’s referred to throughout the NT. What is the significance of the name change, if not to designate Peter as the primate over all the followers of Christ? Note that whenever a name change was made in the OT, there was an explanation for it – Abram becomes Abraham because God will make of him a great nation. Jacob becomes Israel because he contended and had power with God and with men and prevailed. Likewise, Simon becomes Peter because upon his strength in faith the sacred community of the faithful, the Church, would be founded.

Yes, Matthew referred to Simon as ‘Petros’. This was the masculine sense of the Greek word for ‘rock’. Petra is the feminine sense of the Greek word for ‘rock’. Considering the time and cultures at the time of Matthew authoring the Gospel, I am not surprised he didn’t refer to Simon Peter in the feminine sense.

But, when we read John and Christ calling Simon Cephas, there is no distinctions to weigh. There is only one Aramaic word for ‘rock’, Cephas.

Reading scriptures in context of other scriptures, we know He renamed Simon and we know He renamed him to ‘rock’ and upon this ‘rock’ He built His Church, AND He gave him the keys to the kingdom of heaven, AND He gave Him the authority to bind and loose. I emphasized the word AND, because of how it’s used in the passage we speak about. He was speaking to Peter and Peter only. It isn’t accepted, as plain as it appears to be, because Catholic read this as a ‘primacy’ over Christ’s Church. If we’re right about this, then many of the accusations against the Church are no longer valid.

An interesting point has been raised to Protestants. That being, this was not questioned until AFTER the reformation in the 1500s and then it was not questioned by the leader of the Protestant reformation. The objection was only raised in what seems to be an effort to invalidate the Catholic Church, thus bringing a ‘clear’ justification of the separation of so many Churches through ‘denominations’. Those separations, with different doctrines, is not taught in scriptures at all. At least, no one has produced any scriptures with explanations to show it was an acceptable practice.

 

[CMatt25]

I can only speculate on Andrew telling His brother about the Messiah. Maybe at this point, he lacked a full belief, or knowledge, of exactly what that meant. Peter, with that which was revealed to him by the Father, stated, ‘Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.’

We see by the definition of Messiah, that it was a ‘liberator’ or ‘savior’.

**Mes·si·ah (m-s)
n.

1. also Mes·si·as (m-ss) The anticipated savior of the Jews.
2. also Messias Christianity Jesus.
3. messiah One who is anticipated as, regarded as, or professes to be a savior or liberator.**

It does not say the Son of the living God. That may well be the distinction between the brothers.

Prodigal, why do have to speculate? The Apostle John says Andrew told Peter Christ was the Messias. By your own definition Messias means the anticpated Savior, Jesus. Who was Jesus if not the Son? Are we to say Matthew and John offer differing accounts as to whether Andrew or Peter confessed Christ first? Is it possible Peter in Matthew confessed Christ because he already had been told this by Andrew, who had confessed Christ to Peter ahead of time and Peter believed as Andrew, as you and I?

 

[tweetymom]

Prodigal, why do have to speculate? The Apostle John says Andrew told Peter Christ was the Messias. By your own definition Messias means the anticpated Savior, Jesus. Who was Jesus if not the Son? Are we to say Matthew and John offer differing accounts as to whether Andrew or Peter confessed Christ first? Is it possible Peter in Matthew confessed Christ because he already had been told this by Andrew, who had confessed Christ to Peter ahead of time and Peter believed as Andrew, as you and I?

Good points.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Prodigal, why do have to speculate? The Apostle John says Andrew told Peter Christ was the Messias. By your own definition Messias means the anticpated Savior, Jesus. Who was Jesus if not the Son? Are we to say Matthew and John offer differing accounts as to whether Andrew or Peter confessed Christ first? Is it possible Peter in Matthew confessed Christ because he already had been told this by Andrew, who had confessed Christ to Peter ahead of time and Peter believed as Andrew, as you and I?

what did Jesus say to St Peter? it went something like this; Blessed are you Peter, for flesh and blood has not reviewed this to you but God the Father in Heaven." these are Words of Christ Himself. is it not?

"To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it" St ignatious of Loyola

 

[CMatt25]

what did Jesus say to St Peter? it went something like this; Blessed are you Peter, for flesh and blood has not reviewed this to you but God the Father in Heaven." these are Words of Christ Himself. is it not?

"To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it" St ignatious of Loyola

Hi Wisdom, So John was wrong in his Gospel? Or did the Holy Spirit lead Andrew to believe what John the Baptist told him before Andrew told Peter?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prodigal, why do have to speculate? The Apostle John says Andrew told Peter Christ was the Messias. By your own definition Messias means the anticpated Savior, Jesus. Who was Jesus if not the Son? Are we to say Matthew and John offer differing accounts as to whether Andrew or Peter confessed Christ first? Is it possible Peter in Matthew confessed Christ because he already had been told this by Andrew, who had confessed Christ to Peter ahead of time and Peter believed as Andrew, as you and I?

From the Jews perspective, I don’t think, they believed the ‘liberator’ was going to be the Son of God, as we view Him as the second person of the Godhead; the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They expected a ‘deliverer’ such as Moses was that delivered them from the Pharoah.

As children of God was used in Pslams, the Jews didn’t view themselves to be the begotten children of God, as Jesus was.

**Psa 29:1 A psalm for David, at the finishing of the tabernacle. Bring to the Lord, O ye children of God: bring to the Lord the offspring of rams. **

Andrew witnessed John the Baptist refer to Jesus as the ‘lamb of God’ and ‘Son of God’, but the significance of that statement was not taken as the literal Son of God, as we understand it, with the luxury of hindsight. Remember, the Jews rejected, and still do, that Jesus was the ‘begotten’ Son of God. Christ had to use scriptures to show they pointed to him, but still they rejected who He really was. We also have to realize that Christ had not performed a miracle at this point, which was the beginning of people understanding who He really was.

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures: for you think in them to have life everlasting. And the same are they that give testimony of me.

In Matthew, Jesus tells us who revealed that Jesus was the ‘Christ the Son of the living God’. “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.”

With these things, we can see the telling of the stories by different authors do not conflict with each other.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hi Wisdom, So John was wrong in his Gospel? Or did the Holy Spirit lead Andrew to believe what John the Baptist told him before Andrew told Peter?

Matt,

what are you trying to say?

did not i show you What Jesus said? does this contradict John’s Gospel?

** “To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it” St ignatious of Loyola**

 

[CMatt25]

Prod, So Andrew hears John the Baptist say Jesus is the Lamb of God. And then Andrew tells Peter they have found the Messiah. But you think Andrew didn’t really believe it?

 

[CMatt25]

Matt,

what are you trying to say?

did not i show you What Jesus said? does this contradict John’s Gospel?

** “To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it” St ignatious of Loyola**

You showed me where Jesus said God told Peter. But John also says Andrew told Peter. Who told Andrew to believe what John the Baptist had just told him? Who for that matter told the Baptist to believe Jesus was the Lamb of God? God maybe telling everyone? He telling Andrew before Peter?

 

[wisdomseeker]

You showed me where Jesus said God told Peter. But John also says Andrew told Peter. Who told Andrew to believe what John the Baptist had just told him? Who for that matter told the Baptist to believe Jesus was the Lamb of God? God maybe telling everyone? He telling Andrew before Peter?

what exactly are you trying to say? what is your point on this? i really dont get it.

"To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it" St ignatious of Loyola

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prod, So Andrew hears John the Baptist say Jesus is the Lamb of God. And then Andrew tells Peter they have found the Messiah. But you think Andrew didn’t really believe it?

I explained that the ‘savior/liberator’, Messiah, was not viewed as the literal Son of God. They expected an earthly king sent by God to deliver them. So, when they heard Messiah, they did not have the luxury of after the fact as we do, they did not think it was the Son of God. The spoke of the Lion of Judah, but they didn’t see it as a literal lion of Judah, just as they heard lamb of God, they didn’t know the implications of the statement. It’s not that Andrew didn’t believe it, he did not at that time understand that the Messiah was the Son of God.

You realize the Jews are still waiting on the Messiah?

How many times did Christ command people not to tell who He was, after choosing all the Apostles? His time was not yet come, according to God’s plan. He did not immediately enter into His ministry by revealing Himself to everyone.

There was no contradiction between the authors and Christ did not lie and say the Father in heaven revealed Him to Peter.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I explained that the ‘savior/liberator’, Messiah, was not viewed as the literal Son of God. They expected an earthly king sent by God to deliver them. So, when they heard Messiah, they did not have the luxury of after the fact as we do, they did not think it was the Son of God. The spoke of the Lion of Judah, but they didn’t see it as a literal lion of Judah, just as they heard lamb of God, they didn’t know the implications of the statement. It’s not that Andrew didn’t believe it, he did not at that time understand that the Messiah was the Son of God.

You realize the Jews are still waiting on the Messiah?

How many times did Christ command people not to tell who He was, after choosing all the Apostles? His time was not yet come, according to God’s plan. He did not immediately enter into His ministry by revealing Himself to everyone.

There was no contradiction between the authors and Christ did not lie and say the Father in heaven revealed Him to Peter.

 

[CMatt25]

what exactly are you trying to say? what is your point on this? i really dont get it.

"To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it" St ignatious of Loyola

My point is the Apostle John says John the Baptist told Andrew Jesus was the Messiah, the Lamb of God. Andrew in turn was the one who told Peter. Matthew says Jesus told Peter God told Peter. So perhaps God led John the Baptist and Andrew too. Or did they just pull it out of thin air?

 

[CMatt25]

I explained that the ‘savior/liberator’, Messiah, was not viewed as the literal Son of God. They expected an earthly king sent by God to deliver them. So, when they heard Messiah, they did not have the luxury of after the fact as we do, they did not think it was the Son of God. The spoke of the Lion of Judah, but they didn’t see it as a literal lion of Judah, just as they heard lamb of God, they didn’t know the implications of the statement. It’s not that Andrew didn’t believe it, he did not at that time understand that the Messiah was the Son of God.

You realize the Jews are still waiting on the Messiah?

How many times did Christ command people not to tell who He was, after choosing all the Apostles? His time was not yet come, according to God’s plan. He did not immediately enter into His ministry by revealing Himself to everyone.

There was no contradiction between the authors and Christ did not lie and say the Father in heaven revealed Him to Peter.

No Prodigal, I’m stupid and do not realize the Jews are still waiting. I understand too you are saying Andrew didn’t believe it fully when he confessed it to his brother.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No Prodigal, I’m stupid and do not realize the Jews are still waiting. I understand too you are saying Andrew didn’t believe it fully when he confessed it to his brother.

I wasn’t trying to say you were stupid. I just wasn’t sure if you knew that about the Jews or not.