....That leaves us with nothing but visible churches, be it catholic or protestant, founded by mere man as opposed to Jesus Christ...

[joe370]

It’s silly that that Nine_Two wants you to believe it, or you find the truth to be silly?

It silly that he wants me to believe that Pope Leo founded the CC. It would be just as silly for me to claim that Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius founded the EOC.

 

[joe370]

Of course, but since Rome is schismatic, what they say is of no consequence.

Since you seem to believe that the CC is schismatic, you must (I assume) - believe that the EOC is the only church founded by Jesus as opposed to a mere human, which means that you must believe what the Eastern orthodox church says**, is of consequence? **

 

[joe370]

Rightlydivide;7226401]It is not an offshot of the Eastern Orthodox at all. I am not sure where you received your information. You seem to be conflating groups etc etc

I said: “to my knowledge…”

Your quote is from 1994.
The Eucharist between the two churches was restored under the guidelines 7 years later./]

Cool…Thanks for the update!

 

[pablope]

Of course, but since Rome is schismatic, what they say is of no consequence.

LOL…Rome says the same thing about the Orthodox too…:slapfight:

 

[Nine_Two]

You seem to want me to believe that I belong to a church founded by Pope Leo. That’s silly…By the way, as I am sure you know, In 1965, those mutual excommunications were rescinded by Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras when they met in the Second Vatican Council. Let us both pray that the EOC and the CC reunite as one church again brother.

I never mentioned the excommunications. Those occurred after the death of Leo IX (part of why they were rescinded). If I was arguing that Humbert founded the Catholic Church you might have a point (although the excommunication against him was not rescinded).

 

[Nine_Two]

Lol…very funny! according to non- catholics The Orthodox church is founded by men because the date they use is in the era when we were truly One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Sorry but yea tha+ was funny.

What?

 

[Nine_Two]

LOL…Rome says the same thing about the Orthodox too…:slapfight:

Yes but this thread was inviting alternate viewpoints based on certain guidelines. The Orthodox Church fits them.

 

[John1]

Any church founded on Peter’s confession, that Jesus was the “Christ of God”, would be considered a church founded by Jesus. Any churches that do not accept Jesus as the only begotten Son of God would be churches founded by men.

 

[joe370]

Nine_Two;7221477]Yes, I answered as much in your thread where you asked who founded it if not Christ. It was Leo IX.

**Nine_Two you believe that the following Popes that preceded Pope Leo IX, belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church, AKA the catholic church:

BenedictusIX - 1032 – 1044
SILVESTER - 1045
BENEDICTUS - 1045 – 1046
GREGORIUS Sextus - April/May 1045
CLEMENS Secundus - 24 December 1046
– 9 October 1047
BENEDICTUS - November 1047
– 1048
DAMASUS Secundus - 17 July 1048
– 9 August 1048

---

And that Pope Leo IX founded the Catholic Church in communion with Rome?

Leo IX - 12 February 1049
– 19 April 1054
(5 years)**

 

[joe370]

Hey John…

Any church founded on Peter’s confession, that Jesus was the “Christ of God”, would be considered a church founded by Jesus. Any churches that do not accept Jesus as the only begotten Son of God would be churches founded by men.

Could you show me the biblical passage where Jesus said that He built His church on the confession of Simon, renamed Peter? He does not make that declaration in Matthew 16?

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, (Cephas)-and upon this rock (Cephas) -I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

As I am sure you know the only reason why the Greek translation uses Petros and Petra is because Peter couldn’t be given a feminine name.

Clearly the Pauline letters refer to Simon as Cephas, which means Rock and not pebble.

The Aramaic name for little rock is Kevna, which Paul would have used in lieu of Cephas, which means massive Rock. The Greek word for pebble or small stone is lithos, which surely would have been used in lieu of petros, if Jesus planned to rename Simon a pebble or small rock.

Click on the attachment thumbnail below and tell me if you agree with the grammatical explanation?

 

[John1]

Hey John…

Could you show me the biblical passage where Jesus said that He built His church on the confession of Simon, renamed Peter? He does not make that declaration in Matthew 16?

As I am sure you know the only reason why the Greek translation uses Petros and Petra is because Peter couldn’t be given a feminine name.

Clearly the Pauline letters refer to Simon as Cephas, which means Rock and not pebble.

The Aramaic name for little rock is Kevna, which Paul would have used in lieu of Cephas, which means massive Rock. The Greek word for pebble or small stone is lithos, which surely would have been used in lieu of petros, if Jesus planned to rename Simon a pebble or small rock.

Click on the attachment thumbnail below and tell me if you agree with the grammatical explanation?

Oops,

Sorry I didn’t click on your thumnail, but I’ll just reply this way. I beleive that it was Peter’s confession that “Jesus was the Christ” and that his statement was the “this” that Jesus was referring to in His statement, so Christ actually does make that declaration. If we look at the passage, Jesus was asking his disciples “Who do you (all the disciples) say that I am?” Peter speaks up and gives is confession ,which Jesus commends him for. We have to remeber that Peter was speaking for the group and not just for himself. Further clarification of this should be realized a few verses later (Matthew 16:22) when Jesus refers to Peter as Satan.Would Jesus really build his church on Satan, even if he was a rock? Additionally, elsewhere in the New Testament, the church is refered to as the church of Christ. I like your grammatical explanation, but I think that the arrow should be pointing to “this” rather than “rock”.