The Bible is Catholic -

[xixxvmcm85]

Or your understanding of the words in Matthew incorrect.

Then please do enlighten me. I no doubtedly have heard the LDS interpretation numerous times in Seminary, Insitute, Sunday School, and the MTC, but please refresh my memory.

 

[teancum79]

Then please do enlighten me. I no doubtedly have heard the LDS interpretation numerous times in Seminary, Insitute, Sunday School, and the MTC, but please refresh my memory.

Well if you know why why are you bothering to ask?

 

[Ronald_E]

The thing is, the LDS don’t tend to make appeals to solid evidence, rather they make appeals to the LACK of evidence and then jump in saying “see, so technically our position is PLAUSABLE” but in all reality not definitive.

A great example is the idea of the “apostasy” itself. A Latter Day Saint can’t tell you when and by whom the apostasy occurred, they just take certain verses in the New Testament that allude to a falling away, and then make the quantum leap that is “this falling away was a grand, final, ultimate, all-encompassing apostasy”.

When trying to prove the historicity of the Book of Mormon, an LDS can’t show you definitively where any of these pre-columbian civilizations existed, provide any of their actual archaeological artifacts or definitively give one example of a Native American having Jewish DNA haplotypes, rather they negate the overwhelming evidence to the contrary by bringing to the table highly improbable, howbeit possible explanations.

Essentially, EVERY Mormon argument I’ve ever heard (and even posed myself when I was an LDS) is:

“Since anything is possible, the LDS church is true”.

Welcome home. There are too many Roman numerals for me to know what they mean at this hour.
I would love to know your conversion story. I also am very impressed with the apparent calmness and clarity of your posts.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Well if you know why why are you bothering to ask?

Not only is this not a private conversation we are having (for there are some here that may not know what the LDS interpretation of Matt 18 is) but I am also not so presumptuous to say that I know what YOUR specific interpretation of this chapter is.

So, again, please kindly explain where I went wrong in my reasoning.

 

[Ronald_E]

Well if you know why why are you bothering to ask?

Teancum79, I want to applaud your involvement in this forum also. The discussions should be very interesting between a former and current LDS.

 

[teancum79]

Not only is this not a private conversation we are having (for there are some here that may not know what the LDS interpretation of Matt 18 is) but I am also not so presumptuous to say that I know what YOUR specific interpretation of this chapter is.

So, again, please kindly explain where I went wrong in my reasoning.

Matt 18 or 16?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Matthew 16:18-19.

Though we may bicker over what or who the “rock” in question is, I don’t see any ambiguity in the following message that states that said church (whichever it may be) will not be usurped by evil.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Pardon me, that should have read: Matthew 16 (but starting at verse 18).

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Welcome home. There are too many Roman numerals for me to know what they mean at this hour.
I would love to know your conversion story. I also am very impressed with the apparent calmness and clarity of your posts.

LOL. Thanks.

FYI. The roman numerals are my B-day. 11-25-1985.

1985 would have had three subsequent x’s in it (mcmlxxxv) and Catholic Answers seems to not allow ‘xxx’ anywhere in a user handle… go figure!

 

[Ronald_E]

LOL. Thanks.

FYI. The roman numerals are my B-day. 11-25-1985.

1985 would have had three subsequent x’s in it (mcmlxxxv) and Catholic Answers seems to not allow ‘xxx’ anywhere in a user handle… go figure!

Ahhh, to be 42 again. However, I was agnostic at 42 and well into eastern philosophy and pretty narcissistic. So maybe I do not want to be 42 again, which was 19 years ago. I digress. Thanks for the illumination, in other areas as well.

 

[teancum79]

Pardon me, that should have read: Matthew 16 (but starting at verse 18).

Okay so your taking the old Christ gave the keys of the kingdom and because the gates of hell will not prevail that the church could never have a problem.

The rock is revelation not peter. Saying that the gates of hell will not prevail does not mean that the church would never have a problem.
Also the church left the rock.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Okay so your taking the old Christ gave the keys of the kingdom and because the gates of hell will not prevail that the church could never have a problem.

The rock is revelation not peter. Saying that the gates of hell will not prevail does not mean that the church would never have a problem.
Also the church left the rock.

I never said that the church has never had “a problem”, in fact I conceded to the fact that there have been numerous heretical uprisings in the past. My point is that “prevail” alludes to the idea that there is no trumping the church. The fact that this verse is followed with “And I give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven …]”

This promise of victory over evil was in terms of having the apostolic authority to administer sacraments (or to put in LDS lingo) to have the “keys of the priesthood”. These keys are promised to never be trumped by hell, yet this is exactly what the most foundational of LDS premises states.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Okay so your taking the old Christ gave the keys of the kingdom and because the gates of hell will not prevail that the church could never have a problem.

Christ guaranteed to Peter and the apostles, that as a husband thoughout his life protects his bride, so Christ in the Holy Spirit will forever protect His bride-the Church. Do you NOT see the parallel between Adam’s bride coming from his side(flesh and bone) in Genesis and Christ’s bride coming from His side(blood=Eucharist- and water=baptism) in John?

Matthew 19:[6] So they are no longer two but one flesh.

By definition of scripture God cannot abandon the church nor the church abandon God because it constantly has the protection of God in the Holy Spirit. The Church is the bride of Christ forever (Rev 21).

The rock is revelation not peter. Saying that the gates of hell will not prevail does not mean that the church would never have a problem.

So when in scripture did Jesus begin speaking in the third person?

Matthew 16:[18] And** I**(Jesus) tell you(Peter), you(Peter) are Peter, and **on this rock **(Peter) I(Jesus) will build my(Jesus) church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it…

Jesus is telling Peter that He and Peter are one. Jesus is The Rock, and He is giving Peter an authority that is rightly His.

Your sciptural semantics don’t hold any water on this one.

Also the church left the rock.

See above…

 

[joe370]

Christ guaranteed to Peter and the apostles, that as a husband thoughout his life protects his bride, so Christ in the Holy Spirit will forever protect His bride-the Church. Do you NOT see the parallel between Adam’s bride coming from his side(flesh and bone) in Genesis

and Christ’s bride coming from His side(blood=Eucharist- and water=baptism) in John?

Matthew 19:[6] So they are no longer two but one flesh.By definition of scripture God cannot abandon the Jesus could have gotten around it if He’d wanted to. He didn’t have to say, ‘And(kai) on this rock I will build My Church.’ He could’ve said, ‘But(alla) on this rock I will build My Church,’ meaning another rock. He would have then had to explain who or what this other rock was. But He didn’t do that.church nor the church abandon God because it constantly has the protection of God in the Holy Spirit. The Church is the bride of Christ forever (Rev 21).

So when in scripture did Jesus begin speaking in the third person?

Matthew 16:[18] And** I**(Jesus) tell you(Peter), you(Peter) are Peter, and **on this rock **(Peter) I(Jesus) will build my(Jesus) church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it…

Jesus is telling Peter that He and Peter are one. Jesus is The Rock, and He is giving Peter an authority that is rightly His.

Your scriptural semantics don’t hold any water on this one.

Hey, GreyPilgrim–I’m afraid your dealing with a 2+2=5 mentality here. As a former lutheran as short lived as it was, I witnessed pastors ripping Matthew 16:18 out of context.

Matthew 16:18, all by itself should for all practical purposes end the debate on who the rock is, and the
fact that Ephesians 2:19-22 says, Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20**built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. ** —(should seal the deal for catholics.) 21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

Protestant Greek scholars admit there is no distinction in meaning between petros and petra in the Koine Greek of the New Testament.

petra means a ‘rock.’ It even usually means a ‘large rock.’ And that’s exactly what petros means, too - large rock. It does not mean ‘pebble’ or ‘small stone,’ as some have claimed. The Greek word for ‘pebble’ or ‘small stone’ is lithos, not petros.

Looking at the Greek, Matthew used the demonstrative pronoun taute, which means ‘this very,’ when he referred to the rock on which the Church would be built: 'You are Peter, and on taute petra (this very rock), ‘I will build My Church.’

when a demonstrative pronoun is used with the Greek word for ‘and,’ which is ‘kai,’ the pronoun refers back to the preceding noun. In other words, when Jesus says, ‘You are rock, and on this rock I will build My Church,’ the second rock He refers to has to be the same rock as the first one. Peter is the rock in both cases.

Peter was not a common name in the apostolic age. In fact, it was unheard of. Peter means “Rock” and comes from the Greek “Petras” which is a translation of the Aramaic “Kephas”, the language Jesus and the apostles spoke. It is a new name given to him by Jesus as soon as Jesus first approaches this future apostle, Simon in John 1:42: “Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas’”.

We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the Cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’

What is Cephas? It is a transliteration of the Aramaic “Kephas”, meaning massive rock. We have this name preserved 4 times in Galations and 4 times in 1 Corinthians. The Aramaic for small stone or pebble is evna. In the Old Testament, “Rock” referred exclusively to God alone, and here we have Jesus telling one of his disciples that he is the Rock the second they meet. This is obviously a sign that Jesus has something great in mind for this apostle.

Don’t believe the “Petros” argument… In the apostolic age, Petras and Petros had one and the same meaning (we know this from Greek poetry), and you couldn’t name a man with a feminine noun, so to make it fit, the Greek changed Petras to “Petros” for grammatical sake. It was only after this that this Greek noun began to hold dichotomous meanings according to its gender, rightfully so.

And thus, some people out of ignorance still hold to the argument that Matthew 16:18 says “You are Petros and upon this Petras, I will build my church”, and since today Petros means “small pebble”, Jesus was contrasting Peter from Himself in this passage, which is merely pure misunderstanding of the passage taken out of its lingual context.

You are peter and on this Jesus I will build my church.

You are peter (INSIGNIFICANT PEBBLE) and on this (massive rock) I will build my church.

Even my 7 year old saw the obvious grammatical problem…

 

[wisdomseeker]

The church Paul was addressing ceased to be there for a long time. There are several allusions to a falling away and a restitution, but those tend to be ignored.

Please present these allusions and by whom.

it is very easy to make up statements when people get desperate to hold on to lies. why is it a lie?

that is how i know.
because if Jesus said “the gates of hell will not prevail against my Church.” then i must know that anything contrary to that is a lie.

unless you believe that Jesus was just kidding. or you worship a God who does not keep His word.

Jesus came to save sinners not the righteousness. it s only understandble that His Church will have many sinners.
2000 years later man still sins.

make no mistake about it my friend, the True Church still here and will be here untill her groom comes back.
take care that you are not fighting against Our Lord on this one.

[SIGN]“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… [SIGN][/SIGN][/SIGN]

 

[mercygate]

Fascinating byway, fellas. But keep in mind this thread is about the Bible and its provenance.

 

[JRKH]

Fascinating byway, fellas. But keep in mind this thread is about the Bible and its provenance.

Mercy,
Your very correct. By rights this line should be in another thread, but…
I’m afraid we are slightly derailed for awhile.
Truthfully though I don’t mind. As you had pointed out the other day, the question of just when the Church “fell away” into apostacy is a critical one. And since xixxvmcm85 has shown up to answer Teancum79, the conversation has gotten more interesting.
I’m just looking and listening for now.

Peace
James

 

[po18guy]

LOL

How could it be Protestant if there was no complete Bible to serve as the sole rule of faith?

(The Bible wasn’t officially compiled until the late 4th century.)

How did “Protestants” from the first to the late fourth century understand God’s Word with no complete Bible, then?

Are you saying what limited sacred writings “Protestants” had during those times was sufficient?

Ouch! uch: Well said! Doggoned double-edged swords! I wonder whatever happened to using CHRIST as the sole rule of faith???

But, you can carry a blble with you, see? You can have that old truth right beside you everywhere you go, and everyone that reads it will come to the same exact conclusions, since that book alone is the truth, right? So, why isn’t everyone an Adventist?

But, how else could you ever have the truth with you? To do that, why, you’d have to do something crazy like eat His Body and drink His Blood! Oh, never mind…

Christ’s peace.

 

[mercygate]

Ouch! uch: Well said! Doggoned double-edged swords! I wonder whatever happened to using CHRIST as the sole rule of faith???

But, you can carry a blble with you, see? You can have that old truth right beside you everywhere you go, and everyone that reads it will come to the same exact conclusions, since that book alone is the truth, right? So, why isn’t everyone an Adventist?

But, how else could you ever have the truth with you? To do that, why, you’d have to do something crazy like eat His Body and drink His Blood! Oh, never mind…

Christ’s peace.

Man po18! You guys just don’t know nuttin about Church history!

Those “true PROTESTANT Christians” had the New Testament all sewn up: no question. Those so-called disputed books: Revelation, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, James, 2 & 3 John – those were ALL recognized by the “true PROTESTANT Christians” who brought them to the Councils of Hippo and Carthage and cleared everything up!

 

[po18guy]

Man po18! You guys just don’t know nuttin about Church history!

Those “true PROTESTANT Christians” had the New Testament all sewn up: no question. Those so-called disputed books: Revelation, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, James, 2 & 3 John – those were ALL recognized by the “true PROTESTANT Christians” who brought them to the Councils of Hippo and Carthage and cleared everything up!

Thanks for clearing all that up! I cut a page out of one of my bibles, held it up and tore it in two. I didn’t recognize anyone in it. Next, I tried eating pages out of my bible, and boiling the other pages and drinking them. Still nothing! Must be some other way of being lead to the truth, huh?

Christ’s peace.