To Non-Catholics: Why Peter IS the Rock

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andrew_Larkoski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
Why do you think this is witheld from our christian brothers and sisters? Is it denial or is it that they do not see it? :confused:
This is not withheld from us in any way. Do you think we do not acknowledge that Christ is the foundation of our lives and of the church? Surely he is the rock, the cornerstone. Yet, can this not be true and Peter still be A rock also? A rock in a different and very important sense? The two are not mutually exclusive as you would have it. Peter IS the rock in MT 16, and Christ IS the rock in the passage you cite. They are different verses, different usages, different contexts, but both are valid.
 
40.png
francisca:
The problem is, the original text of the New Testament is WRITTEN IN GREEK.

So the question should be :

Is “Cephas” a transliteration from Aramaic written in Greek Alphabeth (in the original text), or is this “Chephas” is merely a later translation from “Petros” (because the original text is in greek).
A couple points here. There are several references in the early church writings (not scripture) from early church fathers that Matthew indeed wrote his Gospel in Aramaic first, and then either that was translated to the Greek, or the Greek was written separately in addition (more likely). The Aramaic manuscripts are lost to us if they ever existed, but the testimony of those as early as Papias and St. Irenaeus state that he first wrote his gospel in Aramaic (or possibly Hebrew), then later in Greek. See this article for a more in depth discussion…

newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

…Regardless we are told explicitely in John 1:42…
*** “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter). ***
…so we actually have scripture clearly stating that Jesus renamed him Cephas, and then John even does his readers the favor of rendering the transliteration. The name Cephas is also preserved for us in two of Paul’s letters (Galatians and 1 Corinthians). Peter was definetely a transliteration. There is no way around the fact that Jesus gave Simon the name Cephas, not Peter.
40.png
francisca:
I think what language Jesus spoke to the apostles would be irrelevant because what we read is ORIGINAL WRITTEN TEXT IN GREEK LANGUAGE. We cannot speculate Jesus’s spoken “Peter”. We can only take it as it is from WHAT IS WRITTEN in the ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT.

Just my little research! I’m no expert though…
First, it is far from irrelevant what language Jesus spoke. If Jesus spoke Matthew 16 in Aramaic, the phrase would have been…
*
'You are Kepha (massive stone), and on this Kepha **(massive stone) *I will build my Church’.

…This totally destroys the argument being made that the greek form read should be understood as…
  • Code:
    'You are Petros** (little stone)**, and on this Petra **(massive Stone-Presumably referring to himself)** I will build my church.'*
40.png
francisca:
I have checked in the Greek bible (I’m not sure wether it is exactly the same as original text), but it is written Petros (pi epsilon tau ro omega zeta), and there is comment that says PetroV is male in gender, not female.
That’s exactly the point. The ONLY reason the Greek reads as ‘you are Petros’ instead of ‘you are Petra’ is because Petros (presumably small stone) is the masculine, but Petra (massive stone) is female. Again, referring to the Aramaic, the literal translation should have been…
  • You are Petra (massive stone), and on this Petra (massive stone) I will build my church.*
… But that wouldn’t have been right, because Petra is feminine (check Petra in your Greek dictionary), and won’t work for a name for a male. Matthew switches this to Petros (masculine) for that reason without the intention of switching the meaning to be small stone. We know this again from what Jesus would have said in Aramaic, where the gender problem did not exist. In that case, he could use Cephas for both references.
 
40.png
SteveG:
This is not withheld from us in any way. Do you think we do not acknowledge that Christ is the foundation of our lives and of the church? Surely he is the rock, the cornerstone. Yet, can this not be true and Peter still be A rock also? A rock in a different and very important sense? The two are not mutually exclusive as you would have it. Peter IS the rock in MT 16, and Christ IS the rock in the passage you cite. They are different verses, different usages, different contexts, but both are valid.
I do understand what you are saying.Rock can have different meanings when its put into the context of the text.We also know that there can only be one who is above all [capstone] JESUS CHRIST. 👍
 
40.png
BCarpenelli:
40.png
latisha1903:
good for them…first i’m not protestant…and second irregardless
thats new for me…but i guess speech changes over time…

Latisha,

If your not Protestant, then what are you? Your arguments are the same ones I used when I was Protestant trying to disprove the Catholic Peter.

If you explore it long enough, I think you will find that the scriptures and history lean heavily towards the Catholic tradition.
i’m a Christian that attends services at a local Church of Christ. and as far as ‘exploring’ the scriptures i have…and in depth…and i see no evidence leaning toward the catholic church or tradition…in fact…none that i can place my finger on.
 
40.png
SteveG:
First, apologies if my previous post lacked charity. Without intending to ‘fight’, but rather discuss, let me see if I can ask a few questions to see if I understand you position correctly.

Can you acknowledge that this is only an opinion of your’s? I would say it clearly shows Peter IS the rock, and that’s my opion. One of us is correct, and one of us in incorrect. Only the facts and evidence can decide that. Do we agree there?

I accept that you are not attacking me, and I apologize again if my posts seemed overly defensive. I don’t WANT anything more. This is a discussion forum, and as such usually people are interested in discussing their views. You lay out an opinion, I lay out a different one, and challenge some of what you wrote. I don’t think it’s overly belligerent to expect on a discussion forum that the person being challenged would want to address the critique of their posts and engage in further dialogue.

I agree that it can end up there, but I certainly don’t think it’s reached that point yet. If you are convicted of your beliefs, certainly you would want to explain and defend them. I brought up some things I believe are deficient in the facts you list, not necessarily to attack you, but to see how you can explain or defend those challenges. Again, we may come to the impasse you suggest, but there are way too many open question left before we have to declare such an impasse.

Let me start with two simple yes or no questions that may get the discussion back on track.
  1. Do you acknowledge that Jesus and the apostles likely would have spoken Aramaic, and not Greek in their daily conversations?
  2. Do you acknowledge that regardless of which interpretation is correct, Jesus likely would have spoken these statements in Aramaic?
answer to your questions…
ah i have no studying in the context so i can not comment, but i’m sure i can get some background on that from my uncle…who is a Bible professor…

again i have no history in what they spoke back then…something i can put on the agenda though…

but i’ve put my reasons above…and explanied myself…no more to it…really

God Bless
 
40.png
latisha1903:
i’m a Christian that attends services at a local Church of Christ. and as far as ‘exploring’ the scriptures i have…and in depth…and i see no evidence leaning toward the catholic church or tradition…in fact…none that i can place my finger on.
ah, don’t we all… same applies to us here… to quote you, I see no evicence leaning toward the protestant churches and theri solas… in fact, none that I can place my finger on…"

but why fret? thhat’s what this forum is for…

post here what you can’s see the evidence for, and we’ll answer it. 😉

remember too, though, that we don’t believe the Bible as the source of authority in the first place (unless I can hear the Bible speaks and gives command :eek: ). The Bible is but one of the Tradition! 👍
 
I completely agree with all of SteveG’s posts. To clarify the Catholic position a bit: above all, Christ (God) is the foundation of the Church. No question. However, Jesus is no longer on Earth, so he can’t directly lead His flock. Hence the necessity for a HUMAN (yes, a sinner like us all) to be the Vicar of Christ and have Christ work through him to lead Christ’s flock. Christ chose Peter to be the human ROCK upon which the Church on Earth was to be lead, with the Spirit of Christ (the Holy Spirit) to work through Peter to lead the Church. The other apostles were guided by Peter to tend to their own smaller flocks (their apostalic sees, today known as dioceses).

Hope that helps.
 
40.png
latisha1903:
answer to your questions…
ah i have no studying in the context so i can not comment, but i’m sure i can get some background on that from my uncle…who is a Bible professor…

again i have no history in what they spoke back then…something i can put on the agenda though…

but i’ve put my reasons above…and explanied myself…no more to it…really

God Bless
I’ll respect that for now and that you ar at least willing to investigate this. If your uncle is a true credentialed biblical scholar, then I have no doubt he would confirm that Christ and his apostes spoke Aramaic. If he does, then I’d seriously question his credentials as this issue is really not in doubt.

Actually, I could prove this to you from scripture if you like. Interested?

I hope you can see that if he confirms that they would have spoken Aramaic, then your analysis of the Greek is in trouble and you’d then have to look at the analysis of the Aramaic instead. In that analysis, the ‘little pebble’ reference is non-existent and this will critically undermine your understanding of the passage.
 
40.png
mrS4ntA:
ah, don’t we all… same applies to us here… to quote you, I see no evicence leaning toward the protestant churches and theri solas… in fact, none that I can place my finger on…"

but why fret? thhat’s what this forum is for…

post here what you can’s see the evidence for, and we’ll answer it. 😉

remember too, though, that we don’t believe the Bible as the source of authority in the first place (unless I can hear the Bible speaks and gives command :eek: ). The Bible is but one of the Tradition! 👍
that is completly where we differ…i believe the Bible is the ONLY source…thats why we’ll never be in agreement…but its all good

God Bless
 
40.png
latisha1903:
that is completly where we differ…i believe the Bible is the ONLY source…thats why we’ll never be in agreement…but its all good

God Bless
ahhh, it always comes back to this. Latisha, please show me where the bible teaches that it is the ONLY source of authority in the Christian life?

You need not give me tons of quotes explaining how wonderful scripture is. I believe that. I believe it is the inerrant, inspired word of God. Also, don’t bother using …
2 Timothy 3:16, 17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

…It is all these things, yet this doesn’t make the claim that it is the SOLE authority. It says that scripture is PROFITABLE, NOT EXLUSIVE for such things. This verse does not preclude other sources as authoritative. In fact New Testament itself declares the Church to be “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

Show me from the bible, where it teaches that the bible is the SOLE, ONLY, EXCLUSIVE authority.
 
40.png
SteveG:
ahhh, it always comes back to this. Latisha, please show me where the bible teaches that it is the ONLY source of authority in the Christian life?

You need not give me tons of quotes explaining how wonderful scripture is. I believe that. I believe it is the inerrant, inspired word of God. Also, don’t bother using …
2 Timothy 3:16, 17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

…It is all these things, yet this doesn’t make the claim that it is the SOLE authority. It says that scripture is PROFITABLE, NOT EXLUSIVE for such things. This verse does not preclude other sources as authoritative. In fact New Testament itself declares the Church to be “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

Show me from the bible, where it teaches that the bible is the SOLE, ONLY, EXCLUSIVE authority.
how can you tell me what not to use…that already shows that you are closed minded and have no interest in my point of view. you already reject it…and i shall use what gives bases for scripture only…but why even ask when you are from the defensive and not open minded in the first place…you already reject the scripture for being the only source, even with quoted verses…so where does that put you? what is the point of asking if you already reject it? because we already disagree on the main issue here the Bible, than we aren’t really going to get anywhere…but anways…

Revelations 22:18-19 speaks of not adding to…

“…of this book…if any man shall add unto these things…”

james 1:21 “wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluit of anughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save souls”

2 Cor. 1:13
we can understand the scriptures

john 21:25 does state that all his teachins are not here…
Although we do not have everything Jesus did, we do have every necessary thing

and as far as second timothy…the quote…profitable is enough to say that there is not needed for more…thats like saying o this car is profitable for me to drive, get me to work and everything else…but i think i need more…i need a truck too…even though this is fine…lets get one anyway…when applying this to God’s word i don’t beleive that is what is called for? i ask you this…where does it say…i give you this word but not ALL of it…and I need man to write some more for me…even though it has stated this IS sufficient? yes you can quote the scripture that says all of Christ’s teachings are not here…but where does it say,that we didn’t meant to leave those out. because from what i’ve read, if those extra works of Christ needed to be included they would have been.

God Bless
 
40.png
latisha1903:
how can you tell me what not to use…that already shows that you are closed minded and have no interest in my point of view. you already reject …
Of course you can use whatever you like. I don’tt mean to prohibit you (It’s not as though you need my permission). I meant it in the sense that doing such will not prove your point. I’ve seen this line of argument and it’s unconvincing, so was just trying to save you some time. IF you can prove to me from such passage, then please do. My only point was meant to be that showing that scripture is awesome and wonderful is true, but it doesn’t prove that it is the ONLY authority.
40.png
latisha1903:
Revelations 22:18-19 speaks of not adding to…

“…of this book…if any man shall add unto these things…”
This again misundertands bible scholarship and show sas lack of knowledge of biblical history. Please understand I am not attacking you here. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I am just trying to explain what you are unaware of. The bible you hold in your hands as a bound volume is not what the early church had. The complete set of books was not finally decided on until at the earliest the late 4th centure. Revelations would have been a separate book or manuscript . The statement above applies only to that work. It is not valid to just grab a bible and sit down and start reading it and figuring it out for yourself. To actually understand it, one needs to know the history of the bible canon, the cultural contexts at the time the books were written, as well as many other factors. To sit down and read these ancient texts with modern eyes with no knowledge of the bibles history or cultural contexts is dangerous and leads to many errors.
40.png
latisha1903:
james 1:21 “wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluit of anughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save souls”

2 Cor. 1:13
we can understand the scriptures
Several problem here. First, this illustrates my point above. I don’t disagree with these verses. But how in any way does this prove that scripture alone is the SOLE authority?
40.png
latisha1903:
and as far as second timothy…
Firstly, I am not refering to other writings. The answer is that there is other things held and contained in sacred Tradition. Scripture clearly attests to this fact…

“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thess. 2:15)

“You, then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:1-2). Note: what you 'heard from me, not what you read.

“‘Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete” (2 John 12).

Again latisha, I am not attacking you. I am asking you to explain your position. This is a discussion forum. If you hold a position, you should expect that you’ll have to intelligently defend it. You hold that the bible is the SOLE authority, so I am only asking you to prove that from the bible itself.

Don’t take everything as an attack, and please don’t be so sensitive. You won’t last long on this forum if you can’t take some critiqueing of your posts.
 
40.png
latisha1903:
and as far as second timothy…the quote…profitable is enough to say that there is not needed for more…thats like saying o this car is profitable for me to drive, get me to work and everything else…but i think i need more…i need a truck too…even though this is fine…lets get one anyway…when applying this to God’s word i don’t beleive that is what is called for? i ask you this…where does it say…i give you this word but not ALL of it…and I need man to write some more for me…even though it has stated this IS sufficient? yes you can quote the scripture that says all of Christ’s teachings are not here…but where does it say,that we didn’t meant to leave those out. because from what i’ve read, if those extra works of Christ needed to be included they would have been.

God Bless
"
…profitable is enough to say that there is not needed for more…"
No. Profitable does not equal sufficient. Food is profitable for human life, but it is not sufficient. You also need air and water and protection from the elements.
thats like saying o this car is profitable for me to drive, get me to work and everything else.
If the car was sufficient, you wouldn’t need gas, roads, skill to drive, knowlege of the way to work, etc.
this to God’s word i don’t beleive that is what is called for? i ask you this…where does it say…i give you this word but not ALL of it…and I need man to write some more for me…even though it has stated this IS sufficient?
No where do the scriptures claim to be sufficient. Profitable does not equal sufficient. What do the scriptures say?

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thess. 2:15)

"You, then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:1-2).

Justin
 
Paul is clear in 1 Corinthians 3:11
“For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” We can’t look to a mere human being as the foundation of the Christian church! “It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.” (Psalm 118:8). Like David said, “The Lord is my rock” (Psalm 18:2) “And who is a rock, except our God?” (Psalm 18:31).
Jesus Christ obviously knew we needed a human leader for His Church, If it’s important for a country to have a president to perserve unity, it’s even more important for a worldwide church to have a leader. *We *didn’t invent this system, Jesus gave it to us through the Apostles, later written down into the Scriptures. Sure it would be nice if we could see Jesus physically leading the Church, but instead he chose to work through mere men,(following Scripture and Sacred Tradition, guided by the Holy Spirit) until he comes again. I trust Him to appoint His Popes through Apostolic succession. The Holy Spirit worked though “mere men” to write Scripture, who are you to change Scripture because in it Jesus appoints a “mere man” on whom to build his Church? He appointed a “mere man” named Moses to lead his people and give them the 10 commandments. “Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions you were taught, either by oral statement or by a letter of ours.” 2 Thessalonians 2:15 The Catholic Church has held these Sacred Traditions intact for over 2000 yrs. Of course, the core of Christianity is Jesus Christ, the Pope is simply carrying out his part in that design as a vicar of Christ. “But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” Will you accept teachings in *some *scripture and not others? The Bible isn’t a salad bar, you can’t take the peas and leave the carrots!
Peter was not “rock solid” at this point in time. If we read on in Matthew 16
, just a few verses after Jesus spoke of the rock, we find Christ rebuking Peter for trying to hinder His ministry: “But He turned and said to Peter, Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.” (Matthew 16:23) Later, it was Peter who denied three times that he even knew Jesus (Matthew 26:69-75). So he obviously had some growing to do in his relationship with the Lord, and Jesus knew that (Luke 22:31-32).

Yes, we are all well aware of when Jesus rebuked Peter, and that he denied Jesus 3 times. You are right, Peter wasn’t rock solid, yet. He did not believe that he could be capable of denying Jesus. What you may be forgettng is that after the resurrection, Jesus confirmed Peter as the head of the Church. “Jesus said to Simon Peter ‘feed my lambs’… tend my sheep’…‘feed my sheep.’” John 21:15-17
I see a connection between Peter denying Jesus 3 times and Jesus asking him to feed and tend the lambs of his Church 3 times. I think this tells us something about forgiveness, mercy and that whatever God has chosen us to do(,even if it’s for a mere man to be the rock on which he would build his Church, )with His Grace, we can become a new creation, to do His will. Peter would later be crucified for being a Christian… only he was crucified upside down because he did not consider himself worthy to be crucified like Christ. That sounds rock solid to me. By the way,This also explains the upside down cross you may see in religious art, it’s a symbol for St. Peter.
 
40.png
latisha1903:
Revelations 22:18-19 speaks of not adding to…

“…of this book…if any man shall add unto these things…”

james 1:21 “wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluit of anughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save souls”

2 Cor. 1:13
we can understand the scriptures

john 21:25 does state that all his teachins are not here…
Although we do not have everything Jesus did, we do have every necessary thing

where does it say…i give you this word but not ALL of it…and I need man to write some more for me…even though it has stated this IS sufficient? yes you can quote the scripture that says all of Christ’s teachings are not here…but where does it say,that we didn’t meant to leave those out. because from what i’ve read, if those extra works of Christ needed to be included they would have been.

God Bless
Does Jesus seak to us only thorough the Bible? No, That’s not correct, Listen to what Jesus said to His disciples…
**“He who hears you, hears me. And he who rejects you, rejects me. And he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me.” Luke 10:16 **Jesus speaks to us today through the Bible and the Catholic Church He established. The teachings of the Church and Sacred Tradition will never be contrary to Scripture, because that is where the Scriptures came from

The Bible does not say everything God wants us to know is in the Bible alone. The Bible does say that God’s Word comes to us through written and unwritten Tradition.
"Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours."
**2 Thessalonians 2:15 **“Tradition” means to “pass on” The faith of the early Christians was passed on orally before it was written.

Many people say they don’t need a church to tell them what to believe. They can read a Bible and decide for themselves. Jesus told the apostles to “teach” not to hand people a Bible and let them decide for themselves. **“Go… teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” Matthew 28:19-20 **Without teachers who have learned what was handed down from the apostles, the Bible can be interpreted thousands of different ways! That is why there are hundreds of Protestant denominations, who each interpret the Bible differently.

You may say the Bible alone is the ultimate authority of truth, not the Church…but that’s not what St. Paul says in his letter to Timothy…**“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” **
**1 Timothy 2:15 **Jesus established a living authourity, the Church. The Church gave us the Bible and is the final authourity on matters of faith. History confirms the Catholic Church was the first Christian Church. It was also the Church that collected and preserved the New Testament. Sacred Apostolic Tradition cannot and will never be contrary to Scripture because that is where it came from.
 
Christ is indeed refered to as the bridegroom and the church as the bride. That is why it is such a scandal that there are thousands of denominations. It is as if Christ left his original bride and now has many. No one can seriously proclaim that we are “one faith, one hope and one baptism.”

Faith is a gift so let us pray that all are given the gift of the fullness of the truth. There cannot be my truth and your truth because truth is not a thing it is a who, Jesus Christ.
 
40.png
Peace-bwu:
Does Jesus seak to us only thorough the Bible? No, That’s not correct, Listen to what Jesus said to His disciples…
**“He who hears you, hears me. And he who rejects you, rejects me. And he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me.” Luke 10:16 **Jesus speaks to us today through the Bible and the Catholic Church He established. The teachings of the Church and Sacred Tradition will never be contrary to Scripture, because that is where the Scriptures came from

The Bible does not say everything God wants us to know is in the Bible alone. The Bible does say that God’s Word comes to us through written and unwritten Tradition.
"Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours."
**2 Thessalonians 2:15 **“Tradition” means to “pass on” The faith of the early Christians was passed on orally before it was written.

Many people say they don’t need a church to tell them what to believe. They can read a Bible and decide for themselves. Jesus told the apostles to “teach” not to hand people a Bible and let them decide for themselves. **“Go… teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” Matthew 28:19-20 **Without teachers who have learned what was handed down from the apostles, the Bible can be interpreted thousands of different ways! That is why there are hundreds of Protestant denominations, who each interpret the Bible differently.

You may say the Bible alone is the ultimate authority of truth, not the Church…but that’s not what St. Paul says in his letter to Timothy…**“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” **
**1 Timothy 2:15 **Jesus established a living authourity, the Church. The Church gave us the Bible and is the final authourity on matters of faith. History confirms the Catholic Church was the first Christian Church. It was also the Church that collected and preserved the New Testament. Sacred Apostolic Tradition cannot and will never be contrary to Scripture because that is where it came from.
we are not nor ever will be in agreement that the catholic church is the church that Christ founded.
 
40.png
latisha1903:
we are not nor ever will be in agreement that the catholic church is the church that Christ founded.
…but instead its like you get attacked simply because you don’t hold the same beliefs…what’s the point…
i’m content on what i have also…so your truth is not going to be my truth…so your statement is somewhat correct here…
Translation: Truth is a relative thing that changes from person to person, so please don’t argue with factual data. It isn’t fair or nice or inclusive.

Justin
 
40.png
latisha1903:
we are not nor ever will be in agreement that the catholic church is the church that Christ founded.
Latisha, I am curioius if you even know the history of your own Church? I am quite familiar with the Church of Christ and it’s position that it is not another ‘denomination’. I realize that earlier that is why you rejected the title of Protestant.

But are you aware that it is very well documented that your church (the Church of Christ) came out of a movement called the restoration movement founded by Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone in the early 19th Century? There is absolutely no trace of it in history before that time despite what you have been told. Here is a brief article regarding this…
religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/restor1.html
…the Church of Christ is in fact just another Protestant denomination which has suffered many division itself since its inception. Regardless of whether the Catholic Church is the true Christ established (and we have a FAR better historical claim than any other), the ‘Church of Christ’ is manifestly NOT the church Christ established. I pray in all charity that you will see the errors you have been led into.
 
40.png
SteveG:
Latisha, I am curioius if you even know the history of your own Church? I am quite familiar with the Church of Christ and it’s position that it is not another ‘denomination’. I realize that earlier that is why you rejected the title of Protestant.

But are you aware that it is very well documented that your church (the Church of Christ) came out of a movement called the restoration movement founded by Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone in the early 19th Century? There is absolutely no trace of it in history before that time despite what you have been told. Here is a brief article regarding this…
religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/restor1.html
…the Church of Christ is in fact just another Protestant denomination which has suffered many division itself since its inception. Regardless of whether the Catholic Church is the true Christ established (and we have a FAR better historical claim than any other), the ‘Church of Christ’ is manifestly NOT the church Christ established. I pray in all charity that you will see the errors you have been led into.
it reminds me of something my professor said in history one time…

“the ‘winners’ are always the one to write history, you never get the full story on the losers side”

but with that said…the church of Christ was not founded by alexander campbell…what is written or what is percieved to be ‘history’ doesn’t make it factual. just as you can say the CoC is not the church that Christ established…the catholic church is not the church i read in the Bible not given any scriptual evidence to being the one Christ founded. and i can give many examples of where the CoC is in line with scriputure. and its not about being what i was told, its about what i’ve studied. many churches claim stake to the name church of Christ…the ICoC, the UCC and other churches that DO trace THEIR roots to alexander campbell. but we’re not speaking of these churches either. and its not a denomination, but we’ll never agree on that either. ‘history’ lets me knw that the catholic church was founded in 606 A.D in rome by boniface III…

do some history on YOUR church…show were infant baptism is found, show where confimation is found…where is that taught…or even the MASS? the praying to saints? the cross gesture? the need for nuns? purgatory…when clearly the Bible speaks nothing of this…and gives a clear example of heaven and hell and a waiting place for souls until judgement day, but says nothing about being able to pray for souls in ‘purgatory’…things don’t add up…stuff has been added in…or even the basis for priests, when we are ALL priests. or confession to a priest???

again we are ALL convicted in our faith…period.

and i pray for you also in all charity that you will see the errors you have been led into.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top