To Non-Catholics: Why Peter IS the Rock

[Delgadoajj]

Latisha:

First of all, the Bible :bible1: is not the only source of Truth. The Bible is a product of the Church (Catholic). There is another thread started by Katholicos about the History of the Bible that explains this. Please look for it. It’s really interesting.

As far as the Mass is concerned, it was originally called “Eukaristia” by the early christians. It means “Thanksgiving” The romans learned to key-in on this word in order to identify christians and imprison them. The christians then began using the word “Misa”, which meant the place where christians would congregate to celebrate the Eucharist. From this, Mass came to being in the English language.

St. Justin Martyr wrote several apologetic letters to the romans defending Christianity. In his first letter (155 AD), he clearly describes the “Eukaristia”. You will find this description very interesting, because it is exactly what Catholics do at Mass every Sunday, so I would say that if the church you visit on Sundays does not fit this description, it is really not the True Church of Christ. This letter was written way before 606 AD, and there are countless others from various early Christians which clearly point to the Catholic Church as being the original Church of Christ, many of them even clearly state the name: “Catholic”.

Questions: Does your church have deacons, priests, and bishops? Please show me in the Bible where it says that it is the only source of Truth? Does your church permit the use of wedding rings for those who get married? Why/why not? Please note that Christ’s Church came first, then the Bible was born, not the other way around. The Church gave birth to the Bible. This is a well-documented fact.

Based on the logic you are using, pretty much facts can be whatever your imagination can muster up, and well-documented History is nothing more than a fairy-tale. I guess that kind of logic would explain why some people even today, only 60 years after the fact, deny that the Holocaust ever occured, and it was made up by the Allies (winners) in WWII, in order to discredit the Germans (loosers).

Also, many of the doctrines you mention, existed before the Bible was even canonized (compiled) by the Church, and again, using you logic, the Bible would also fall under the “added items” category. You are missing something: Doctrinal Authority, which is only found in the Catholic Church.

Jorge.

 

[homer]

Andrew Larkoski:

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.

Man read your Bible for crying out loud !!!
Jesus himself said that after he leaves the earth, he will send us the HOLY SPIRIT to guide us. NO you do not need a man to play the role of Christ on earth because it is wrong for we are all sinners and because Jesus allready did send you the Holy Spirit.
Saying that we need a sinner to be the vicar of Christ on earth and denying the role of the Holy Spirit is simply blasphemy.

Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. (Matthew 12: 31)

 

[latisha1903]

Delgadoajj:

Latisha:

First of all, the Bible :bible1: is not the only source of Truth. The Bible is a product of the Church (Catholic). There is another thread started by Katholicos about the History of the Bible that explains this. Please look for it. It’s really interesting.

As far as the Mass is concerned, it was originally called “Eukaristia” by the early christians. It means “Thanksgiving” The romans learned to key-in on this word in order to identify christians and imprison them. The christians then began using the word “Misa”, which meant the place where christians would congregate to celebrate the Eucharist. From this, Mass came to being in the English language.

St. Justin Martyr wrote several apologetic letters to the romans defending Christianity. In his first letter (155 AD), he clearly describes the “Eukaristia”. You will find this description very interesting, because it is exactly what Catholics do at Mass every Sunday, so I would say that if the church you visit on Sundays does not fit this description, it is really not the True Church of Christ. This letter was written way before 606 AD, and there are countless others from various early Christians which clearly point to the Catholic Church as being the original Church of Christ, many of them even clearly state the name: “Catholic”.

Questions: Does your church have deacons, priests, and bishops? Please show me in the Bible where it says that it is the only source of Truth? Does your church permit the use of wedding rings for those who get married? Why/why not? Please note that Christ’s Church came first, then the Bible was born, not the other way around. The Church gave birth to the Bible. This is a well-documented fact.

Based on the logic you are using, pretty much facts can be whatever your imagination can muster up, and well-documented History is nothing more than a fairy-tale. I guess that kind of logic would explain why some people even today, only 60 years after the fact, deny that the Holocaust ever occured, and it was made up by the Allies (winners) in WWII, in order to discredit the Germans (loosers).

Also, many of the doctrines you mention, existed before the Bible was even canonized (compiled) by the Church, and again, using you logic, the Bible would also fall under the “added items” category. You are missing something: Doctrinal Authority, which is only found in the Catholic Church.

Jorge.

all is well Jorge…your reponse is noted, and thank you for your reponse…just one more question…and i’m moving on…

what is the basis for calling man ‘reverend’ when clearly it states in psalms 111:19 that reverend is HIS name…and Job 32:21-22.

To everyone who reads this…your comments and views are noted, and well taken into account. but just as you came believeing what you believe so will I and continue as before…no need for prayer for me or anything…because again as always stated we are all convicted in our faith. and you can say that evidence points in your direction, because you can pull up documents or because truly this is what you’ve been taughts, just as i have. i provide my facts and your provide yours. i just look at it as though i’m in your shoes as i would like you to look at it as if you were in mine. in the end, we’ll all leave [or in this case] the same as we came. i’m content where i am, scriptual evidence will keep me where i am, and i’m happy, so God bless you, and no hard feelings.

Ciao

 

[Delgadoajj]

Latisha:

The Bible also says: “Call no man a teacher”, Jesus is the only teacher. I guess you never called your “instructors” throughout school, “teacher”, because the Bible says that, right?

Jorge.

 

[SteveG]

homer:

Man read your Bible for crying out loud !!!
Jesus himself said that after he leaves the earth, he will send us the HOLY SPIRIT to guide us. NO you do not need a man to play the role of Christ on earth because it is wrong for we are all sinners and because Jesus allready did send you the Holy Spirit.
Saying that we need a sinner to be the vicar of Christ on earth and denying the role of the Holy Spirit is simply blasphemy.

This is interesting that you have a problem with the vicar of Christ on earth being a sinner, but don’t seem to connect the dots and recognize that sinful imperfect men also wrote the scriptures that you are telling us to read. If the Holy Spirit can protect the writers of scripture from teaching us error, can you explain why it’s not possible that the HS could protect the sinful vicar of Christ in the same way?

 

[Delgadoajj]

SteveG:

This closes the vicious circle produced by the belief of “Sola Scriptura” given by the Reformation. Protestantism cannot explain this. This is a major glitch overlooked by the Reformation Fathers.

The only way to get out of this circular argument is to cease to rely on the Bible as the sole source of Truth. This means looking for the Authority that produced the Bible to begin with: The Catholic Church.

Jorge.

 

[SteveG]

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

Who are the winners here? I gave you a secular source who documented this. Certainly you wouldn’t say they are ‘siding’ with the Catholic Church as they despise us as much as they do you.

latisha1903:

but with that said…the church of Christ was not founded by alexander campbell…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

Show me evidence from your studies that CoC is not founded by Alexander Campbell.

‘history’ let 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?

I assure you I’ve studied the history of my church far more deeply than you have. I am actually a convert to Catholicism and it’s the study of history which led me to convert. I have heard people argue that the Catholic Church was ‘created’ in 325 when the emporer constantine converted. This is also ridiculous, but at least makes some sense in comparison tot he claim it was ‘created’ in 606. What evidence do you base such a preposterous claim on?

latisha1903:

the praying to saints?

if you want early witnesses of early Christian community practices, look at some of the inscriptions in the Catacombs in Rome (2nd century) A few of the inscriptions:
belmont.edu/honorsprogra…s/catacombs.htm

“Pray for thy parents, Matronata Matrona. She lived one year and 51 days.”
“Januaria, take thy good refreshment, and make request for us.”
“Atticus: sleep (name removed by moderator)eace, secure in thy safety, and pray anxiously for our sins;”
“Martyrs, holy, good, blessed, help Quiracus.”
“Peter and Paul, help Primitivus, a sinner.”
“Paul and Peter, have us in mind in your prayers, and more than us.”
“Paul and Peter, pray for Victor.”

latisha1903:

the cross gesture?

The sign of the cross dates back to the early Church. Tertullian, as early as 230 A.D. attests to the custom of tracing the sign on the forhead as a means of sanctifying the actions of daily life and as a gesture of piety.

latisha1903:

the need for nuns?

This is just a strange one. These are just women who have decided to commit their lives fully to prayer and chartiable works for the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. The church doesn’t teach of a NEED for them, so I wouldn’t expect to see any scritpural evidence.

latisha1903:

purgatory

The concept of Purgatory is clearly attested to in early Jewish culture (see the book of Maccabees), and can still be found in Jewish belief. The church’s teaching is rooted in this belief which the apostles and Jews of Jesus’ time most definetely held. If you would actually like to understand what purgatory is and the support (scriptural included) for it, then read this…
catholic.com/library/Purgatory.asp

latisha1903:

again we are ALL convicted in our faith…period.

I am sorry to say it’s not that simple. One of us is wrong and one of us is right…period. I’ll take you back to the original post here, where you tried to teach us how we were wrong on Peter being the rock in MT 16. But then when I tried to explain why this was faulty becasue Christ didn’t speak Greek, I asked if you agreed that Christ would have spoken Aramaic. You simply stated you didn’t know and have to ask your uncle. Doesn’t it make you pause that you are claiming to know history, and don’t even know what language first century Jews spook. This is something every moderately knowledgeable student of the bible knows.

 

[SteveG]

Delgadoajj:

SteveG:

This closes the vicious circle produced by the belief of “Sola Scriptura” given by the Reformation. Protestantism cannot explain this. This is a major glitch overlooked by the Reformation Fathers.

The only way to get out of this circular argument is to cease to rely on the Bible as the sole source of Truth. This means looking for the Authority that produced the Bible to begin with: The Catholic Church.

Jorge.

Agreed, and I asked latisha (or Homer) to show me scriptural evidence of Sola Scriptura, which they utterly failed to do. It is a vicious circle to be trapped in, but hopefully they will come to see that at some point.

But it usually seems to end this way. Oh well, on to bigger and better things.

Oh, and latisha, if you check back, see this…
catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp
…for an explanation of 'call no man father. But I doubt you’ll read it because it seems you don’t really want to know the truth.

 

[latisha1903]

SteveG:

Agreed, and I asked latisha (or Homer) to show me scriptural evidence of Sola Scriptura, which they utterly failed to do. It is a vicious circle to be trapped in, but hopefully they will come to see that at some point.

But it usually seems to end this way. Oh well, on to bigger and better things.

Oh, and latisha, if you check back, see this…
catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp
…for an explanation of 'call no man father. But I doubt you’ll read it because it seems you don’t really want to know the truth.

and you can say this because…but i guess all in all i feel the same way towards you also…

 

[latisha1903]

SteveG:

Who are the winners here? I gave you a secular source who documented this. Certainly you wouldn’t say they are ‘siding’ with the Catholic Church as they despise us as much as they do you.

Show me evidence from your studies that CoC is not founded by Alexander Campbell.

I assure you I’ve studied the history of my church far more deeply than you have. I am actually a convert to Catholicism and it’s the study of history which led me to convert. I have heard people argue that the Catholic Church was ‘created’ in 325 when the emporer constantine converted. This is also ridiculous, but at least makes some sense in comparison tot he claim it was ‘created’ in 606. What evidence do you base such a preposterous claim on?

if you want early witnesses of early Christian community practices, look at some of the inscriptions in the Catacombs in Rome (2nd century) A few of the inscriptions:
belmont.edu/honorsprogra…s/catacombs.htm

“Pray for thy parents, Matronata Matrona. She lived one year and 51 days.”
“Januaria, take thy good refreshment, and make request for us.”
“Atticus: sleep (name removed by moderator)eace, secure in thy safety, and pray anxiously for our sins;”
“Martyrs, holy, good, blessed, help Quiracus.”
“Peter and Paul, help Primitivus, a sinner.”
“Paul and Peter, have us in mind in your prayers, and more than us.”
“Paul and Peter, pray for Victor.”

%between%

I am sorry to say it’s not that simple. One of us is wrong and one of us is right…period. I’ll take you back to the original post here, where you tried to teach us how we were wrong on Peter being the rock in MT 16. But then when I tried to explain why this was faulty becasue Christ didn’t speak Greek, I asked if you agreed that Christ would have spoken Aramaic. You simply stated you didn’t know and have to ask your uncle. Doesn’t it make you pause that you are claiming to know history, and don’t even know what language first century Jews spook. This is something every moderately knowledgeable student of the bible knows.

there really is not point in arguing with you now…i mean seriously it is that easy…and you can continue to belive you are right…i won’t get into that…how do you expect me to just …o ya know you are right in everything you say…i’ve given my reasons…and you’ve simply overlooked them…because you aleady have the conclusion that what you say is right…period…it is THAT simple…i’ve given scriptual support…and you’ve given yours…and it all comes down to what you believe…so leave it at that…and you can continue to make comments on what ‘everyone’ or Bible students know…AND? i mean what does that mean…we’re all in the learning process…you continue with what you belive and i’ll continue with mine…it is that simple…because you can claim to know more…or have ‘evidence’ for more…but seriously…as you say show that your church was not founded by alexander campbell i say to you show that the catholic church was not founded by boniface in 606 in rome…because clearly here we use the same scripture for our churches that we attend…so that would be a huge circle going no where…and just because history has something written doesn’t mean it was what was correct at the time…slavery and lynching is written and evidence is shown for that…but that doens’t make it right…ok so it was written, but i mean documents don’t have to be right, just because its for the catholic church

post was to long had to cut some of the quote

 

[DVIN_CKS]

Latisha…what you are being presented with on this board are historical facts. The ‘truth’ that you derive from these facts (assumming you believe them to be correct) is obviously skewed with the truths that the Apostles and early church fathers taught. From what I’ve been reading, you have failed to provide the historical facts that would support your claims (your “truth”). I’m very open minded when it comes to hearing the other side of the story. I have a friend who shares the same beliefs that you do and we’ve shared many discussions such as the one taking place on this board. I need historical evidence and facts. The only place that can provide the historical evidence to back up what it teaches is the Catholic Church. If it’s easier for you to say that this historical evidence is wrong or could be wrong, then that’s your choice. Just try and keep an open mind and don’t be afraid to learn something that may turn your whole world upside down.

“The truth may set you free, but first it will shatter the safe, sweet way you live.” -Sue Monk Kidd

 

[latisha1903]

DVIN CKS,

I am keeping an open mind. and hearing everything that is being said…and taken that in to mind…trust i am…thats somewhat the reason i’m here…just to get an understand of why catholics believe what they believe…period…no more than that…its just to me in order to understand someone you must have somewhat understanding of what they believe and why…and its like here…i’ve given my reasons, not trying to please anyone or convince anyone…because I’M satisfied…so just because you are not given what you want…is not my concern actually…because i could spend hours throwing out stuff…proof or whatever…but its not going to make a difference…it would be different if we started from nothing…but this is what we’ve lived and this is what we know…because i just belive in the end…we are still rooted in what we know…period…but all is well. there is not point for further discussion. i’m happy in my faith. as well as you are happy in yours.

Good Day. and no hard feelings toward anyone…i’m missing out reading other topics because of this one…so i’m calling my post to a close…take that as you will…however you see…i know in my heart…and again i’m confident and satisfied…

 

[SteveG]

Latisha
I certainly don’t expect you to just drop your beliefs and say ‘o ya know you are right in everything you say’. That would be very foolish of me. I will again apologize if you find me overly aggressive (hey, I was raised in a LOUD Italian family which required everyone to fight to get their voice heard ). I in no way want to be uncharitable. It is not supposed to be the way of a Christian…

** 1 Peter 3:15**

• 15: but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence.

…That’s the standard which of course we all fail to live up to at times.

I really am open to hearing the positions of others and the reasons for what they believe. If I challenge you, it’s not because I out of hand reject what you say, but because I see a question or problem with something. You should then feel free to correct me if my objection is either a misunderstanding, or you need to elaborate more fully. If I have overlooked your reasons for certain positions, I apologize for that as well and would like to hear them again so that I can truly consider them.

Let me ask again, without any commentary of mine, without any pre-conceived notions on my part…

Can you show me from the bible where it teaches that the bible alone is our authority?

I am absolutely willing to listen here, but please understand that if I have questions, or don’t understand something you write, I may respond with those concerns and ask for clarification. I hope you can appreciate that.

Can we start over?

 

[porthos11]

The Petros/Petra argument really holds no water.

The distinction between Petros=stone and Petra=rock exists in Attic Greek. The New Testament, however is written in Koine Greek, and in Koine, Petros and Petra are SYNONYMS=rock. Koine for stone is lithos. So even if we are to look just at the Koine Greek, Jesus was calling Simon Petros=Rock (Koine).

Besides, all the excellent arguments have already been presented backing the Aramaic Jesus spoke (kepha=rock, evna=stone).

 

[Seeking_Wisdom]

Here’s another to add to Andrew Larkoski’s list of example’s of Peter’s authority:

 John arrived first at the tomb of Jesus, but he deferred to 
 Peter.  Even thought he did not arrive first, he was allowed
 to go in first.  Why?  Because John recognized Peter's
 authority.

 

[Seeking_Wisdom]

ON CEPHA:

Also the word used to describe the very large foundational stone used for the temple. This is a very important parallel.

 

[latisha1903]

SteveG:

Can you show me from the bible where it teaches that the bible alone is our authority?

Can we start over?

I will give a summary of notes i have collected on why the Bible alone…and there is no more that i can give…

The Word of God [Bible] has the power and authority of God unto salvation. [John 12:48]
2 Timothy 3:16-17 [primary reference is the Old Testament, since not all the NT were written, some books of the NT were writen or material that would be in the NT, and were already considered equal in authority to the OT scripture.] this shows it is inspired by God, and has the ablitly to make man of God complete.
2 Peter 1:20-21 [vs. 20- no prohecy of scripture arose from merely human interprettion of things] [vs. 21- God was the sole inspiration]
**Throughly **equipped for every good work [2 Tim. 3:17] every…not some…all.
Jude 3 - having been given once for all
gives us all we need
to believe in Jesus [john 20:30-31], fellowship w/ the Father, Son, and apostles I john 1:3], have joy that is full I john 1:4], help when we sin I john 2:1], eternal life I john 5:13] [just to name a few]
and history shows that the catholic church did not give us the Bible.
OT written by God’s inspired people the jews, and perserved by jewish scribes. NT written by Christian apostles. none catholic, b/c there was no rcc at the time, this was two years before constantiens ‘conversion’. early church did not have the NT as we know it. individuals and congregations had some of it. one or more of the gospels, and maybe acts and revelations.
catholic church didn’t give us the Bible. but catholic monks may have perserved the it by copying it.
The catholic church changed the Bible in 1548 at the council of trent by adding the apocrypha. they were never in the hebrew Bible and jews didn’t reconize it to be inspired. at the council of trent catholics declared them inspired.
the apocryphal books never claim to be the Word of God themselves. and some have inaccuracies.
rcc was not fully developed until several years after the NT was written, and the Bible could never owe its being here to the catholic church, but to God.
it cannont be proven that the council of hippo in 390 a.d was the same as the rcc today. example…no crucifixes [introduced in the 6th centry] and images [tradition that gradully developed]
not until 4th session of the council of trent that high ‘authority’ in the rcc ‘officially’ cataloged the books they thought should be in the Bible [God did not give council the authority to select His sacred books, or wanted men to to His books because of councils]
catalouges of the books have been proven to have been given to early Christians
[326. athanasius a bishop at alexandria, mentions all the NT books…315-386 cyril a bishop at jerusalem gives a list of NT books except revelations]

i must go now…i won’t be spending the weekend at home…so i won’t be able to respond to probably sunday evening. good day to you all.

 

[notbrainwashed]

You all crack me up. Even within the ranks of the Catholics on this board you all can’t mount a unified, consistant message. Let me get this straight. You can’t reach agreement amongst yourself as to what you profess the truth to be yet you think it’s appropriate to tell others that they are wrong, and should see things your way…

LOL

 

[AmandaPS]

notbrainwashed:

You all crack me up. Even within the ranks of the Catholics on this board you all can’t mount a unified, consistant message. Let me get this straight. You can’t reach agreement amongst yourself as to what you profess the truth to be yet you think it’s appropriate to tell others that they are wrong, and should see things your way…

LOL

Not everyone who posts in these forums are Catholic.

 

[notbrainwashed]

AmandaPS:

Not everyone who posts in these forums are Catholic.

It’s nice to know that not everyone here is brainwashed…I was specifically refering to the catholics who are trying to prove their point…they don’t have their collective story straight. Its laughable that they try to teach others something they don’t have a solid grasp of.