I’m not talking about the parable of the builder. Stay on topic.
Ignoring verses you don’t like, and then taking others out of context isn’t very convincing. How do you explain the passage we’ve been talking about all along?
The passages I quoted is obvious context to the the confession Peter made, and the statement Jesus made about the Rock. Peter later confirms his understanding of Jesus being the Rock. Paul knows this as well. And Jesus re-illustrates Him being the rock in the parable of the builder.
Reconciling our differences would be to come together in the ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that Christ built on Peter the Rock.We are one Body in Christ.
No matter what denom, we are one Body. All that is left is to reconcile our differences!Anything is possible with God.
Yuo also have to understand that immediately after he makes the “Rock” statement, he then goes on to say he will give peter “the keys to the kingdom of heaven and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven”. In other words he knows he will be leaving soon(as he says so immediately after wards) and leaves the power to proclaim the gospel and forgive sin with, specifically Peter. He was very clearly setting up a church on earth with Peter as it’s spiritual guide. To say it is not so is to fly in the face of what scripture actually says.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I do not agree with your line of reasoning here. Peter exemplified the faith that Christ wished to birng to our attention. I absolutely do not believe that the Catholic Church is the one true church. The Body of Christ, made up of all Christians, as the Scriptures say, is.
“You (Peter) are ROCK and on this ROCK I shall build my church.”
Peter Kreeft put it best:
Otherwise, to say “I still disagree” is to say “You have proved your conclusion true, but I am so stubborn and foolish that I will not accept this truth. I insist on living in a false world, not the true one."
Are you saying you joined your church to fellowship with one another, what happened to worship? Was that a typo, or did you reveal something about your faith?
The lost sheep is no less “lost” from his shepherd by virtue of just being a sheep.No matter what church I attend, I belong to the one true church–Christ. Of which all Christians are members.
Mozart, you are absolutely right, and those of us that use that term on you should be ashamed. Church teaching on your situation is clear! I know it’s hard for you to do, but you must ignore them and forgive them they know not what they are doing!
Two points, Catholicism is not doing that to you, but some Catholics surely have, and are not helpful in your journey to the “Truth”. But remember every group of humans has its small Knucklehead Club, including the vast array of protestant churches too.
How is this an argument on men? we are talking about a teaching of Jesus, not “men and their rules”, but Jesus and his rules…The message I heard in church was vastly different from the message I heard here. In church, we learned about our Lord and Savior, Christ…here, we learn about somewhat else. The focus is almost entirely off of Christ and on men, on their rules, and on things superficial to the salvational message of God.
No matter what church I attend, I belong to the one true church–Christ. Of which all Christians are members.
You are Petros, and on this Petras I shall build my church were the terms used in the original writing. Very similar to Jesus saying He will build this temple in 3 days. He meant Himself.
Why do you say this?
I don’t know how may times we have to point out, the original Gospel written by Matthew was in Aramaic, not Greek! It was later translated into Greek by someone else! You are wanting to mince “words” and are missing the “WORD”, who warned against this “gnat straining”!
Then why did the Greek writer interpret it that way. Nonetheless, the context shows otherwise, based on other scripture I have cited, including Peter calling Jesus the rock. Paul calling Jesus the rock, the parable of the builder, building His house on Rock, the foundation being Christ, Old Testement verses.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t. But in the first place, my decision is not what saves me–God’s grace saves me. And in the second place, that grace–which I must decide to accept, sure enough, but that isn’t really the most important factor–brings me into the Body of Christ.
Sure. Hypocrisy is always a possibility. But on the other hand, just because you haven’t passed through some moment of decision doesn’t mean that you haven’t put your faith in Christ. And the fact that you have so decided doesn’t make you a Christian. If the Christ in whom you have put your faith is a Christ you have made up for yourself, then your faith isn’t Christian faith.
Actually, in Greek the command to “repent” is in the plural and “each of you” is clearly the subject of “to be baptized” not “repent.” I’m not sure how important this is.
But if you look at the entire passage it’s clear that Peter is not speaking to them as a collection of individuals but as representatives of Israel. In v. 39: “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all those who are far off, whomever Yahweh our God may call.” As throughout the Bible, the Gospel is presented as God’s gracious election of human beings (and no, I’m not a Calvinist) which incorporates them into His People. True, human beings have to respond to this call. I’m not disputing that. I’m saying that the dominant Scriptural way of speaking is of incorporation into the People of God and (in the NT) the Body of Christ. That’s the primary theme in Scripture–not how an individual is to be saved, but how God is reconciling broken creation to Himself through the calling of a people in Jesus Christ. Individual salvation is part of the picture, of course. But that is not, first and foremost, what salvation is.
What is the promise he offers them in v. 39? Surely the same promise he cites from Joel in vv. 17-21–the promise of being part of the redeemed people of God, the true Israel who will be saved in the Day of the Lord. The entire book of Joel is speaking of the judgment and salvation of Israel.
No disagreement there.
First of all, there is no consensus on this point. It’s true that many early Christians said that the original Gospel of Matthew was in “Hebrew” (i.e., Aramaic), and this may well be true. But we can’t be sure just what this Gospel entailed. It may simply have been one of the documents on which the Greek author drew.
The Greek was a translator, not a writer. It is believed the translator was trying to be nice and not tag Peter with a femine sounding name in the Greek for Cepha. The Holy Spirit protects the “Message” of scripture but not each and every word in scripture. Heck, I read recently that since its writing/translating there have already been over 200 corrections made to the KJV alone.
Mannyfit75 did that very well in another post which I believe was the Matthew 16: Thread, I think #24:
I feel it is very important to go to church.I feel it doesn’t matter what church you go to, as long as the church you choose follows God and His word. They are all follow God and His word and if they do not, they shouldn’t be called a christian church.Protestants:
Do you think it matters whether or not you go to church, or is it okay to just accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior in private?
If it is important to be involved in a church, does it matter which one you go to?
If it does matter, how do you know you are going to the right one?
If it doesn’t matter, how do you explain why so many Protestant churches teach so many different doctrines that contradict one another when God cannot contradict Himself? Yet they all claim to be teaching what Christ really intended.
Not trying to start an argument, just curious.