What are the Most Misunderstood Bible Verse(s)

[JonNC]

According to wiki, the term “cephas” in Syriac or Aramaic means, “stone, ball, clump, chew,” and “rock” is a connotation. However, the Greek word “Petra” means, “grown rock, rocky range, or cliff.”

Our Lord changed Simon’s name. Simon was previously known as Simon Barjona (Barjona meaning son of John). I recall a priest explaining in a catechism class that when God changed a name in the OT, it signified an important event, but I can’t now recall the two or three examples he mentioned.

So Our Lord changed Simon’s name from Simon Barjona to Simon Peter, or rather, Simon the Rock. It was upon the Rock of Peter that Our Lord would build His Church. I think that this is a proper Catholic teaching. Though John was first in love, Simon Peter was almost always given precedence by Our Lord for leadership among the twelve. He singled Peter out as the leader in many instances. I can give examples from my catechism class notes for this. This may not be sufficient proof for non-Catholics, but it makes sense to me.

Did you read my followup post (#37) that I addressed to Gaelic? I said, in part, “I think it is apolegetic gymnastics to completely remove Peter from the “you are rock” statement.”

I don’t deny the special leadership role that St. Peter played. I also don’t believe that this necessarily translates into all that those in communion with the Bishop of Rome claim it does for the successors of St. Peter.

Jon

 

[Denise1957]

Did you read my followup post (#37) that I addressed to Gaelic? I said, in part, “I think it is apolegetic gymnastics to completely remove Peter from the “you are rock” statement.”

I don’t deny the special leadership role that St. Peter played. I also don’t believe that this necessarily translates into all that those in communion with the Bishop of Rome claim it does for the successors of St. Peter.

Jon

Could you explain what you mean by, “completely remove Peter from the “you are rock” statement”? I don’t understand what you are saying regarding ‘removing Peter.’

 

[SteveVH]

Could you explain what you mean by, “completely remove Peter from the “you are rock” statement”? I don’t understand what you are saying regarding ‘removing Peter.’

What I took from that statement was that there are those who would completley remove Peter from the “you are rock” statement but John thinks that is going to far, that it “is apolegetic gymnastics to completely remove Peter”.

 

[JonNC]

Could you explain what you mean by, “completely remove Peter from the “you are rock” statement”? I don’t understand what you are saying regarding ‘removing Peter.’

What I mean is that Christ’s words, “On this rock, I will build my Church”, can’t simply be explained as only referring to Peter’s confession of faith, that Christ, after all, is talking to the man whose name He just changed.

Jon

 

[Porknpie]

What I mean is that Christ’s words, “On this rock, I will build my Church”, can’t simply be explained as only referring to Peter’s confession of faith, that Christ, after all, is talking to the man whose name He just changed.

Jon

:bowdown:

 

[Denise1957]

What I mean is that Christ’s words, “On this rock, I will build my Church”, can’t simply be explained as only referring to Peter’s confession of faith, that Christ, after all, is talking to the man whose name He just changed.

Jon

Thanks. I kind of understand now…sort of. You just don’t think that just because our Lord said that upon the Rock of Peter He would build His Church, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail means that this authority translates into Catholic successors (Popes) having authority. But Our Lord is using nouns to describe what He means. Rock, Church, Hell. These are nouns, meaning that they are real things, not something subjective, or which exists in only theories or ideas, or something elusive, in space and time. Hope this makes sense.

 

[JonNC]

=Denise1957;10286527]Thanks. I kind of understand now…sort of. You just don’t think that just because our Lord said that upon the Rock of Peter He would build His Church, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail means that this authority translates into Catholic successors (Popes) having authority.

Not the level of authority Rome claims for itself.

But Our Lord is using nouns to describe what He means. Rock, Church, Hell. These are nouns, meaning that they are real things, not something subjective, or which exists in only theories or ideas, or something elusive, in space and time. Hope this makes sense.

Well, yeah, I understand these things, but I’m not talking about something subjective, anymore than the early Church did, and universal jurisdiction and papal infallibility ex cathedra aren’t mentioned there.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

Not the level of authority Rome claims for itself.

Well, yeah, I understand these things, but I’m not talking about something subjective, anymore than the early Church did, and universal jurisdiction and papal infallibility ex cathedra aren’t mentioned there.

Jon

The way I think of this is that the Church is a living organism. I think I’ve always been a good father to my children and husband to my wife. But as the years pass I also think I have come to a greater understanding of what it really means to be a father and a husband. Now that I am a grandfather (my first two in just the last seven months) that meaning has grown even deeper.

The power of the papacy has always been there, but the Church has grown to understand even more of what this role entails as it has grown; along with the absolute necessity of the charism of infallibility.

 

[JonNC]

The way I think of this is that the Church is a living organism. I think I’ve always been a good father to my children and husband to my wife. But as the years pass I also think I have come to a greater understanding of what it really means to be a father and a husband. Now that I am a grandfather (my first two in just the last seven months) that meaning has grown even deeper.

The power of the papacy has always been there, but the Church has grown to understand even more of what this role entails as it has grown; along with the absolute necessity of the charism of infallibility.

The problem with this, Steve, and leaving western non-catholics out of the discussion, is that not all of the patriarchates agree with this development of doctrine. The question then becomes, why is it that only one see seems to have developed this greater understanding, and oddly enough, about itself.
Now, you know me, and you know I am no questioning the sincerity or honesty of the Catholic Church here, but the question is valid.

Jon

 

[Bballer32]

The problem with this, Steve, and leaving western non-catholics out of the discussion, is that not all of the patriarchates agree with this development of doctrine. The question then becomes, why is it that only one see seems to have developed this greater understanding, and oddly enough, about itself.
Now, you know me, and you know I am no questioning the sincerity or honesty of the Catholic Church here, but the question is valid.

Jon

A pretty simple answer i think would be thinking of prayer. Now please, NO ONE take offense to this in any way. I’m just making a suggestion.

If the Catholic Church is the true Church of God, which we Catholics hold to, and the other patriarchs that have broken from us are in heresy, then wouldn’t it make sense that the CC prayer and Divine understanding may develop deeper and more in line with God because we wouldn’t be in a schism with the rules and powers that Christ gave to his Church?

 

[JonNC]

A pretty simple answer i think would be thinking of prayer. Now please, NO ONE take offense to this in any way. I’m just making a suggestion.

If the Catholic Church is the true Church of God, which we Catholics hold to, and the other patriarchs that have broken from us are in heresy, then wouldn’t it make sense that the CC prayer and Divine understanding may develop deeper and more in line with God because we wouldn’t be in a schism with the rules and powers that Christ gave to his Church?

First, I think the Catholic belief is that they are in schism, not heresy, but that said:
I am sure from the Catholic POV that makes sense. From my POV, it seems the further development of some things seems to swerve away from the teachings of the early Church.
If, in fact, doctrine doesn’t change, what is the line between doctrinal development and doctrinal change? Perhaps the possible answer for Catholics is - when its done by the pope and Magisterium, its development. For others, including Lutherans, there seems to be a need for something more substantial than that.

Jon

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Yes, if you will look back at my post that is where it begins. It ends, however, with verse 47 and the second part begins with verse 48. I was only trying to show you where the shift was from faith to Eucharist.

If eating is believing in Jn 6:35-47 then believing leads to eating in Jn 6:48-58.

I know you were, Steve. The problem is that your exegesis assumes what it seeks to prove. The only difference in wording from 35-47 and 48-58 is Jesus using the words flesh and blood. He is not moving from believing to eating in the latter because he uses the same eating terminology in 35-47. He is more pointedly speaking of what we believe in, in 48-58. That is, believing in his flesh for the life of the world

Gotta run but will address the rest of your post later. Work calls. I like the consistency of how you think, Steve. And don’t think my Scottish stubborness means I don’t learn from you

 

[mskejj]

The problem with your reading of Cyprian is that he never says the chair of Peter is Rome. He says that EVERY bishop is the chair of Peter…whether Rome or Constantinople.

I am confused…I do not see anywhere in the writing that every bishop is the chair of Peter…as a matter of fact…it says “Indeed, the others were also what Peter was (apostles, but a PRIMACY is given to Peter.”

It doesn’t matter the location of the Pope (we know in the middle ages…he was located for some time in France)…but there is only one person in the “office” which holds the keys to the kingdom.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

I am confused…I do not see anywhere in the writing that every bishop is the chair of Peter…as a matter of fact…it says “Indeed, the others were also what Peter was (apostles, but a PRIMACY is given to Peter.”

It doesn’t matter the location of the Pope (we know in the middle ages…he was located for some time in France)…but there is only one person in the “office” which holds the keys to the kingdom.

Mskejj, refer back to the first posts on the subject where I included Cyprian’s quote that all of the bishops share Peter’s charism. Cyprian’s view was that all bishopd are equal in their office. You’re correct that he says Peter has primacy over the apostles. He does not state that the successors to Peter are greater than other bishops.

 

[Bballer32]

He does not state that the successors to Peter are greater than other bishops.

Of course St. Cyprian didn’t state this because he wrote about his successors in his book Letters. He wrote the above statement in Unity of the Catholic Church.

Moreover, Cornelius was made bishop by the judgment of God and of His Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the
suffrage of the people who were then present, and by the assembly of ancient priests and good men, when no one had been made so
before him, when the place of Fabian, that is, when the place of Peter and the degree of the sacerdotal throne was vacant; which being
occupied by the will of God, and established by the consent of all of us, whosoever now wishes to become a bishop, must needs be
made from without; and he cannot have the ordination of the Church who does not hold the unity of the Church. Letters 51:8 (A.D. 251)]

Cornelius was the Successor of Fabian. (A.D. 251)

 

[adrift]

Matthew 19:9

I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Is also misunderstood.

The word that is at issue is
porneia n f 1) illicit sexual intercourse 1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc. 1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18 1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12 2) metaph. the worship of idols 2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols.

 

[SteveVH]

The problem with this, Steve, and leaving western non-catholics out of the discussion, is that not all of the patriarchates agree with this development of doctrine. The question then becomes, why is it that only one see seems to have developed this greater understanding, and oddly enough, about itself.
Now, you know me, and you know I am no questioning the sincerity or honesty of the Catholic Church here, but the question is valid.

Jon

Yes it is valid question and a good question as well. We are in schism with the EO basically over the question of authority. Because of the separation there are small differences in our doctrines. The EO would not be in a very good position to reject the CC’s authority if they accepted its charism of infallibility. I would be interested in an EO opinion of why they trust their Church’s doctrines and teachings. I guarantee you they don’t run to the Bible to settle disputes, they go to their Church, as they should. Do the EO believe that their doctrines and teachings are free from error? If so, why? I don’t know, but it would be interesting to find out.

 

[mskejj]

Mskejj, refer back to the first posts on the subject where I included Cyprian’s quote that all of the bishops share Peter’s charism. Cyprian’s view was that all bishopd are equal in their office. You’re correct that he says Peter has primacy over the apostles. He does not state that the successors to Peter are greater than other bishops.

So your understanding is that Peter was given primacy over the other apostles to keep the Church unified but after Peter was martyred, there was no successor in his place.

I disagree, the Jews of the first century would have understood Jesus’s words to Peter as a fulfillment of the “office” of the one who was over the household (prime minister) in the Davidic Kingdom. That position had successors. Isaiah 22 is about just that point…one prime minister was being removed due to poor behavior and another was taking his place.

Jesus knows human nature…he knew there had to be one that held the “key” (authority)…the living voice of the church for future generations. In order for the church to spread to all parts of the world and in all cultures…there had to be a system set up to keep the teachings that had been passed down so that they would not be watered down or misinterpreted.

Each of the bishops are equal in their office…and are responsible for the teachings of the faith in their diocese. Even the Pope (who is the bishop of Rome itself…there is no other bishop over Rome)…but because of Jesus’s words in Matthew 16 and the connection between Isaiah 22, the Church believes that the primacy did not end with Peter but continues with his successors.

The truth of this interpretation can be seen in the fruits of having successors of Peter…the growth of the Church in all nations, the divisions that happen when one leaves the authority of the Church, and the fact that the Church is still here after 2000 years of human sin and suffering.

 

[QuickCat]

The ones I run into the most when speaking with non Catholics are as follows:

The Whole Book of James lol…they either dismiss it or say that the Catholic Church as taken it out of context.

John 20: 22-23 on confession to a priest.

Acts 16:31…fundamentalist Protestants believe this verse states that all you have to do is believe and that’s it.

James is perhaps the earliest book of the Acts period. He is writing to dispersed Jews who are still under the law. We are not on Body of Christ ground in James.

John 20::22-23 will be fulfilled in the coming earthly kingdom when the 12 apostles will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. See Mt. 19:28.

Acts 13:31a “Believe on the LORD Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved…” Believe what? That He died to pay the full penalty for your sins, He was buried, and He rose again for your justification. 1 Cor. 15:1-4. Upon hearing the gospel by which you are saved, and believing it, you are sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of the redemtpion of your body. See Eph. 1:13; 4:30.
Lord Bless,
QC

 

[adrift]

James is perhaps the earliest book of the Acts period. He is writing to dispersed Jews who are still under the law. We are not on Body of Christ ground in James.

Since in Christian thought the church is the new Israel, the address probably designates the Jewish Christian churches located in Palestine, Syria, and elsewhere. Or perhaps the letter is meant more generally for all Christian communities, and the “dispersion” has the symbolic meaning of exile from our true home, as it has in the address of 1 Peter (⇒ 1 Peter 1:1). The letter is so markedly Jewish in character that some scholars have regarded it as a Jewish document subsequently “baptized” by a few Christian insertions, but such an origin is scarcely tenable in view of the numerous contacts discernible between the Letter of James and other New Testament literature.

He was writing to Christians, Body of Christ ground.

John 20::22-23 will be fulfilled in the coming earthly kingdom when the 12 apostles will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. See Mt. 19:28.

Since it is the present tense being used, it is not a future event. There is not indication that it is to be accomplished at the judgement rather it indicates that it is a present happening.

Acts 13:31a “Believe on the LORD Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved…” Believe what? That He died to pay the full penalty for your sins, He was buried, and He rose again for your justification. 1 Cor. 15:1-4. Upon hearing the gospel by which you are saved, and believing it, you are sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of the redemtpion of your body. See Eph. 1:13; 4:30.
Lord Bless,
QC

Sealed how? Believing what? You can’t just take a few versus out of context to understand what it means to Believe. You have only** part** of what you should Believe. Jesus also said to be Baptized(sealed), to Remember Him in the Euchrist, by eating and drinking His Body and Blood, To care for the least among us (Matthew 25:35-46)