What is God's Chruch?

[JKirkLVNV]

HMarieH:

If you know Greek so well than why don’t you know this. Peter’s name is translated Petros in Greek, meaning stone. But rock, in Matt 16:18, is translated in the Greek as Petra which means bedrock. If you have any idea what bedrock is than you will know it is an excellent rock often used for a very stable foundation. Did you know that bedrock even resists damage in an earthquake? Not only that but the rest of the building will not get very much damage, if any. See 72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:8dsW77xqID4J:faculty.fortlewis.edu/hannula_k/courses/geol_107/labs/lab6_earthquakes.doc+bedrock+strength+comparison+foundation+materials+graph&hl=en
that link if you do not trust my information on bedrock. Christ is bedrock and Peter is just stone.
Oh, and I was wrong. The Church was not founded on Peter’s confession, but rather Christ himself! Look at the Greek. Once again, in my last post, I cited a link talking about the greek and the scriptures.

But in Aramaic, the spoken language of Christ, there is only Kepha. “Thou art Kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church.” Even in the Greek, the meaning is clear. Peter got a new name, “Rock,” and upon that the Church was to be built. As the great convert Thomas Howard said, “it takes jiggery-pokery to make it say anything else.”
A huge number of folks on this site are converts to Catholicism from Protestantism and we’ve heard this particular argument. Got anything else?

 

[mercygate]

HMarieH:

If you know Greek so well than why don’t you know this. Peter’s name is translated Petros in Greek, meaning stone. But rock, in Matt 16:18, is translated in the Greek as Petra which means bedrock. If you have any idea what bedrock is than you will know it is an excellent rock often used for a very stable foundation. Did you know that bedrock even resists damage in an earthquake? Not only that but the rest of the building will not get very much damage, if any. See 72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:8dsW77xqID4J:faculty.fortlewis.edu/hannula_k/courses/geol_107/labs/lab6_earthquakes.doc+bedrock+strength+comparison+foundation+materials+graph&hl=en
that link if you do not trust my information on bedrock. Christ is bedrock and Peter is just stone.
Oh, and I was wrong. The Church was not founded on Peter’s confession, but rather Christ himself! Look at the Greek. Once again, in my last post, I cited a link talking about the greek and the scriptures.

You make sweeping and inaccurate assumptions about what we do and do not know. Moreover, you appear to ignore the fact that we agree that Jesus is THE Rock.

Petros/Petra? This is an outworn and inaccurate attempt to twist Mt. 16:18 into something that it is not. It would seem that you have not had a moment to check the link in my earlier post.

 

[NotWorthy]

HMarieH:

If you know Greek so well than why don’t you know this. Peter’s name is translated Petros in Greek, meaning stone. But rock, in Matt 16:18, is translated in the Greek as Petra which means bedrock.

Wrong! The use of Petros and Petra as little rock and big rock had long gone out of use by the time of the NT authors (over 500 years!). Petros and Petra were used in the Greek Translations only for masculine and feminine according to the Grecian Grammar.

Once again, look at the term “stone” used several times in the New Testament and Old Testament and you’ll find the original Greek Translation was “Lithos”, not “Petros”.

I still find this argument needless. The Catholic Church is the Church headed by Christ. Nobody in our Church disputes this. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, or representative, not the Head and Founder of the Church.

Good Luck, again.

NotWorthy

 

[TOME]

I would like to re state something I said eariler. To see Matt. as from these passages consider this the starting point of the Church is mistaken. First, the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ made present (Incarnate) to the world, by Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit at Pentacost. From what I have seen written, I think we are confussing “Establishment” with “Ministry”
With that as my starting point I would like to make a few observations about the Petrine Ministry. From the earliest history of the Church both the Eastern (Greek Speaking) and Western Traditions (Latin Speaking) understood that Matthew 16 did provide Peter and his successors a particular role/ministry in the Church. West differed (as it still does) on the extent of that ministry however there never was any real dispute that it was different (“First Amoung Equals” as we find in the East) It wasn’t until the Reformation that there was this whole sale rejection of the Petrine Ministry and Matt. 16. In my opinion 1500 years is a long time for the Holy Spirit to be quiet on such an important subject.I read the link were it was stated different but no refrences were given, so I will not take that seriously right now. Also a statement was made on how Peter was wrong doctrinally a couple of times, however, again no examples (Gal 2 is not an example - Paul’s criticism of Peter stemmed from Peter’s behavior not teachings) I would like to go on but I believe we all deserve a break from me, so I’ll end by saying, again, the Church was established by Christ through the Holy Spirit at Pentacost. Matt 16 - is about ministry IN the Church.

 

[mercygate]

HMarie, Your profile states that you are 16 years old. If that is true, then it explains a lot about how you have presented this issue.

I invite you to expand your knowledge base before making sweeping judgments of the kind you have posted here.

Better yet, ask a real question rather than a “trick” question. The responses you receive will be less prickly. Despite what you may have heard about the stupidity and ignorance of Catholics, people on these forums do not fit the stereotype and we have all heard these specious arguments of yours hundreds of times.

Many of us are fond of quoting Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen: “There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church – which is, of course, quite a different thing.”

 

[Todd_Easton]

HMarieH:

If you know Greek so well than why don’t you know this. Peter’s name is translated Petros in Greek, meaning stone. But rock, in Matt 16:18, is translated in the Greek as Petra which means bedrock. If you have any idea what bedrock is than you will know it is an excellent rock often used for a very stable foundation. Did you know that bedrock even resists damage in an earthquake? Not only that but the rest of the building will not get very much damage, if any. See 72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:8dsW77xqID4J:faculty.fortlewis.edu/hannula_k/courses/geol_107/labs/lab6_earthquakes.doc+bedrock+strength+comparison+foundation+materials+graph&hl=en
that link if you do not trust my information on bedrock. Christ is bedrock and Peter is just stone.
Oh, and I was wrong. The Church was not founded on Peter’s confession, but rather Christ himself! Look at the Greek. Once again, in my last post, I cited a link talking about the greek and the scriptures.

Although it did exist many centuries before, the distinction you assert between Greek words Petra and Petros did not exist at the time the New Testament was written. In New Testament times both Petra and Petros meant Rock. The more common Greek word for Rock was Petra, a feminine word, but since Simon was male the less common male form of the word Petros was applied to him.

Your other assertion that the Church (or household of God as Paul calls it in 1 Timothy 3:15) is built on Christ but not also built on the apostles clearly contradicts Scripture:

“…you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” (Ephesians 2:19-20)

The factions mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1 do not apply to the relations between Catholics and non-Catholics. The situation in Corinth that Paul was addressing had to do with petty factons within a religious community who shared the same doctrines. Paul does not say that Apollos or Cephas were false teachers who preached false doctrine as elsewhere in his epistle he says of some. Today there are real and fundamental doctrinal difference between Catholics and non-Catholic Christians, such as: who was Jesus Christ (God, angel, or man or both God and man), how one is saved (faith alone or faith, baptism, and a lifetime of good works), whether one can lose his your salvation or not (once saved always saved or only he who perseveres in faith and good works to the end will be saved), whether divorce and remarriage is sinful or not, and whether homosexual behavior is sinfiul or not, etc. etc. Thanks be to God that it was his gift that there always be a visible, hierarchical Church of duly ordained pastors and teachers (by which I mean Catholic bishops) to protect us from false doctrines. (See Acts 15)

What is God’s Church? God’s Church is “all the saints in Christ Jesus who are … with the bishops and deacons” (Philippians 1:1)

 

[HMarieH]

Oh so these distinctions were not made back then huh. Well how could you possibly know that?
I thought you would ask about Eph 2:19-20. That is that the apostles and prophets were a foundation in their teachings not such as Peter being Pope.
Do you know how the Protestant church came into existance? A man named Martin Luther wanted reform, but not a church. When he died a church, or another division, was born. Though he did not want. Just as there were people calling themsleves after Paul and Cephas in 1 Cor 1.

 

[mercygate]

HMarieH:

Oh so these distinctions were not made back then huh. Well how could you possibly know that?
I thought you would ask about Eph 2:19-20. That is that the apostles and prophets were a foundation in their teachings not such as Peter being Pope.
Do you know how the Protestant church came into existance? A man named Martin Luther wanted reform, but not a church. When he died a church, or another division, was born. Though he did not want. Just as there were people calling themsleves after Paul and Cephas in 1 Cor 1.

Marie, Dear. What is your point?

Why would it not be possible for Todd Easton to know the distinction between the words petra and petros at the time the New Testament was written? It is perfectly possible to know that by looking into the matter in a responsible and systematic way as Huiou Theou has done beginning with post #29 on this thread: forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=45207&highlight=petros%2Fpetra