Z
zz912
Guest
The cornerstone and the rock the foundation is laid upon are two different things.
If Christ is the Chief Cornerstone, what is He rested upon? What rock is he placed upon?
- Status
If Christ is the Chief Cornerstone, what is He rested upon? What rock is he placed upon?
J
joe371
Guest
pablope;12643781]
If a protestant, speaking as a former protestant, is to be honest, he/she would have to admit that Ignatius belonged to the same CC that Augustine belonged to, which is the same CC we belong to.
It’s unanimous, be it catholic or protestant, that Ignatius would not have even heard of a protestant church, let alone a denomination, and he certainly would not reject parts of the CC in terms of doctrine, faith and morals, as all protestants do today.
Yup. It comes down to one’s own interpretation and beliefs vis-a-vis sola scriptura i.e. each person, with some exceptions e.g. some of the Lutheran churches, claims the final authority when it comes to hermeneutics and resolving doctrinal differences.Huh…Peter picked and chose? How? No…you pick and choose what you agree with…with your interpretation of Scripture…
Like most Protestants, he will probably tell you that he rejects the real presence because it’s not found in the bible i.e. Benhur, as opposed to any one church, decides and possesses the final authority to discern truth for himself, but not for others. The implication: the church is not the pillar and foundation of truth, but rather sacred scripture via individual interpretation/understanding i.e. each and every Christian possesses the final authority as he/she is guided by God, not any one church leadership. I would give a buffalo nickel for just one passage that supports that supposition. LOL
J
joe371
Guest
Christianity as a whole is not the one church founded by Jesus in the first century; it’s a combination of many separate/autonomous churches. What I have discovered as a former Protestant: The first complete listing of New-Testament books (as we have them today) did not exist until over 300 years after the death/Resurrection of Jesus. If the complete listing of New-Testament books had its beginning at the same time as the U.S. Constitution, we wouldn’t see a final product until the late 2000s. I thought to myself: How would a sola scriptura advocate in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd century function in light of this fact? They could not. Which church today did exist in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century: the Catholic Church. In light of the fact that Jesus founded the CC and sent the Holy Spirit t guide his church into all truth - not some truth - until his return, then there isn’t one valid reason for people, belonging to churches that started hundreds of years later - to not belong to the Catholic church. If I am wrong, something one of our Protestant brothers or sisters might claim, then show me where?
P
Porknpie
Guest
:yup:
B
benhur
Guest
Peter says some of Paul’s are(scripture) or vice versa. Paul also says when he speaks(writes) of an admonition as when it is not of the Lord but from himself. He lays the assumption that unless he says otherwise, it is authentically from the Lord.Do they say - self-authenticating on the first page or something, no sarcasm intended? If you believe the scriptures (some) are authenticating that’s cool.
P
PRmerger
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
And what of the rest of the NT? How is it “self-authenticating”?
B
benhur
Guest
See, the protestant view/definition of church must be visible.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Took a correspondence course and got ordained by a real Bible college and everything. :yup:
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi ben,
Thanks for your post.
Thanks for your post.
Its good to see you here again. When we last talked, you had complained about the bias shown by some Catholic writers. I responded as follows:
God Bless You Again ben. I am still interested to know the name of the website where you obtained all of those names. Topper
Z
zz912
Guest
So what authenticates Peter’s letters? And say we accept Paul’s letters. They aren’t self-authenticating. It takes a letter from the Pope (Peter) to authenticate them.
And you have addressed the fact that there are still letters from Peter, James, Jude, John, Revelation, Hebrews, and all the Gospels. Where are they self-authenticated?
P
Porknpie
Guest
From the Haydock Commentary with link here. The link provides better formatting to the text below.
Ver. 18. Kago. And I say to thee, and tell thee why I before declared, (John i. 42.) that thou shouldst be called Peter, for thou art constituted the rock upon which, as a foundation, I will build my Church, and that so firmly, as not to suffer the gates (i.e. the powers) of hell to prevail against its foundation; because if they overturn its foundation, (i.e. thee and thy successors) they will overturn also the Church that rests upon it. Christ therefore here promises to Peter, that he and his successors should be to the end, as long as the Church should last, its supreme pastors and princes. (Tirinus) — In the Syriac tongue, which is that which Jesus Christ spoke, there is no difference of genders, as there is in Latin, between petra, a rock, and Petrus, Peter; hence, in the original language, the allusion was both more natural and more simple. (Bible de Vence) — Thou art Peter;[2] and upon this (i.e. upon thee, according to the literal and general exposition of the ancient Fathers) I will build my church. It is true St. Augustine, in one or two places, thus expounds these words, and upon this rock, (i.e. upon myself
or upon this rock, which Peter hath confessed: yet he owns that he had also given the other interpretation, by which Peter himself was the rock. Some Fathers have also expounded it, upon the faith, which Peter confessed; but then they take not faith, as separated from the person of Peter, but on Peter, as holding the true faith. No one questions but that Christ himself is the great foundation-stone, the chief corner-stone, as St. Paul tells the Ephesians; (Chap. ii, ver. 20.) but it is also certain, that all the apostles may be called foundation-stones of the Church, as represented Apocalypse xxi. 14. In the mean time, St. Peter (called therefore Cephas, a rock) was the first and chief foundation-stone among the apostles, on whom Christ promised to build his Church. (Witham) — Thou art Peter, &c. As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ, so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz. that he, to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, (John i. 42.) should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be next to Christ himself, the chief foundation-stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven. — Upon this rock, &c. The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews, which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built; Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ by building his house, that is, his Church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder. (Matthew vii. 24, 25.) — The gates of hell, &c. That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself or his agents. For as the Church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, i.e. the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or Church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the Church of Christ. (Challoner) — The gates, in the Oriental style, signify the powers; thus, to this day, we designate the Ottoman or Turkish empire by the Ottoman port. The princes were wont to hold their courts at the gates of the city. (Bible de Vence)
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Randy,
Thanks for your response.
God Bless You Randy, Topper
Thanks for your response.
Can you tell me what it is that makes you presume that that ‘bishop’ in the picture was educated at a ‘real Bible college’? After all, when you are ‘blessed’ by the “Right” to correctly interpret the Holy Scriptures, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, you certainly don’t NEED all that fancy shamncy education stuff. All you got to do is wing it, especially if you feel CALLED to teach the Gospel.
God Bless You Randy, Topper
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Well, in addition to the diploma (suitable for framing), the bishop also gets to wear a special choir robe with different color stole.
Ya gotta have that if you want to be a bishop or no one would take you seriously. :yup:
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi PR,
Thanks!
This church was not affiliated with any other church, which means that it looked to no higher authority than itself on matters of doctrine. Certainly it was not included in the 30,000+ denominations that were listed, by a Protestant source at the time. And yet it WAS a doctrinally independent denomination for the 18 months or so of its existence. Now it is a rather nice tile store, which somehow survives quite nicely in spite of being pretty far out in the boonies.
The point I think is that with all of the complaints we see about the 30,000 number being too large, in fact, it is extremely conservative. As a matter of fact, the book that I have listing all of the denominations, didn’t recognize the independent church of my childhood, which now is over 60 years old and is one of the largest churches in town. And it is an doctrinally independent denomination.
God Bless You PR, Topper
Thanks!
There was a little ‘Bible church’ in a dilapidated strip mall about a half a mile from my home. I poked my head in there on day just to look. It was shocking! A motley collection of mismatched and rusty folding chairs. Absolutely NOTHING on the walls. The only thing that looked halfway decent was the pulpit. Isn’t that the whole point? Somebody wanted to be a preacher. Somebody felt ‘called’.
Back at 'cha, Topper.
This church was not affiliated with any other church, which means that it looked to no higher authority than itself on matters of doctrine. Certainly it was not included in the 30,000+ denominations that were listed, by a Protestant source at the time. And yet it WAS a doctrinally independent denomination for the 18 months or so of its existence. Now it is a rather nice tile store, which somehow survives quite nicely in spite of being pretty far out in the boonies.
The point I think is that with all of the complaints we see about the 30,000 number being too large, in fact, it is extremely conservative. As a matter of fact, the book that I have listing all of the denominations, didn’t recognize the independent church of my childhood, which now is over 60 years old and is one of the largest churches in town. And it is an doctrinally independent denomination.
God Bless You PR, Topper
B
benhur
Guest
“You are petros and upon this **petra **I will build my church” is the inspired word of God.
How do you know it wasn’t this in aramaic, " You are kepha and upon this minra I will build my church" ?** It is wrong to assume there is absolutely no other word in aramaic for petra. **All are in agreement that kepha stands for petros for we are told so in other scriptures(Cephas).
if we are going to start assuming familiar language during the discourse, then why not imagine a familiar gesture that just as easily could have taken place, as Christ pointing to himself ? Maybe it was a reminder to Peter not to forget who really is in charge, for just moments later Peter has a big downfall and is rebuked by the Lord. Maybe, just as much as kepha =petro (I think less probable).
See what happens when we assume?** The inspired text uses two different words,**which has left us with much dispute still.
If you want all to believe “keys” has an easily recognizable OT meaning, then I would want all to believe that “rock” has an easily recognizable OT meaning also (Jesus,God, for he is both Petras and Petros in other scriptures)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I have to disagree with you on this one, Topper.
Somebody responded to Jesus in the best way he (or she) knew how. Good!
How elaborate were the meeting places of the first century Church? Or the house churches in China in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s?
I’m totally with you on the need for apostolic succession, etc, but I would never look down on someone trying to love Jesus and to tell others about Him.
They may be doing more for the kingdom than I ever will.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Ben-
This is really tiresome. I have quoted Protestant scholars who say you’re wrong.
W.F. Albright (Protestant) and C.S. Mann
“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence…The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)
Francis Wright Beare (Presbyterian/Reformed)
“The play on words – ‘Peter’, this ‘rock’ – requires a change in Greek from petros (properly, ‘stone’) to petra. **In Aramaic, the two words would be identical – Kepha the name given to Peter, transliterated into Greek as Kephas (Gal. 2:9), and kepha, ‘rock’. **The symbol itself is Hebraic: Abraham is the ‘rock’ from which Israel was hewn, and in a rabbinic midrash, God finds in him a rock on which he can base and build the world…” (Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew [Harper and Row, 1981], page 355)
See what happens when you ignore scholarship in favor of your own private judgment?
There’s no dispute among Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant scholars…just among ignorant laymen.
B
benhur
Guest
You mean **are **these ? I am not referring to different views from within the church at that time 2,3 rd century (such as when to celebrate Easter, to marry or not to marry, who is the “rock”, do you drink milk and honey at baptisms.)
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Randy,
In the last few months I have attended two funerals, one Catholic and one is a medium sized ‘Bible church.’ They could not have been more different, but in spirit, in their love for our Lord, they are the same.
Of course, as a Catholic I believe that ‘they’ don’t have the ‘fullness of the Truth’, but they certainly do have the spirit.
It isn’t so much about the physical plant of the place of worship, but of the doctrinal teachings. The further and further removed these little churches are from the teachings of the Church, the more they are actually straying from the Christian Gospel as taught by Christ and the Apostles. That is the part that bothers me.
I actually googled up the bishop from that sign of that little church, and found the following:
youtube.com/watch?v=IKhwPjrnClg
With the spirit those people exhibit, I want them to come home to the Truth. I want them in the Church that Christ established for them.
As for those people responding to Jesus the best way they knew how, I find that admirable too, but nothing in Scripture, or in the teachings of Christ, or the Apostles, or the Fathers, indicates that you should ‘respond to Christ’ by starting your own church, where of course you will be teaching your personal interpretation. You are to respond by joining THE Church. We agree I’m sure.
God Bless You Randy, Topper
Apparently I didn’t make my point all that well, thinking that it was just understood.
In the last few months I have attended two funerals, one Catholic and one is a medium sized ‘Bible church.’ They could not have been more different, but in spirit, in their love for our Lord, they are the same.
Of course, as a Catholic I believe that ‘they’ don’t have the ‘fullness of the Truth’, but they certainly do have the spirit.
It isn’t so much about the physical plant of the place of worship, but of the doctrinal teachings. The further and further removed these little churches are from the teachings of the Church, the more they are actually straying from the Christian Gospel as taught by Christ and the Apostles. That is the part that bothers me.
I actually googled up the bishop from that sign of that little church, and found the following:
youtube.com/watch?v=IKhwPjrnClg
With the spirit those people exhibit, I want them to come home to the Truth. I want them in the Church that Christ established for them.
As for those people responding to Jesus the best way they knew how, I find that admirable too, but nothing in Scripture, or in the teachings of Christ, or the Apostles, or the Fathers, indicates that you should ‘respond to Christ’ by starting your own church, where of course you will be teaching your personal interpretation. You are to respond by joining THE Church. We agree I’m sure.
God Bless You Randy, Topper
- Status