M
Masters_Servant
Guest
First thanks for your prayer !
Your above quote tells quite a differen’t story M S.
God Bless
- Status
M
Masters_Servant
Guest
Caesarea: An ancient seaport in northwestern Israel; an important Roman city in ancient Palestine
S
schaick
Guest
Sorry but you are the one that said: * “And for this, we recognize that you are rightly called Christians even if you are not in full communion with the one Church Jesus promised to build upon Peter, the rock.” *
Which implies that I am wasting my time on Sunday when I go to my Church, it is an insult to me.
and the answer to the question about the universal church – “Both in varying degrees depending upon the denomination in question.”
There is even question about whether we can be reached by the Holy Spirit!
I wonder when you say that do you mean out of all trinitarian Christians some are not, or do you mean those “protestants” outside the Trinitarians-Mormons, JW, Pentecostals?
Randy Carson:
What exactly did holding the Keys of Heaven give to Peter? What is the duty as Jesus’ royal steward? To bind and loose? Are you saying that Catholics believe the Isaiah prophecy to be about Peter?
OK I found this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3311182&postcount=18
See the part I made bold-
Because the pope does not choose or ordain his successor. The pope, remember, is the Bishop of Rome. When a* pope dies, the college of bishops elects a new pope **under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Remember that **the keys are held by the college of bishops **(the successors to the apostles), with the pope (the Bishop of Rome) at their head.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:*
If Jesus didn’t give the Keys of Heaven to the disciples in Matthew 18 when and how did the group- the college of Bishops instead of just the Pope receive them?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3318859&postcount=35
Same thread another statement: *A pope is not ‘ordained’, he is elected. Then- Cardinals elect popes. *
Are Cardinals the college of bishops? Or is it College of Cardinals? When did Cardinals come about?
I am surprised that Popes aren’t chosen instead of “elected” the way Catholics say Jesus chose Peter.
M
Masters_Servant
Guest
Now I am very confused, I had one Catholic tell me that people are Catholic even if they do not know it and now you say a “picker and chooser” of Catholic teaching is not a Catholic at all.
In Greek Simon means Peter and Peter means stone or small rock as I provided a link earlier for anyone interested. In Aramaic Simon is Shimon. I just did a NT search on the word “rock” and whenever it refers to Jesus directly on "indirectly’, the word petra is used every time. Mt. 7:24 & 25, Mt 16:18, Lk 6:48, Ro 9:33, 1 Co 10:4 & 1 Pe 2:8. I believe it is significant that in referring to Christ directly in a majority of the use of petra is profound because this would mean that Matt. 16:18 would be an exception, which is not likely but not impossible either. Again, not an argument-just noteworthy since you got me on a side trail.
A note on lithos: The meaning is consistent with the definitions and to call Peter lithos makes no sense because it is not a formal name nor a surname.
lithos: a stone
- of small stones
- of building stones
- metaph. of Christ
PAX DOMINI
This is why Jesus sometimes referred to Peter as Simon Peter because Peter is the surname. The KJV uses the term “surname”
M
Masters_Servant
Guest
That is very informative and changes everything, the more I learn the less I seem to know. Are you having more questions than answers meaning the more questions that are answered, the answers bring up more questions and answers seem to lack consistency. Is it just me in my ignorance?
J
Javl
Guest
This is why I recommend the Catholic Catechism. It defines what a Catholic is. Many may call themselves Catholic, but when they reject some, or all, the teachings of the Catholic Church, then they are not.Now I am very confused, I had one Catholic tell me that people are Catholic even if they do not know it and now you say a “picker and chooser” of Catholic teaching is not a Catholic at all.
I don’t know what source you use, but in my study of the Greek language ( Koine Greek, which the Apostles and Greek speaking Jews used ) Simon is not a Greek name. In Aramaic it is spelled Simeon ( hearing ). Shimon and Shimeon are classic and modern Hebrew names.
On this we both agree. Actually, the word for rock in Aramaic is Cephas, or Kephas. But all this is is just a side bar in relation to the original thread.
I disagree with you on this. In actuality, Peter did not have a surname as such. Surnames were unknown and not used at that time. To identify a person, a male would be refered to as the son of… ( Bar- ), and a female as daughter of… ( Bas- ). The terms are still in use today among the Jews. Although Peter may have been called Simon Peter, it was used as a means of identifying the difference between Peter and a disciple also named Simon.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
S
schaick
Guest
Hey Master’s Servant-
LOL! No - the more I learn the less I seem to know.
All of this is very foreign to me so I don’t know if the answers are inconsistant or not!. The answers do absolutely bring up more questions.
I have been a Christian all my life- A friend of mine called me a covenant Christian. I never had a Born Again experience just alway believed. Well I did go through a short spell where I doubted GOD but could always latch on to Jesus. I know that doesn’t make sense but it was comforting to me to hold onto Jesus.
Anyway at my Church’s grade school only Bible stories are taught - no church doctrine. There is a 2 year confirmation course for 7-8th graders and that is where doctrine is taught.
I understand now why church doctrine is taught at the Catholic schools- there is alot to take in and sort through.
Some of the Catholic ideas I understand-don’t agree with but understand. I mentioned in another thread that I actually had to explain what the Immaculate Conceptin was to some Catholic- deals with Mary and not Jesus.
Sorry about going off topic I am realy bad about that!!
LOL! No - the more I learn the less I seem to know.
All of this is very foreign to me so I don’t know if the answers are inconsistant or not!. The answers do absolutely bring up more questions.
I have been a Christian all my life- A friend of mine called me a covenant Christian. I never had a Born Again experience just alway believed. Well I did go through a short spell where I doubted GOD but could always latch on to Jesus. I know that doesn’t make sense but it was comforting to me to hold onto Jesus.
Anyway at my Church’s grade school only Bible stories are taught - no church doctrine. There is a 2 year confirmation course for 7-8th graders and that is where doctrine is taught.
I understand now why church doctrine is taught at the Catholic schools- there is alot to take in and sort through.
Some of the Catholic ideas I understand-don’t agree with but understand. I mentioned in another thread that I actually had to explain what the Immaculate Conceptin was to some Catholic- deals with Mary and not Jesus.
Sorry about going off topic I am realy bad about that!!
Y
YADA
Guest
Well this is in disagreement on the meaning of Simon
from this site: meaning-of-names.com/hebrew-names/simon.asp
**Meaning of “Simon”
**Hebrew name
In Hebrew, the name Simon means- Variant of Simeon: Obedient; listening; little hyena… Other origins for the name Simon include - Hebrew, Israeli, English.The name Simon is most often used as a boy name or male name.
Hebrew Name Meaning - Variant of Simeon: Obedient; listening; little hyena.
Origin - Hebrew
**Alternate Origins - **Israeli English
Expression num - 7
I don;t see “rock, pebble or stone” listed as a meaning of Simon …
OR here: behindthename.com/name/simon
SIMON
Gender: Masculine
Usage: English, French, Scandinavian, German, Hungarian, Slovene, Romanian, Biblical, Biblical Latin, Biblical Greek Pronounced: SIE-mən (English), see-MAWN (French), ZEE-mawn (German) [key]
From Σιμων (Simon), the New Testament Greek form of the Hebrew name שִׁמְעוֹן (Shim’on) which meant “he has heard”. This was the name of several biblical characters, including the man who carried the cross for Jesus. However, the most important person of this name in the New Testament was the apostle Simon, also known as Peter (a name given to him by Jesus). Because of him, this name has been common in the Christian world. In England it was popular during the Middle Ages, though it became rarer after the Protestant Reformation.
Y
YADA
Guest
You are reading much into the scripures that you say are so very clear … Peter simply stopped table fellowship - he did not force anyone to stop eating with the gentiles … Peter simply removed himself - personnally - from an uncomfortable situation … which Paul made a great deal over … Now many protestants will comment on how hypocritical Peter was and how wrong he was an how Paul’s rebuke was so momentous that Peter could not have been the ‘leader’ …
When we point out a similar and even more ‘unChristian’ act by Paul - commanding someone to be circumcised - after preaching against it - your best shot is to say Caholics call Paul a “hypocrit” and wrongly …
Paul admits he was accused of theft … so I think he stole money from the Chruch? No … Do I think that Paul acted with Timothy in a way that was inconsisant with his teaching - absolutely - Was this instance inmuch the same manner as Peter’s - absolutely … Both men were attempting to spread the Good News - both were struggling with all that they knew from their Jewish perspectives and what Christ taught …
I think that Paul was still in the very zealous early stages of his ministry when he rebuked Peter … much like Peter was very zealous [not understanding about Jesus’ fate and saying that it would not happen - the cutting off an ear,etc] …
Peter was less zealous later, though still troubled at times - hence the not eating with gentiles when the judaizers came to town …
Paul - knew wht was right and acted wrongly - much like Peters denial of Christ - when he had Timothy circumcised. Far of death is not a good enough reason to compromise - after all he certainy understood that Christian hope lies in eternal life - would he not. What good is it to sae ones life - here - only to loose it there?
This is a perfect example of your not looking at the scriptures in context, in totality and at the deeper menings … you can speak of greek parents and fear of death but Scripture no where states that Timothy was circumcized to prevent his martydom or Paul’s life …
Catholics can recognize Paul’s contribution to the formation of the Church regardless of his imperfections, similarly with Peter’s … they each had a role in building up the Church …
I don’t have to interpret the scriptures to illustrate and expain away Paul’s imperfections and magnif’y Peter’s… as you do
to manify Paul’s and down grade Peter’s
R
Reuben_J
Guest
The issue, Peter being singled out as the Vicar of Christ, have been extensively discussed in this thread and some posters had offered very good explanation on this position which is reflective of the Catholic’s doctrine.
I have to look for some reference from the CCC, if that’s what you want.
I would agree with you there. I guess we were wrangling with the word ‘ordain’, which in the Catholic context, it comes with specific connotation and authority for the clergies.
Peter is a change of name by the Lord. You, Simon son of Jona, are Cephas/Petros now (because of the words you said). In this context, they are different. We are highlighting this difference as significant in the Bible. Like Abram, was changed to Abraham when God made the covenant with him, or Jacob to Israel or Saul to Paul.
So it is the change of name. In Peter’s case it is two-folds – name change and the meaning of the name (rock).
God bless.
M
Masters_Servant
Guest
M
Masters_Servant
Guest
In the OT Hebrew the name is Simeon and yes you are correct, but in the Greek translation of the NT it is Peter.
Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut and I came across this really nice Greek site you may be interested in for future study. I had to give my email address and make a password, but no other information was required, but it looks complicated, but if one can figure the full utilization of the site i believe it will enhance ones Biblical studies. Click here.
O
onenow1
Guest
C
Carlan
Guest
Schaick, do hope you will stay in CA for good while, If your mind is sincerely wide open, you will learn the whole Truth of what Jesus wanted handed on down through his Church.
God bless you in your journey while visiting with us. :thumbsup:Carlan
J
Javl
Guest
Masters Servant:
I will have to look into this further. I am sure that my teachers and professors did not transmit the wrong information on this.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
I will have to look into this further. I am sure that my teachers and professors did not transmit the wrong information on this.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
M
Masters_Servant
Guest
Paul had just met Timothy and heard good reports on him and wanted to disciple him to prepare him for the ministry that Timothy was prophesied and since he was well known that Timothy’s father was a Greek in order to avoid problems because Timothy was know to have a Greek father in that area. Paul asked Timothy to be circumcised, not because he would be doing works to be saved, but to aid in accessing the Jews. If Timothy had not been circumcised the Jews would have assumed he had renounced his Jewish heritage and chosen to live like a gentile; therefore he would not have been able to learn from Paul how to minister to the Jews and later have access to the Jews in the synagogues with Paul. I was mistaken about the death fear because I did not look at the passage but rather took the word that Timothy was circumcised and that Christ would not benefit them unless he did from another posters words, which was inaccurate. My mistake was not checking the Scripture first to if it was accurate.You are reading much into the scripures that you say are so very clear … Peter simply stopped table fellowship - he did not force anyone to stop eating with the gentiles … Peter simply removed himself - personnally - from an uncomfortable situation … which Paul made a great deal over … Now many protestants will comment on how hypocritical Peter was and how wrong he was an how Paul’s rebuke was so momentous that Peter could not have been the ‘leader’ …
When we point out a similar and even more ‘unChristian’ act by Paul - commanding someone to be circumcised - after preaching against it - your best shot is to say Caholics call Paul a “hypocrit” and wrongly …
Paul admits he was accused of theft … so I think he stole money from the Chruch? No … Do I think that Paul acted with Timothy in a way that was inconsisant with his teaching - absolutely - Was this instance inmuch the same manner as Peter’s - absolutely … Both men were attempting to spread the Good News - both were struggling with all that they knew from their Jewish perspectives and what Christ taught …
I think that Paul was still in the very zealous early stages of his ministry when he rebuked Peter … much like Peter was very zealous [not understanding about Jesus’ fate and saying that it would not happen - the cutting off an ear,etc] …
Peter was less zealous later, though still troubled at times - hence the not eating with gentiles when the judaizers came to town …
Paul - knew wht was right and acted wrongly - much like Peters denial of Christ - when he had Timothy circumcised. Far of death is not a good enough reason to compromise - after all he certainy understood that Christian hope lies in eternal life - would he not. What good is it to sae ones life - here - only to loose it there?
This is a perfect example of your not looking at the scriptures in context, in totality and at the deeper menings … you can speak of greek parents and fear of death but Scripture no where states that Timothy was circumcised to prevent his martyrdom or Paul’s life …
This is far different than what Peter did because he was in a leadership rule and caused a riff as a result between the Christian Jewish converts and the gentile converts based on reverence or fear for Judaizers. Plus by joining in, he was adding works to faith to the point where Barnabas had fallen into the same and hurt the gentile believers. AKA: Peter sinned greatly and God used Paul to intervene.
Very presumptuous and uncharitable attitude here; I did no such thing. Both of them are human or sinners and Paul referred to himself as the chief of all sinners. I am here to learn what Catholics believe as far as I am concerned; it doesn’t matter if I agree with the doctrine or do not; you are the Catholic and I am a visitor in a Catholic website. It would seem odd to push my doctrinal beliefs on you in a Catholic forum. When I am asked if I hold something to be true or what I think or believe, then I may chose to tell one what I believe.Catholics can recognize Paul’s contribution to the formation of the Church regardless of his imperfections, similarly with Peter’s … they each had a role in building up the Church …
I don’t have to interpret the scriptures to illustrate and expain away Paul’s imperfections and magnif’y Peter’s… as you do
M
Masters_Servant
Guest
You do realize that Jesus called him Simon Simon, Peter, Simon Peter and Simon son of John (John 21) after this passage. So does this mean He changed his name back again?
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Whatever it is, Peter/Cephas/Petros was a new name pronounced upon him by Jesus. Whatever was said after that would not make this (Mt 16:18) null and void. As for the rest we can only assume. My assumption would be that the original name, Simon, may be referred to because he was Simon for most of his adult life. However, we see that the Biblical usage especially at a later stage, after the resurrection, the Acts and the Epistles, that Peter was almost exclusively used.
He (Jesus) certainly did not changed his name back again (I know you don’t mean that) but certainly not. He did not changed his name back to Simon and rescinded Peter. You would find that this argument would be quite weak too. Another Protestant poster earlier on in this thread was saying that Jesus changed his mind after saying that Peter was the rock and later reprimanded him in Jn 21 (do you really, really, really love me?). Well, this does not argue against the fact that Peter was the rock.
God bless.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Dokimas-
It was Herod who went to Cesarea…not Peter.
Acts 12:18-19 (NIV)
18In the morning, there was no small commotion among the soldiers as to what had become of Peter. 19After Herod had a thorough search made for him and did not find him, he cross-examined the guards and ordered that they be executed. Then Herod went from Judea to Caesarea and stayed there a while.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Forgive me, but what are you asking for here?
- Status