R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
moses did the wrong thing by tapping twice, and never got to go into the Holy Land. God is tough, but fair.
Last edited:
- Status
B
Benadam
Guest
The Church was going to be a place that offered salvation redemption, well everything Jesus gave us. Satan tested Peter’s faith and when he recovered he was commanded to strengthen his brothers. Be their rock. Peter was their rock. He’s not a rock until after being sifted it seems. Jesus calls him Simon, Simon.
Some that aren’t direct references to God but offer the same helps Like Peter did for the brethren and so, for the Church.
The passage below reminds me of Jesus’ Baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire. Jesus gave this over to His Church like the angel of the Lord in this passage
Rock in the OT was a place of refuge. The pagans had their rock of refuge too.
Last edited:
T
thistle
Guest
E
exnihilo
Guest
When I was a Protestant I denied Peter had a special role. Why? Because that’s is a typical Protestant position because the only thing Protestants agree on isn’t that the Catholic Church is wrong. But as you detail the evidence is overwhelming that Peter was the head Apostle and that as such he had a role of authority over the other Apostles. The succession of that authority is a separate matter, but to deny Peter’s unique role is to approach Holy Scripture with a axiomatic belief denying it.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Perhaps the most overlooked example of Saint Peter’s primacy!
J
jlhargus
Guest
Roseeurekacross, I don’t know if you are a moderator but I suspect not. Why not just let the moderators moderate. Stick to the topic or complain to the moderators simple as that. Why derail the line.
Last edited:
J
joeybaggz
Guest
Rose, I always thought the same thing and once replied as such to a post. Another poster said that there is no evidence that Moses struck the rock twice and this was the disobedience that caused God to disallow Moses to enter the Promised Land. I looked up the incident in Exodus, Chapter 17, and nowhere does it say Moses struck the rock twice. (NAB citation)
I can’t find Biblical support for the two time strike.
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
Nope I am not a moderator.
the practice of dragging quotes to new threads was against rules, and was used quite nefariously at times.
chattes with an issue, or wanting to continue the negative tone of the discourse, would deploy this tactic.
Mods would remove the thread.
We all have the right to an opinion . And it would be very disapponting if this practice flourished on the new format. unless agreed by the person whose post was being taken to begin a new thread,
i doubt I am the only person who has this opinion. Time, no doubt, will tell.
Also given its a new format, and OUR forum, we have the right and responsibility to comment on how it should grow. One example of that is the wiki function. And peoples opinions of it.
the practice of dragging quotes to new threads was against rules, and was used quite nefariously at times.
chattes with an issue, or wanting to continue the negative tone of the discourse, would deploy this tactic.
Mods would remove the thread.
We all have the right to an opinion . And it would be very disapponting if this practice flourished on the new format. unless agreed by the person whose post was being taken to begin a new thread,
i doubt I am the only person who has this opinion. Time, no doubt, will tell.
Also given its a new format, and OUR forum, we have the right and responsibility to comment on how it should grow. One example of that is the wiki function. And peoples opinions of it.
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
Numbers 20 :6 onwards.
This is How my Priests explain it in their homilies.
So Moses went to appeal to God on behalf of the people. They were all complaining. And blaming Moses for leading them around the desert. Only Manna to eat , no figs, tropical fruits, and they were all thirsty. They did not trust God and thought they would die of thirst. Miriam had recently died.
God told Moses and Aaron to pick up a branch, call everyone , and then order the rock to give up water. God said to Moses he would order the rock to release the water.
so then Moses picks up the branch , calls the community, calls them rebels , then asks shall he and Aaron release the water from the rock. Then Moses raises his hand and hits the rock twice. it wasnt really a tap, if you raise your hand and swing down.
God keeps his promise, as always, everyone gets water. But God chastises Moses for not trusting in God to release the water, And denying God His opportunity for asserting His Holiness before His people.
So then Moses is told by God he wont be leading the people into the holy land.
Our Priests say Moses should have, on God’s instruction , just tapped or touched the rock in question to show where to watch and look to see God’s Holiness.
but Moses having doubt, wacked the rock twice.
There is a good lesson in that. Man’s way is very forceful, God achieves in the whisper on the wind, Thats in the Old Testament as well.
I love my Priests. They use the homolies to explain, and to tie in all the readings. Its interseting when we get revelations.
they say , firstly , dont panic about this book.
of course it goes without saying, this isnt word for word of the homiy. Its a popular homily, given this is rural drought or flood ridden Australia.
This is How my Priests explain it in their homilies.
So Moses went to appeal to God on behalf of the people. They were all complaining. And blaming Moses for leading them around the desert. Only Manna to eat , no figs, tropical fruits, and they were all thirsty. They did not trust God and thought they would die of thirst. Miriam had recently died.
God told Moses and Aaron to pick up a branch, call everyone , and then order the rock to give up water. God said to Moses he would order the rock to release the water.
so then Moses picks up the branch , calls the community, calls them rebels , then asks shall he and Aaron release the water from the rock. Then Moses raises his hand and hits the rock twice. it wasnt really a tap, if you raise your hand and swing down.
God keeps his promise, as always, everyone gets water. But God chastises Moses for not trusting in God to release the water, And denying God His opportunity for asserting His Holiness before His people.
So then Moses is told by God he wont be leading the people into the holy land.
Our Priests say Moses should have, on God’s instruction , just tapped or touched the rock in question to show where to watch and look to see God’s Holiness.
but Moses having doubt, wacked the rock twice.
There is a good lesson in that. Man’s way is very forceful, God achieves in the whisper on the wind, Thats in the Old Testament as well.
I love my Priests. They use the homolies to explain, and to tie in all the readings. Its interseting when we get revelations.
they say , firstly , dont panic about this book.
of course it goes without saying, this isnt word for word of the homiy. Its a popular homily, given this is rural drought or flood ridden Australia.
Last edited:
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Yeah I hear you, but whether it was popular with Jimmy Swaggart or not, is irrelevant, and whether Jesus spoke ancient Aramaic nor not, is irrelevant. The Holy Spirit inspired the New Testament writers to write in Greek a very precise and accurate language. The gender issues do matter when one is trying to interpret Peter as the Rock. I suppose the Holy Spirit could have led Matthew to record it to say: Thou art petros and upon this petros I will build my Church and that would have ended it right there. But even if Matthew recorded it in that way, giving Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (which is a metaphoric expression by the way, they weren’t literal, physical keys) was simply giving him spiritual authority to bind on earth and loose on earth all that has been bound and loosed in heaven.
If you simply turn two chapter down the road you find Jesus telling all of His disciples they too can bind and loose. How did this turn into Church government topic? It was imposed into the passage by Rome and their inability to properly interpret scripture.
If you simply turn two chapter down the road you find Jesus telling all of His disciples they too can bind and loose. How did this turn into Church government topic? It was imposed into the passage by Rome and their inability to properly interpret scripture.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
The question Why did Jesus name Simon, “the Rock?” is the wrong question to ask. I have no problem with Peter being portrayed as a rock. But the real question is why did Jesus say, “upon this ROCK” but not use the same Greek word, Petros? Why did the holy Spirit make such a distinction in the passage?
Could it be because it wasn’t about Peter, personally, but more about what Peter had just proclaimed! Thou are the Christ the Son of the living God!.. well done Peter, flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father…
Those boys in Rome got it wrong.
Could it be because it wasn’t about Peter, personally, but more about what Peter had just proclaimed! Thou are the Christ the Son of the living God!.. well done Peter, flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father…
Those boys in Rome got it wrong.
J
joeybaggz
Guest
Sorry!!! Your far fetched translation of the scene and the words might be true, IF Jesus spoke Greek. He didn’t! He spoke ancient Aramaic and the word He used is Kepha. Means rock, stone, boulder, pebble, etc. etc. Translating to Greek demands the use of terminology consistent with sex of the object of Jesus’ words. Petros, not petra.
I know there are scads of evangelical, Pentecostal, and fundamentalist protestant preachers that parrot that inanity. But they are all wrong. That falsity just fits there objective. Sorry, Rome didn’t get it wrong.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
No sir. You are in error. This push to make the original manuscripts of the New Testament Aramaic is an old argument laced with theory and speculation. If Jesus spoke in Aramaic, the Holy Spirit deliberately recorded it in Greek.
J
joeybaggz
Guest
Sorry. The early Church and her writers were writing to the world. At that time, the most universally understood language was Greek. It ws the best language to use for both the Jews and Gentiles to whom the writers words were directed. Mark wrote his gospel to the Romans, Luke to the Greeks, Matthew to the Jews, and John to the developing Church throughout the world where the original apostles and disciples founded Churches. A modern day parallel would be if the Scriptures were written in a common language most of the world understood, it would be English, even though the readers might be in Russia, or Sweden, or other lands where English is not native.
Another factor might well be that the world at that time by and large was illiterate and Scripture was intended initially for the learned. And that meant Greek in the known world at that time.
\The other problem I have with your contention that Rome is wrong is the question, How can the church established by those who actually knew the tweleve apostles and disciples be wrong, but some bunch of preachers 1700 to 1900 years later are inspired by the Holy Spirit and are correct. Actually the more interesting question is, since there are about 35,000 " protestant churches with 35,000 different “ministers” all their own pope, why is there so much differing interpretation of Scripture. I mean the Lutheran say this, the Presbyterians say that, the Methodists say another thing, and the pentecostals/evangelicals say so many different things, you have to thing if they are inspired by the Holy Spitit, the Spirit is doing an incredibly confusing and lousy job given all the dissenting opinions expressed by the 35,000.???
Last edited:
T
tgGodsway
Guest
I’m not sure who you were responding to, but I agree The Greek language was the universal language of the 1st. Century regardless of what Language Jesus spoke. I imagine, Jesus could speak all languages.
As to the comments about those who knew the Apostles. There was contention and false teaching in the 1st. Century. Paul and others made it clear that their gospel was undermined at every step.
Just because one may have personally known an apostle does not make them automatically qualified to teach a version of the apostle’s doctrine or treat it as scripture. Either the Holy Spirit included their writings, as “holy scripture” or he excluded it. The Holy Spirit has already made that decision.
So that though they may have had good things to say, but we cannot elevate their words to the level of inspired scripture on that bases alone, or on the bases that they personally knew an apostle.
As to the comments about those who knew the Apostles. There was contention and false teaching in the 1st. Century. Paul and others made it clear that their gospel was undermined at every step.
Just because one may have personally known an apostle does not make them automatically qualified to teach a version of the apostle’s doctrine or treat it as scripture. Either the Holy Spirit included their writings, as “holy scripture” or he excluded it. The Holy Spirit has already made that decision.
So that though they may have had good things to say, but we cannot elevate their words to the level of inspired scripture on that bases alone, or on the bases that they personally knew an apostle.
D
De_Maria
Guest
J
joeybaggz
Guest
I think you might be misinterpreting my words, or maybe I haven’t made them clear enough. (Probably the latter). Much of the foundational teaching of the RCC is found not in the Scripture writers, but the early fathers of the Church. Men such as Iraenaus, Polycarp, Augustine, the early fathers who are considered more of the Greek Orthodox, men such as John Damascene, John of the Cross Gregory of Nyssa, and so many others. The men who were leading the churches that Paul in his epistles wrote to. They are the foundation who took the words of the New Testament writers and founded the fledgling church we now know as the RCC. After all, Peter, by Tradition was sin Rome and died there, but he wasn’t in residence in the Vatican. Garibaldi and Mussolini were not yet even a gleam in their daddies eyes.
The only writings that were/are inspired by the Holy Spirit are those in the 27 books/letters/gospels of the New Testament. The writers and leaders I allude to above are not “inspired” by the spirit, but as successors of Peter and the Apostles, they are afforded the assurance by the Advocate/Holy Spirit I alluded to in John 16, of not leading the church and its teaching tradition into error.
I am assuming you know the definition of infallibility. It is simply that the Church, on matters of faith and morals, will not teach error. Karl Keating in his foundational work gives a good example of infallibility. If the Pope were infallible in matters of mathematics (which he is not) and you have him a test of 25 algebra questions, how many correct answers would the pope write down and be infallible. The answer, 0. The Holy Spirit would guide the pope to not put down the wrong answer, but if the Pontiff didn’t do his homework, he may not know the right one. The applies to His teachings on faith and morals. Paul VI’s admonition against artificial birth control is taught infallibly, it is not wrong. Is it absolutely right; it is a papal teaching, but it has not been pronounced from the “Chair of Peter” as an infallible teaching that all Catholics must obey. Following all the church’s teaching will not lead one astray, but in much teaching there is room for further study and revelation.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
That is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. hee. hee… and I need to go deeper?.. how about "thou art petros and upon this petros I will build my Church. Why didn’t the holy Spirit just say that?..
help em’ Jesus.
help em’ Jesus.
J
joeybaggz
Guest
Thank you Rose for the citation. I have always thought Moses struck the rock twice and it was that disobiedence that cost him. I have a feeling that I was consulting a non-catholic version of the Bible (possbly NRSV) and that’s where the confusion set in.
Again, thanks
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Not even the apostle Paul had such a standard. Paul included himself when he said, “but even if WE or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.” Gal. 1:8
It was not outside the realm of Paul’s thinking that even he could preach something contrary to what the holy Spirit was saying in the New Testament. The concept of infallibility is difficult to prove from the New Testament and the passages others have thrown out there on this site are poor examples in my view.
But taking it a little further here, An example comes to mind where Rome got it wrong again. When those boys decided to make Jesus an only child by decreeing the belief that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ was a gross error in light of the New Testament’s many solid proofs to the contrary. The fact that Matthew 1:25 calls him the “first born” is just one small example. I could go on and on with examples.
It was not outside the realm of Paul’s thinking that even he could preach something contrary to what the holy Spirit was saying in the New Testament. The concept of infallibility is difficult to prove from the New Testament and the passages others have thrown out there on this site are poor examples in my view.
But taking it a little further here, An example comes to mind where Rome got it wrong again. When those boys decided to make Jesus an only child by decreeing the belief that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ was a gross error in light of the New Testament’s many solid proofs to the contrary. The fact that Matthew 1:25 calls him the “first born” is just one small example. I could go on and on with examples.
Last edited:
- Status