Bible Topic Thread (merged)

#177
#177
CSpindizzy said:
We considering we're talking about Christ who selected Peter and a few others for an intended purpose and as you said gave power to bind and to be the rock to build his church, how does his denial matter? I guess that all-knowing concept was thrown out the window according to you...gotcha.



Um, you DO know these letters are what compose the New Testament right? So it did not matter whether they were individual or compiled into one book. They existed, were used, and were spread throughout the known world.

And what are you talking about contradicting? What tangent are you drifting on? I am speaking of the books we now refer to as the New Testament. No where in anything I said did I speak on any other books beside what is in our current New Testament. Every verse I have quoted and referred to is all in our current New Testament. Perhaps if you'd stay focused on what was actually said instead of assuming what people are saying, this discussion would be much more beneficial.
Click to expand...
As am I, so I will type slower for you.

You are trying to bring up passages that you believe obviously contradict Catholic Dogma (which, by the way in absolutely no way do) that are in the New Testament.

My rhetorical question posed was, why would the Catholic Church commission such an intensive council and dedicate so much time and energy to selecting the books that would go into the Bible (again, not around until 382 A.D.) yet select texts that so obviously contradicted the practices of the Catholic Church for the past 350 years?
 
#178
#178
"Oh, except that CSpin seems to think that the inclusion of the word "if" would change the whole meaning."

Well yeah. Not exactly rocket science there. A simple study of words and the English language will tell you that IF is not definitive and concrete. Take IF out and it is pretty concrete. To believe otherwise calls for a quick trip to elementary school English class.
 
#180
#180
CSpindizzy said:
Actually he did not say "you are the rock". A simple referral to the original Greek would clear this up for you.

Again I refer you to the two Gospels that refer to the man who built on the rock and the one on the sand. Jesus gave a blanket statement to ANYONE and not to Peter that they would be the man building on the rock...keep in mind this same story uses the same greek word that Christ later says is the rock he'd build his church. Simple concept of foundation. Simple concept and so simple Paul even referred to it in Ephesians as saying all apostles and prophets at that time were the foundation or rock. No where does it give prominence to Peter and to him only. Actually Christ repeatedly dispels who is the 'favorite' and plays it down each time he was asked. Scripture backs it up and it is fact.
Click to expand...
Actually, he did say "the rock." You can look at the Greek to clear that one up for yourself.
 
#184
#184
therealUT said:
As am I, so I will type slower for you.

You are trying to bring up passages that you believe obviously contradict Catholic Dogma (which, by the way in absolutely no way do) that are in the New Testament.

My rhetorical question posed was, why would the Catholic Church commission such an intensive council and dedicate so much time and energy to selecting the books that would go into the Bible (again, not around until 382 A.D.) yet select texts that so obviously contradicted the practices of the Catholic Church for the past 350 years?
Click to expand...

Actually they do contradict it and many others feel the same and have so for centuries. Are you telling me that every council convened in the early church was unanimous? Do you actually believe that just because a group of people said it and a majority at that that it is so? Is praying to Mary mother of God Biblical? I can go down an entire list of doctrine from the catholic church that is not Biblical.

Throughout the history of the Christian church, note not Catholic church, there have been issues with debates. Your own references to councils even shows there was debate on what was truly meant in scripture and what scripture was. Just because someone selects a book for canon does not mean they understand it or won't take it out of context. I am familiar enough with the Catholic church to know there is an occassional review as to what is really meant by certain things. Vatican II for example. Even within the Catholic church there has been internal reformations on doctrine as with any other Christian denomination.

If you read my statement earlier, you'll get that I even acknowledged that. I simply went to the original Greek, referenced other portions of Scripture that relate to that and have come to the same conclusions that many have throughout the history of Christianity. To believe that peter is the sole father of the church, the bishop of Rome, and the sole foundation of our beliefs is unbiblical. There are several scriptures already quoted that counter your point. You can keep laughing and mocking all you want but having looked at the original Greek and seeing other scriptures tie to this reference, there is only one logical conclusion to make. You have free will and obviously disagree. So be it. I will continue going to my protestant church and bypassing a priest going directly to Christ in prayer, not daring to put any hope in man for my redemption or forgiveness but only in the one who died and rose from the dead.
 
#186
#186
therealUT said:
Actually, he did say "the rock." You can look at the Greek to clear that one up for yourself.
Click to expand...

I am looking at it and THE is not there. He called Peter Petros which in the Greek is the name that means rock. "THE ROCK" follows shortly after that. So again, a simple viewing of the Greek will clear you up.
 
#187
#187
Trut when was confession instituted by the church?

The earliest Christian writings, such as the first-century Didache, are indefinite on the procedure for confession to be used in the forgiveness of sins, but a verbal confession is listed as part of the Church’s requirement by the time of Irenaeus (A.D. 180). He wrote that the disciples of the Gnostic heretic Marcus "have deluded many women. . . . Their consciences have been branded as with a hot iron. Some of these women make a public confession, but others are ashamed to do this, and in silence, as if withdrawing themselves from the hope of the life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between the two courses" (Against Heresies 1:22).

The sacrament of penance is clearly in use, for Irenaeus speaks of making an outward confession (versus remaining silent) upon which the hope of eternal life hangs, but it is not yet clear from Irenaeus just how, or to whom, confession is to be made. Is it privately, to the priest, or before the whole congregation, with the priest presiding? The one thing we can say for sure is that the sacrament is understood by Irenaeus as having originated in the infant Church.

Later writers, such as Origen (241), Cyprian (251), and Aphraates (337), are clear in saying confession is to be made to a priest. (In their writings the whole process of penance is termed exomologesis, which means confession—the confession was seen as the main part of the sacrament.) Cyprian writes that the forgiveness of sins can take place only "through the priests." Ambrose says "this right is given to priests only." Pope Leo I says absolution can be obtained only through the prayers of the priests. These utterances are not taken as novel, but as reminders of accepted belief. We have no record of anyone objecting, of anyone claiming these men were pushing an "invention."
Click to expand...
 
#188
#188
CSpindizzy said:
I am looking at it and THE is not there. He called Peter Petros which in the Greek is the name that means rock. "THE ROCK" follows shortly after that. So again, a simple viewing of the Greek will clear you up.
Click to expand...

:lolabove: :eek:lol: :post-4-1090547912: You guys are something else.
 
#190
#190
CSpindizzy said:
Actually they do contradict it and many others feel the same and have so for centuries. Are you telling me that every council convened in the early church was unanimous? Do you actually believe that just because a group of people said it and a majority at that that it is so? Is praying to Mary mother of God Biblical? I can go down an entire list of doctrine from the catholic church that is not Biblical.
Click to expand...
Well, we don't pray to Mary. So, your list of Doctrine concerning the Catholic Church has already been debunked with your first item.
Throughout the history of the Christian church, note not Catholic church, there have been issues with debates. Your own references to councils even shows there was debate on what was truly meant in scripture and what scripture was. Just because someone selects a book for canon does not mean they understand it or won't take it out of context. I am familiar enough with the Catholic church to know there is an occassional review as to what is really meant by certain things. Vatican II for example. Even within the Catholic church there has been internal reformations on doctrine as with any other Christian denomination.
Click to expand...
Yes, you have already proven exactly how familiar you are with the Catholic Church. I guess I will go pray to Mary now...

Also, yes, there are Doctinal reforms. There are not Dogmatic reforms.
If you read my statement earlier, you'll get that I even acknowledged that. I simply went to the original Greek, referenced other portions of Scripture that relate to that and have come to the same conclusions that many have throughout the history of Christianity. To believe that peter is the sole father of the church, the bishop of Rome, and the sole foundation of our beliefs is unbiblical. There are several scriptures already quoted that counter your point. You can keep laughing and mocking all you want but having looked at the original Greek and seeing other scriptures tie to this reference, there is only one logical conclusion to make. You have free will and obviously disagree. So be it. I will continue going to my protestant church and bypassing a priest going directly to Christ in prayer, not daring to put any hope in man for my redemption or forgiveness but only in the one who died and rose from the dead.
Click to expand...
500 years of protestantism is hardly throughout the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church.

Also, you act as though you are the only one who has ever looked at the original Greek. Maybe it was just my school growing up, but we were exposed to, and had to learn, Latin and Scriptural Greek. I have most definitely been exposed to the Greek. Again, it states "The Rock."
 
#192
#192
trut- How do you explain the Apostle Paul being a member of the Sanhedrin in which you had to be married? Wouldn't he, an apostle be living an immoral life you claim our protestant preachers are living in?

Again regarding purgatory how do you explain Jesus telling the criminal that "you will be with me in paradise"? Wouldn't He have said well since you aren't baptized you will make a stop in purgatory and get some things straight, then I'll see you after that. NO! He said TODAY you will be with me. see Mark 23:40-43
 
#193
#193
therealUT said:
Baptism has everything to do with forgiveness. One, it clears you of your original sin. Two, it clears you of any and all particular sins you have committed up to that point in your life.
Click to expand...
Baptism clears nothing. Baptism is a symbolic gesture. The clearance happens with the acceptance of Jesus as savior and the handing over of the reigns to Jesus.
 
#194
#194
This will be my attempt at "the rock" conversation
It has been 3 years since Peter first accepted Jesus (John 1:41,42) Called Him Lord a year later(Luke 5:8) and half a year later called Him "The Holy One of God" (John 6:68,69). After 2 and a half years with Jesus he expresses his conviction. The "Rock" (18) on which Christ would build His church, is not Peter, BUT th truth to which Peter confessed, THAT Jesus is the Son of God. THE DIETY OF JESUS IS THE FOUNDATION on which the Church rests, the fundamental creed of Christendom. This is the unmistakable meaing of the language. Greek and Latin often use "and" for "but" and knowing this the passage becomes clear. The Lord says "You are Peter, and any man can move you, but the faith you have expressed in MY DIETY is a ROCK immovable as the mountains. On IT I will build my church."

The word "petros" means a small stone. These stones are not too big for one man to move. However the Greek lexion quotes "petra"as applied to Mt. Olympus an the Caucasus.
And yea I discussed these things with my grandfather who is a protestant minister so all of this I have learned from him earlier today :)


On Christ the SOLID ROCK I stand all other ground is sinking sand.
 
#195
#195
"The Keys of the Kingdom" V.19

The ordianry interpretation is that Peter opened the door of salvation, on the day of Pentecost, to the Jews (Acts 2), and later the Gentiles (Acts 10). NOT that he was GIVEN the POWER to FORGIVE SINS, BUT to proclaim the terms of forgiveness. Whatever authority was given to Peter was given to the other Apostles (Matt. 18:18; John 20:23) And that only in a Declaritive sense. CHRIST FORGIVES. His apostles were INSPIRED by the Holy Spirit to proclaim the TERMS of that forgiveness.
 
#196
#196
therealUT said:
Well, we don't pray to Mary. So, your list of Doctrine concerning the Catholic Church has already been debunked with your first item.
Click to expand...

Then I guess all of these local Catholics who go to a very large church are all some weird and extreme faction. So your thought that my list is debunked is debunked. Try again.

therealUT said:
500 years of protestantism is hardly throughout the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church.

Also, you act as though you are the only one who has ever looked at the original Greek. Maybe it was just my school growing up, but we were exposed to, and had to learn, Latin and Scriptural Greek. I have most definitely been exposed to the Greek. Again, it states "The Rock."
Click to expand...

Well considering that Catholicism is not the only original faction of the church for all those years, I'd say your knowledge of the history of the church is skewed. I admire your loyalty to Rome even though it is inaccurate.

If you can prove to me that it does refer to Peter as "the rock" instead of JUST Petros which denotes his name then you will be correct. But even with your training you have not paid close enough attention to the original Greek. I also noticed you dropped mentioning Aramaic. Thank you for realizing that argument was pointless.

I also notice you have avoided the reference by Paul that ALL apostles and prophets were the rock/foundation and also conveniently ignored the fact that Jesus gave blanket statements that others too would be the rock if they were the man who built their house upon the rock. I see that Jesus gives a statement open to all but yet you only accept Peter as the sole rock. Pick and choose what you will but the great thing about Jesus' teachings is that they all fit when applied together instead of picked apart and used to benefit ones own agenda.
 
#197
#197
therealUT said:
Pope Clement I presided over public confessions and penances during his reign as pope. His reign lasted from 84-98, I believe.
Click to expand...

Any scripture to back up that it has to be a pope to hear confession? I can hear confession and so can you. What does it matter who presides over confession?
 
#198
#198
Read the Great Commission mentioned in all four Gospels plus Acts. I think Christ's last command was pretty clear on what was given as the tasks for the apostles.
 
#199
#199
CSpindizzy said:
Then I guess all of these local Catholics who go to a very large church are all some weird and extreme faction. So your thought that my list is debunked is debunked. Try again.



Well considering that Catholicism is not the only original faction of the church for all those years, I'd say your knowledge of the history of the church is skewed. I admire your loyalty to Rome even though it is inaccurate.

If you can prove to me that it does refer to Peter as "the rock" instead of JUST Petros which denotes his name then you will be correct. But even with your training you have not paid close enough attention to the original Greek. I also noticed you dropped mentioning Aramaic. Thank you for realizing that argument was pointless.

I also notice you have avoided the reference by Paul that ALL apostles and prophets were the rock/foundation and also conveniently ignored the fact that Jesus gave blanket statements that others too would be the rock if they were the man who built their house upon the rock. I see that Jesus gives a statement open to all but yet you only accept Peter as the sole rock. Pick and choose what you will but the great thing about Jesus' teachings is that they all fit when applied together instead of picked apart and used to benefit ones own agenda.
Click to expand...

Good stuff man!
 
#200
#200
CSpindizzy said:
Then I guess all of these local Catholics who go to a very large church are all some weird and extreme faction. So your thought that my list is debunked is debunked. Try again.
Click to expand...
Negative. We pray through Mary. Just as protestants ask other church members to pray for them, we also ask Mary and the Saints. We pray to God, the Trinity. So, yes, you were wrong.

Well considering that Catholicism is not the only original faction of the church for all those years, I'd say your knowledge of the history of the church is skewed. I admire your loyalty to Rome even though it is inaccurate.

If you can prove to me that it does refer to Peter as "the rock" instead of JUST Petros which denotes his name then you will be correct. But even with your training you have not paid close enough attention to the original Greek. I also noticed you dropped mentioning Aramaic. Thank you for realizing that argument was pointless.

I also notice you have avoided the reference by Paul that ALL apostles and prophets were the rock/foundation and also conveniently ignored the fact that Jesus gave blanket statements that others too would be the rock if they were the man who built their house upon the rock. I see that Jesus gives a statement open to all but yet you only accept Peter as the sole rock. Pick and choose what you will but the great thing about Jesus' teachings is that they all fit when applied together instead of picked apart and used to benefit ones own agenda.
Click to expand...
Let's try this one on for size.

"You are rock and on rock I will build my church."

"You are rock and on this rock I will build my church."

"You are the rock and on this rock I will build my church."

Jesus did not converse as though he was an Indian chief in an old western, or any character in an old Japanese film.

Also, do not even try to argue that it said "a rock." That is categorically incorrect.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top