Religious debate (split from main board)

#1,976
#1,976
IPorange said:
From their point of view, they are following scripture. Jesus said Peter was "the rock" of the church, on which he would build it. He eventually became the first pope, and the line of popes leads directly to him throughout the entire history of the Church. In their opinion, the pope and everything having to do with that office comes directly from Jesus himself.
Click to expand...


Based on my sparse knowledge of the Catholic Church - and if I remember correctly - what you posted is how they view Simon Peter.

But there are others who understand Christ's statement to mean that He built his church - not on the man Peter - but on Peter's testimony that Jesus was the Christ.

Here are the verses.

Matthew 16:13-18
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
 
#1,977
#1,977
I am familiar with the protestant view. I was just sharing what the pope stuff was all about, and that they aren't worshiping a man or adding something to the Bible. Just interpreting it differently.


Honestly, I think they have a good case.
 
#1,979
#1,979
Because if Jesus didn't mean what he literally said, that he would build his church upon the rock (the rock being that guy), then you could start reading into every verse as not being literal. It's inconsistent.

I know that is going to tick off all the protestants, but it is what it is.
 
#1,980
#1,980
IPorange said:
I am familiar with the protestant view. I was just sharing what the pope stuff was all about, and that they aren't worshiping a man or adding something to the Bible. Just interpreting it differently.


Honestly, I think they have a good case.
Click to expand...

Not really.

It does not make good sense that Jesus would make Peter the foundation of the church, which would put him as the focal point and not Christ. He was not the son of God. And was not the sacrifice that covered man's sin. Peter along with several others are responsible for the continuation and growth of the early church. Peter along with many played an important part.

But not as the cornerstone, in which the church was built.
 
#1,981
#1,981
BeecherVol said:
Not really.

It does not make good sense that Jesus would make Peter the foundation of the church, which would put him as the focal point and not Christ. He was not the son of God. And was not the sacrifice that covered man's sin. Peter along with several others are responsible for the continuation and growth of the early church. Peter along with many played an important part.

But not as the cornerstone, in which the church was built.
Click to expand...

He isn't the focal point of the Church. Anyone telling you that has an axe to grind against Catholicism. Don't take my word for it, ask a Catholic.
 
#1,982
#1,982
IPorange said:
He isn't the focal point of the Church. Anyone telling you that has an axe to grind against Catholicism. Don't take my word for it, ask a Catholic.
Click to expand...

I have.

My grandfather was Catholic like everyone in his family before him. That I have been told of.
 
Last edited:
#1,983
#1,983
If we agree that Christ was referring to the "rock", as the foundation upon which the church was built, why would that be Peter? And if he was, he would be the focal point. The focal point in the construction of a building is the foundation.

A foundation could be described as the support for a belief in this instance. Basically what your belief is based on. Peter was a very important part in the early church. But he is not the foundation of it.
 
#1,984
#1,984
That's a matter of opinion. He was the top position of a church that currently accounts for 1/5 of the world. Sounds like a foundation to me.
 
#1,985
#1,985
IPorange said:
That's a matter of opinion. He was the top position of a church that currently accounts for 1/5 of the world. Sounds like a foundation to me.
Click to expand...

Thats the kinda the point. Not saying that opinion can't be heard, it just doesn't make sense. Peter was not the basis on which the church was built. Christ was.

If he was the foundation/rock the church was built on, he would be the son of God asking Jesus that question.
 
#1,986
#1,986
IPorange said:
He isn't the focal point of the Church. Anyone telling you that has an axe to grind against Catholicism. Don't take my word for it, ask a Catholic.
Click to expand...

IPorange said:
That's a matter of opinion. He was the top position of a church that currently accounts for 1/5 of the world. Sounds like a foundation to me.
Click to expand...

You kinda have me confused here.
 
#1,987
#1,987
IPorange said:
Because if Jesus didn't mean what he literally said, that he would build his church upon the rock (the rock being that guy), then you could start reading into every verse as not being literal. It's inconsistent.

I know that is going to tick off all the protestants, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...

BeecherVol said:
If we agree that Christ was referring to the "rock", as the foundation upon which the church was built, why would that be Peter? And if he was, he would be the focal point. The focal point in the construction of a building is the foundation.

A foundation could be described as the support for a belief in this instance. Basically what your belief is based on. Peter was a very important part in the early church. But he is not the foundation of it.
Click to expand...

This verse is certainly open to interpretation (as are many things in the English language), but that doesn't mean it can't be taken literally or the Bible is inconsistent. Personally, I interpret the rock in this case to be Peter's prior expression of faith that Jesus is in fact the Messiah ("You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God). Peter is stating that Jesus is not just the Son of God, but also the Messiah - our Savior. This is, indeed, the foundation of what Christianity is based on which is further supported by one of the most popular verses in the Bible...

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
 
#1,988
#1,988
IBlvNTmWrk said:
This verse is certainly open to interpretation (as are many things in the English language), but that doesn't mean it can't be taken literally or the Bible is inconsistent. Personally, I interpret the rock in this case to be Peter's prior expression of faith that Jesus is in fact the Messiah ("You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God). Peter is stating that Jesus is not just the Son of God, but also the Messiah - our Savior. This is, indeed, the foundation of what Christianity is based on which is further supported by one of the most popular verses in the Bible...

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Click to expand...

I see it as Christ giving Peter credit for answering his question correctly, that Christ was the son of man. In which case, if no one figured that out, the church would not be here today.
 
#1,990
#1,990
IPorange said:
Because if Jesus didn't mean what he literally said, that he would build his church upon the rock (the rock being that guy), then you could start reading into every verse as not being literal. It's inconsistent.

I know that is going to tick off all the protestants, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...

The Bible is a spiritual book, to be interperted spiritually. If you are saying that the Bible is inconsistent - vs. saying the reader's point of view is inconsistent - then that indicates to me that you have little, if any spiritual understanding of God's word.

And I don't mean that as an insult to you, this is just how the Bible says things will be.
 
#1,991
#1,991
MWR said:
The Bible is a spiritual book, to be interperted spiritually. If you are saying that the Bible is inconsistent - vs. saying the reader's point of view is inconsistent - then that indicates to me that you have little, if any spiritual understanding of God's word.

And I don't mean that as an insult to you, this is just how the Bible says things will be.
Click to expand...

I'm not insulted. Frequently when people disagree with me, they try to make some claim that I don't have the spirituality to grasp the Word. I think that's a cop-out.


Beecher, so you are saying Jesus did not call Simon-Peter "the Rock?"
 
#1,992
#1,992
The Bible is neither 100% literal or 100% figurative, but it does say exactly what it means. The job of the reader is to study and figure out what's what.
 
#1,993
#1,993
Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.

Now if you totally neglected everything else that was said before and after that passage, you could interpret it that way.

Of course Jesus could have made it simple, and said "Disciples of me, Peter is the foundation of the church."
But if he would have made that clear then, you think that would have been worth repeating by Christ at some point later. Especially after the resurrection, before he ascended.
 
Last edited:
#1,994
#1,994
Peter was there the day of Pentecost, and Peter's name means rock. He was also instrumental in helping build the foundation of Christianity as it is today. It was a play on words, so to speak, and all Jesus meant was that he would help build the body of the church, which is it's people, the bride of Christ. So people take that WAY too far in it's meaning.
 
#1,996
#1,996
IPorange said:
I'm not insulted. Frequently when people disagree with me, they try to make some claim that I don't have the spirituality to grasp the Word. I think that's a cop-out.


Beecher, so you are saying Jesus did not call Simon-Peter "the Rock?"
Click to expand...

"The Rock" was Peter's answer to Christ's question, which was his understanding of who Christ was. That is the foundation of church.

Are you saying if you read that group of verses, that there is no way it could be understood that way?
 
#1,997
#1,997
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

Matthew 7:21-23
 
#1,998
#1,998
CountVolcula said:
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

Matthew 7:21-23
Click to expand...

The false prophet verses. Some people don't understand that doing everything is his name isn't going to get you to heaven. It's by faith, and faith alone that will get you there. Now, if you have the faith, then the works follow, not before.
 
#2,000
#2,000
Practice what you preach. You cant wave the "get out of hell free card" just because you go to church ever Wednesday and Sunday.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top