Who was the Rock?

[tuppence]

Catholics consider Peter to be the rock upon which the church is founded. I was curious about this, so I looked up every time the reference to rock was listed in the Old and New Testaments.

I wrote the following a couple of years ago:

[note: all emphases in Scriptures are the author's. Quotes are from the NIV for the sake of clarity in English but any of the standard translations can be used for references; the meanings are not different.]

Roman Catholics claim that they are the church begun by Christ and then empowered by Him to lead Christianity. This is based on Matthew 16:16-19 and parallel verses. Christ did not leave a church to govern or teach. He left the Apostles.

Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, with CHRIST JESUS HIMSELF as the chief cornerstone. (Ephesians 2:19-20)

Jesus Christ HIMSELF is the stone, or rock, of Matthew 16:18 and parallel verses. Please take a look at some of the Scriptures the disciples, and all Jews, knew:

Genesis 49:24 -- But his bow remained steady,
his strong arms stayed limber,
bacause of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob,
because of the Shepherd the Rock of Israel,
because of your father's God, who helps you...

Deuteronomy 32:3-4 -- I will proclaim the name of the LORD,
Oh, praise the greatness of our God!
He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just.

Deuteronomy 32:15 -- Jeshurun grew fat and kicked;
filled with food, he became heavy and sleek.
He abandoned the God who made him
and rejected the Rock his Savior.

Deuteronomy 32:18 -- You deserted the Rock, who fathered you;
you forgot the God who gave you birth.

Deuteronomy 32:30 -- How could one man chase a thousand,
or two put ten thousand to flight,
unless their Rock had sold them,
unless the LORD had given them up?
For their rock is not like our Rock,
even as our enemies concede.

Those verses are from the Torah -- the first five books of our Old Testament, which are referred to by Christ and all Jews as The Law. It is very clear in The Law who the Rock is.


But let's keep going:

1 Samuel 2:2 is part of Hannah's prayer --
There is no one holy like the LORD;
there is no one besides you;
there is no Rock like our God.

2 Samuel 22:32 -- For who is God besides the LORD?
And who is the Rock except our God?

2 Samuel 22:47 -- The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock!
Exalted be God, the Rock, my Savior!

Psalm 18 repeats these sections of 2 Samuel 22

Psalm 19:14 -- May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
be pleasing in your sight,
O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer.

Psalm 28:1 -- To you I call, O LORD my Rock;
do not turn a deaf ear to me.

Psalm 42:9 -- I say to God my Rock,
'Why have you forgotten me?
Why must I go about mourning,
oppressed by the enemy?

Psalm 62:1-2 -- My soul finds rest in God alone;
my salvation comes from him.
He alone is my Rock and my salvation;
he is my fortress, I will never be shaken.

Psalm 89:26 -- "He will call out to me, 'You are my Father,
my God, the Rock, my Savior.'"

Psalm 92:15 -- The LORD is upright;
he is my Rock, and there is no wickedness in him.

Psalm 95:1 -- Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD;
let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation.

Psalm 144:1 -- Praise be to the LORD my Rock,


Isaiah 8:13-14 --
The LORD Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy,
he is the one you are to fear,
he is the one you are to dread,
and he will be a sanctuary;
but for both houses of Israel he will be
a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.

Isaiah 17:10 -- You have forgotten God your Savior;
you have not remembered the Rock, your fortress.

Isaiah 26:4 -- Trust in the LORD forever,
for the LORD, the LORD, is the Rock eternal.

Isaiah 44:8 -- You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, THERE IS NO OTHER ROCK; I KNOW NOT ONE.

Consistently, in the Law, the Poetry, and the Prophets, "Rock" is used to describe God. It should be noted in the Isaiah verses quoted that not only is God the Rock at that time, but that He will be (8:14) and that he is the Rock eternal (26:4). This eliminates any other "Rock" in which to trust or believe in Jewish or Christian theology. Every single one of the disciples was Jewish and had been bar mitzvahed. They KNEW their Scriptures. When Jesus declared to them, "And on this Rock I will build my church" they would have known IMMEDIATELY what He was referring to. He was identifying Himself as God, in agreement with Peter's statement of faith.

The saddest thing to me, of all this, is that the Roman Catholic Church counts on the fact that their members DON'T know the Scriptures. I urge Catholics to read God's Word for themselves. There are three legs supporting Roman Catholicism: ignorance, money, and fear. Take any one of those away and the Roman Catholic church will totter and fall.

It is NOT a matter of "only Bible." It is a matter of not knowing the Bible, regardless of what is added to it. At least, all who consider themselves Christians should know that one book, so that if something contradicts it, the person will know. I am convinced that this is why the Catholic church does not encourage its members to read or know the Bible on their own; too much in Roman Catholicism contradicts God's Word.

[RomeSweetHome]

tuppence, let's take a look at what the Bible actually teaches in Matthew 16. In verse 13, Jesus asks His disciples "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" They responded by saying that some people thought Christ was John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the other prophets. "He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 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. 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." (verses 15-18

Jesus was referring to Peter as "the rock", but we have to keep in mind that the New Testament was written in Greek, not English. This is one instance where the original wording reveals the true meaning of what is being said. The Greek word for Peter is petros, which means "a pebble" or a small stone. On the other hand, the Greek word that Jesus used for rock is petra, meaning "a massive rock" or bedrock. Now we can see that there is an obvious difference! Peter was correct when he stated that Jesus was "the Christ" and it was this profession of truth that the church would be founded upon: Jesus Christ "the chief cornerstone" (Matthew 21:42). Jesus was talking about building His church upon the solid bedrock (Peter), not a small pebble.

Psalms, Kings, Isaiah, New Testament: They will proclaim over and over God as my Rock, my refuge, my salvation...
(Ps.18:2,31, 19:14, 27:5, 28:1, 31:2, 61:2, 62:2, 71:3, 73:26, 89:26, 2S.22:2,32,47, Is.31:16, Mt.7:24, 16:18, Lk.6:48, 1Cor.10:4, 1P.2:8.

The gospel of Matthew says:

18 And I tell you that you are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
19 I will give you (Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you (Peter) bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you (Peter) loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. (Mat.16:18-19).

The original Greek is:

Mat.16:18 kagw de soi legw oti su ei Petros kai epi tauq q petra oikodomhsw mou qn ekklhsian kai pulai adou ou katiscusousin auqs
- Petros: A primary word; a rock... as a name, Petrus, an apostle: Peter.

Jesus did with Peter exactly what God had done with David in the Old Testament:

In Ezekiel 34:15 God says, "I myself shall tend my sheep"... but a few verses later, God says, "I shall raise up one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them; he shall feed them and be their shepherd" (Ez.34:23)...

... And so, he who is faithful to David, or his successors, belongs to the people of God, and he who is not loyal to David, or his successors, does not belong to the people of God, even if he is a Jew born in Jerusalem... rather, he is a rebel, or a heretic...

Jesus did exactly the same with Peter: In John 10, Jesus says, "I am the good shepherd"... but in John 21, Jesus says to Peter 3 times, "feed "my" lambs, tend "my" sheep"... the sheep of Jesus!... so now, like in the Old Testament, he who is loyal to Peter, or his successors, belongs to the Church of Christ... and he who is not loyal to Peter, or his successors, does not belong to the Church of Christ, even if he knows all the Bible by heart, he is a "rebel", a "heretic".

Jesus is our Rock, and Peter is the Rock of the Church of Jesus... Jesus Himself says so in the Bible.

Peace

[Aineo]

What we do not know is if Jesus pointed to Himself when He said "upon this rock". However, we can discern that the "rock" Jesus was referring to is Peter's proclamation of faith in Christ revealed to Peter by the grace of God.

Since all the Apostles were Jews they would have been familiar with the OT prophecies concerning the coming Messiah. They would also have understood the "metaphor" of Jesus referring to a "rock".

Now since you have posted the Greek and the English translation how do you substantiate your claim “Petros”, which is masculine, and "petra", which is feminine can agree grammatically? On other threads where we bring this up you insist that Jesus spoke Aramaic and “Cephas” is Peter’s name. Since Hebrew only has on word for “rock” the supposed Aramaic original of Matthew would have had “Cephas” in both places. But, since Hebrew and Aramaic are similar the Apostles would have immediately associated the “rock” Jesus was going to build His Church on was Himself, the Messiah.

Thank you tuppence that was a excellent post.

[tuppence]

In Isaiah, God states He knows of no other Rock than Himself.

Did He not know that Peter would be around later?

Is that your God?

Bible explains Bible. The Rock is now and always has been the Lord Jesus Christ. Peter himself states that, as I quoted above.

[IAMFREE]

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

It is clear that this statement is the "Rock"revieled that Christ will build his church.

[RomeSweetHome]

Aieno Wrote:

What we do not know is if Jesus pointed to Himself when He said "upon this rock". However, we can discern that the "rock" Jesus was referring to is Peter's proclamation of faith in Christ revealed to Peter by the grace of God.

Jesus pointing to himself? Why didn't the gospel writer indicate such a thing?

Jesus Christ spoke Aramaic and the Gospel's were written in Greek, so please translaste the verse/word correctly.

Aieno are you or tuppence Scholars? Because below I have list of Quotations from Protestant scholars, who agree that Matthew 16:18 refers to Peter personally.

William Hendriksen
Member of the Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary

The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view. (New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.)

Gerhard Maier
Leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian

Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which – in accordance with the words of the text – applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis. (“The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate,” Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context, (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), 58.)

Donald A. Carson III
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary

Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name. (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.)

The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter. (Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary – New Testament, vol. 2, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 78.)

John Peter Lange
German Protestant scholar

The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun. . . . The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock,” etc. (Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 293.)

John A. Broadus
Baptist author

Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.

But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho.” The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha.” . . . Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355-356.)

J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary

By the words “this rock” Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18 than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church.” As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus. (“Matthew,” Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), 742.)

Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary

Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter,” parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ,” as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification. (The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22, (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 251-252.)

David Hill
Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, England

On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely. (“The Gospel of Matthew,” The New Century Bible Commentary, (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), 261.)

Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian

The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. “Simon,” the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community. (The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), 93.)

Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary

The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built. . . . The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy. (“Matthew 14-28,” Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b, (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 470.)

The above quotations, all of which are from Protestant Bible scholars, are taken from the book Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy (Scott Butler et al., (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing), 1996).

I trust these scholars on the interpretation and meaning of the text of Matthew 16:18, more then I trust you Aieno, or you tuppence.

So I will stick to my Catholic belief that Christ founded his Church upon the Rock, Peter.

Peace

[Aineo]

Peter preached the first sermon to the Jews, the Samaritans, and the gentiles as represented by Cornelius. Other than whats recorded in Acts Peter was not accepted as the foundation since Scripture teaches Jesus built His church on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets.

I can find Protestant theologians and well respected commentators who totally disagree with your "experts". Shall we play pick your "expert"? I can also find Bishops of Rome in your list of Popes who thought and said that the concept of the Bishop of Rome being the head of Christ's Church is stupid and ludicrous.

The NT was written in Greek with an occasional use of an Aramaic name. Catholics appeal to the fact Jesus and his disciples spoke Arimaic. What was Jesus' Aramaic name?

Alfred K Persson is not a theologian but he is a man after the truth. Read his article, which is documented and not just opinons expressed by academics about the name Peter at the time of Christ.

[RomeSweetHome]

Aieno Wrote:

I can find Protestant theologians and well respected commentators who totally disagree with your "experts". Shall we play pick your "expert"? I can also find Bishops of Rome in your list of Popes who thought and said that the concept of the Bishop of Rome being the head of Christ's Church is stupid and ludicrous.

They are not my experts, I am not a Protestant. I do not doubt that you can find "experts" that disagree with the "experts" I quoted, as Protestants hardly ever agree with each other on all things that are essential to agree upon.

Different denominations interpretate things differently, when you got over 33,000 denominations only God knows what u might be able to find.

Please give me a credible link, article or evidence that any Bishop of Rome ever called or stated anything that said the head of Christs church is stupid. I am waiting.

Aieno Wrote:

The NT was written in Greek with an occasional use of an Aramaic name. Catholics appeal to the fact Jesus and his disciples spoke Arimaic. What was Jesus' Aramaic name?

Jesus' name in Aramaic is "Eesho M'sheekha" meaning "Jesus the Messiah".

why?

Aieno Wrote:

Alfred K Persson is not a theologian but he is a man after the truth. Read his article, which is documented and not just opinons expressed by academics about the name Peter at the time of Christ.

I gave you a mixture of ten Protestant theologians, scholars and authors. And you give me one guy, who is none of the above!

Sorry, but if he isn't a theologian or scholar, then im sticking with the ten I posted.

Peace

[Aineo]

Aieno Wrote:

I can find Protestant theologians and well respected commentators who totally disagree with your "experts". Shall we play pick your "expert"? I can also find Bishops of Rome in your list of Popes who thought and said that the concept of the Bishop of Rome being the head of Christ's Church is stupid and ludicrous.

They are not my experts, I am not a Protestant. I do not doubt that you can find "experts" that disagree with the "experts" I quoted, as Protestants hardly ever agree with each other on all things that are essential to agree upon.

All you have to do is read up on the Catholic Church accepted councils and you will find Catholics who could not agree on doctrine. These councils would declare dissidents heretics, destroy their writings and as time passed even revise history to fit the Catholic Church's desired concept of history.

Different denominations interpretate things differently, when you got over 33,000 denominations only God knows what u might be able to find.

Please give me a credible link, article or evidence that any Bishop of Rome ever called or stated anything that said the head of Christs church is stupid. I am waiting.

Again a Catholic has twisted my words.[/quote]And we are not Catholics and do not accept Catholic propaganda as truth or historically accurate. You want a good link to show that any Pope did not consider the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter? That is difficult to do only because most search engines will not bring up information that denies the Catholic Church’s official position. But can you tell us why Pope Honorus I was declared a heretic? Here you have a Bishop of Rome included in your list of Popes who was later determined to teach heresy. How can this be true if the Pope is the supreme head of the Church of Jesus Christ?

Aieno Wrote:

The NT was written in Greek with an occasional use of an Aramaic name. Catholics appeal to the fact Jesus and his disciples spoke Arimaic. What was Jesus' Aramaic name?

Jesus' name in Aramaic is "Eesho M'sheekha" meaning "Jesus the Messiah".

why?

Aieno Wrote:

Alfred K Persson is not a theologian but he is a man after the truth. Read his article, which is documented and not just opinons expressed by academics about the name Peter at the time of Christ.

I gave you a mixture of ten Protestant theologians, scholars and authors. And you give me one guy, who is none of the above!

Sorry, but if he isn't a theologian or scholar, then im sticking with the ten I posted.

Peace

Well, your are putting a heck of a lot of emphasis on the fact Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter, yet you don’t seem to find it odd that Jesus’ real name is not Jesus. What language did you use in your post? Since it does not appear to be Hebrew.

As to experts and theologians, they are a dime a dozen and all they do is publish their opinions. The Pharisees were the experts of Jesus’ time and He did not accept their supremacy in matters of doctrine or morals. Jesus did not call His original apostles from theologians. Jesus personally called a Pharisee named Saul, changed his name to Paul and used Paul’s knowledge to teach God’s truth not the doctrines of the Pharisees.

The fact you refuse to even read the information on the link I posted only proves that you are not interested in facts and truth. The author is not sharing opinions he is sharing research and documented fact, the article even contains footnotes where the information can be verified by those seeking truth, which is glaringly lacking from many Catholic Apologetic sites and from the writings of your Protestant experts.

Catholics just love to claim there are 30000+ Protestant denominations, which is not true. You and other Catholics ask us who our bishops are because not all denominations use the term “bishop”. Some use the word “presbyter”, which means “elder”. Then there are deacons, and other terms used for various offices.

1 Cor 12:28-31
28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. 29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? 30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? 31 But earnestly desire the greater gifts.

And I show you a still more excellent way.
NAS

Who are your apostles? Only those who had seen Jesus could properly be given this title. Where are your “prophets”? A teacher to be an approved teacher in the Church must teach truth, not doctrine based on myths. Where do you find the rest of those listed by Paul in the Catholic Church?

[webmaster]

But whom say ye that I am?
And RomeSweetHome answered, "Thou art the Webmaster, the owner of the jesus-christ-forums.com site."
And Webmaster answered and said unto RomeSweetHome, "Blessed art thou, RomeSweetHome: for radio nor television hath not revealed it unto thee, but your monitor connected to cyberspace. And I say also unto thee, That thou art RomeSweetHome, and upon this rock[4073] I will build my websites; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Wasn't there a song with words to the effect "Your so vain, I bet you think this song/verse is about you, don't you"

Why in the world would you RomeSweetHome be so arrogant to think that I am building this website off of you personally even if I gave you a moderators job over a small city?
This website is built off of other people coming here from their monitors connected to cyberspace.

My rock IS NOT based upon who you think I am but how you got here.
My rock grows by more people following the google trail to here.

Jesus's ROCK is based upon who He is and then grows by more people acknowledging it like Peter did!!


Matthew 16
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.

Strong's Number: 4073
Transliterated: petra
Phonetic: pet'-ra
Text: feminine of the same as 4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): --rock.


Here's Paul explaining the Rock.

1 Corinthians 10:4
|2532| and
|3956| all
|3588| the
|0846| same
|4188| drink
|4152| spiritual
|4095| drank.
|4095| they drank
|1063| For
|1537| of
|4152| a spiritual
|0190| following
|4073| rock,
|3588| the
|1161| and
|4073| Rock
|2258| was
|5547| Christ.



Here's Peter himself explaining the Rock

1 Peter 2:8
8.
|2532| and,
|3037| a Stone-
|4348| of-stumbling,
|2532| and
|4073| a Rock-
|4625| of-offense
|4862| to those
|4350| stumbling
|3588| at the
|3056| word
|0544| disobeying,
|1519| to
|3739| which
|2532| indeed
|5087| they were appointed.


And worse still here is Paul writing the church in Rome explaining the Rock
33.
|2531| even as
|1125| it was written.
|2400| Look,
|5087| I place
|1722| in
|4622| Zion
|3037| a Stone-
|4348| of-stumbling
|2532| and
|4073| a Rock-
|4625| of-Offense,
|2532| and
|3956| everyone
|4100| believing
|1909| on
|0846| him
|3756| not
|2617| will be put to shame.


If Peter thought he was the Rock he would have surely said so.

[Aineo]

What? Expect the Catholic Church to accept what Peter actually wrote? You have to be kidding.

[IAMFREE]

Christ said to take up our cross and follow him. The Catholic church says don't question us and do only what the Popes say.

[RomeSweetHome]

Aieno Wrote:

Again a Catholic has twisted my words.

And we are not Catholics and do not accept Catholic propaganda as truth or historically accurate. You want a good link to show that any Pope did not consider the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter? That is difficult to do only because most search engines will not bring up information that denies the Catholic Church’s official position. But can you tell us why Pope Honorus I was declared a heretic? Here you have a Bishop of Rome included in your list of Popes who was later determined to teach heresy. How can this be true if the Pope is the supreme head of the Church of Jesus Christ? [/quote]

So you are telling me you cant find a credible site thats supports your claim? There are a number of search egines avalible to you, including some run by Jews. I am sure the Jews dont care to much how the Catholic Church will feel if they speak against it.

If you type "anti-Christ" in certain search engines, you can find a few Protestant web sites declaring the Pope is the anti-Christ. So I am sure you can find one to support your claim.

Aieno Wrote:

Well, your are putting a heck of a lot of emphasis on the fact Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter, yet you don’t seem to find it odd that Jesus’ real name is not Jesus. What language did you use in your post? Since it does not appear to be Hebrew.

Aieno, when God changed someone’s name in the Bible, it is not like when we change our name in court. It meant a change of who the person was. When Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter, he was doing two things: asserting that he could do so in the first place (which meant he was God); and asserting that he was establishing on the person of Peter a visible Church.

The word rock also has special significance. On one hand, to be called “rock” was a Semitic expression designating the solid foundation upon which a community would be built. For instance, Abraham was considered “rock” because he was the father of the Jewish people (and we too refer to him as our father in faith) and the one with whom the covenant was first made.

On the other hand, no one except God was called specifically “rock,” nor was it ever used as a proper name except for God. To give the name “rock” to St. Peter indicates that our Lord entrusted to him a special authority. Most anti-papal Protestants try to play linguistic games with the original Greek gospel text where the masculine gender word petros, meaning a small, moveable rock, refers to St. Peter while the feminine gender word petra, meaning a massive, immovable rock, refers to the foundation of the Church. However, in the Aramaic language, which is what Jesus spoke, the word Kepha, meaning rock, would be used in both places without gender distinction or difference in meaning.

Aieno wrote:

The fact you refuse to even read the information on the link I posted only proves that you are not interested in facts and truth. The author is not sharing opinions he is sharing research and documented fact, the article even contains footnotes where the information can be verified by those seeking truth, which is glaringly lacking from many Catholic Apologetic sites and from the writings of your Protestant experts.

I havent refused to read anything, I just dont have time. I already told you that in another thread, if you have any questions you want to "pull out" from that article, it would make life easier for me.

I also already stated they are not my "experts", as I myself am not a protestant. They are your "experts" that you just disagree with.

Aieno Wrote:

Catholics just love to claim there are 30000+ Protestant denominations, which is not true. You and other Catholics ask us who our bishops are because not all denominations use the term “bishop”. Some use the word “presbyter”, which means “elder”. Then there are deacons, and other terms used for various offices.

They are over 30,000 denominations, maybe thats to hard to accept but its true. Roughly two denominations are created every week.

I once went on a Protestant site that had a article called "If you could choose a protestant denomination, Which brand would you pick?"

Need I say more?

Webmaster Wrote:

But whom say ye that I am?
And RomeSweetHome answered, "Thou art the Webmaster, the owner of the jesus-christ-forums.com site."
And Webmaster answered and said unto RomeSweetHome, "Blessed art thou, RomeSweetHome: for radio nor television hath not revealed it unto thee, but your monitor connected to cyberspace. And I say also unto thee, That thou art RomeSweetHome, and upon this rock[4073] I will build my websites; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Wasn't there a song with words to the effect "Your so vain, I bet you think this song/verse is about you, don't you"

Why in the world would you RomeSweetHome be so arrogant to think that I am building this website off of you personally even if I gave you a moderators job over a small city?
This website is built off of other people coming here from their monitors connected to cyberspace.

My rock IS NOT based upon who you think I am but how you got here.
My rock grows by more people following the google trail to here.

Jesus's ROCK is based upon who He is and then grows by more people acknowledging it like Peter did!!

I am sure if you gave the excellent presentation above to the Protestant scholars I presented in a precious post, they would not even take a second look at it.

By the way I followed the Yahoo trail, not google.

Webmaster Wrote:

If Peter thought he was the Rock he would have surely said so.

Peter didnt need to say so, as Christ said so.

IAMFREE Wrote:

Christ said to take up our cross and follow him. The Catholic church says don't question us and do only what the Popes say.

I say you dont know what you are talking about. The Catholic Church says that we shouldnt use contraception, yet I used/use condoms! Does that make me a bad Catholic? Ifso will then so be it, I think it would be stupid not to use condoms in this day and age. But having said that I do understand why the Catholic church teaches not to use contraception.


Peace

[Aineo]

You can't make a post without twisting what I post can you? I said it would be difficult not impossible. I have read comments by prior Popes who thought the idea of the Bishop of Rome being the head of Christ's Church is "pompous arrogance". I have not ceased searching.

I have been doing some research on when Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter.

Matt 4:18-22

18 And walking by the Sea of Galilee, He saw two brothers, Simon who was called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. 19 And He said to them, "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men." 20 And they immediately left the nets, and followed Him. 21 And going on from there He saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and He called them. 22 And they immediately left the boat and their father, and followed Him. NAS

John 1:42
42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas" (which is translated Peter). NAS

When Jesus called Saul He changed his name to Paul. It you bothered to check out that link I posted PeTeR was an Aramaic name that meant "first born". The two "e"s are supplied since Aramaic does not use our vowels.

But back to Scripture; Jesus said Simon would be called "Cephas" when He first called him as an Apostle not when Peter made His proclamation by faith that Jesus is the Son of God.

The Catholic Church's false doctrine breaks down under close scrutiny of Scripture.

Webmaster Wrote:

If Peter thought he was the Rock he would have surely said so.

Peter didnt need to say so, as Christ said so.

That is nothing more than an opinon. If Paul had accepted Peter as the Pope then Paul would have said so, as would all of the other NT authors and none of them did.

So what "brand" of Catholicism do you want to belong to? There is more than one. Again a Catholic is resorting to sarcasm with nothing more to back it up than what he wants to believe. Yes, there are branches of Christianity, but unless you can prove there are 30,000 your are posting what can be considered as a lie.

I used to use a search engine other than Google, it does not matter what search engine one uses. BTW, Yahoo has an anti-Christian bias so why would you use it?

I can find many Protestant scholars who disgree with your hand picked list. Error is not exclusive to the Catholic Church.

I say you dont know what you are talking about. The Catholic Church says that we shouldnt use contraception, yet I used/use condoms! Does that make me a bad Catholic? Ifso will then so be it, I think it would be stupid not to use condoms in this day and age. But having said that I do understand why the Catholic church teaches not to use contraception.

It makes sense for an immoral person to use condomes. So if you use condomes you must be an immoral person, therefore being a Catholic is not going to save you. Have you read Revelation 21:7-8?

Why was Pope Honorus I declared a heretic?

[Aineo]

And on reading the epistle as a whole we find that it was written in the name of the Church; there is no mention of the bishop. The opening sentence runs: (Kidd, Documents, vol. i. No. 10.)
"The Church of God sojourning in Rome to the Church of God sojourning in Corinth, to them who are called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Grace to you and peace from Almighty God through Jesus Christ be multiplied."

Indeed, though there is no reason for doubting that the letter is by Clement, his name is not once mentioned. "His existence," says Bishop Lightfoot, "is not hinted at from beginning to end." (The Apostolic Fathers, pt. i. vol. i. (Macmillan, 1890), 69.) And that is not because he does not happen to mention the question of bishops. He refers to St. Peter and St. Paul as on an equality one with another, and the other Apostles as joint founders of the Church; if he makes any difference between them it is to exalt St. Paul.
http://www.abcog.org/pope3.htm

Lets start with this to show that the Papacy is a fraud. We can also show where Pope Gregory I stated than any one claiming to be "universal bishop" was from the spirit of the antiChrist, although Gregory I was one of the first "Popes" to grab power and authority from other bishops. Although Gregory made this statement in condemnation of the Bishop of Constantinople, it does show at least one of your Popes denied a "supreme bishop".

[RomeSweetHome]

Aieno Wrote:

So what "brand" of Catholicism do you want to belong to? There is more than one. Again a Catholic is resorting to sarcasm with nothing more to back it up than what he wants to believe. Yes, there are branches of Christianity, but unless you can prove there are 30,000 your are posting what can be considered as a lie.

The only brand there is. I am not being sarcastic, that site I visited was actually a Protestant site.

I can list a few hundred Protestant denominations if you like,ovbiously not off the top of my head.

Aieno Wrote:

I used to use a search engine other than Google, it does not matter what search engine one uses. BTW, Yahoo has an anti-Christian bias so why would you use it?

You just said it doesnt matter, so why are you asking? I use multiply search engines not just one.

Aieno Wrote:

It makes sense for an immoral person to use condomes. So if you use condomes you must be an immoral person, therefore being a Catholic is not going to save you. Have you read Revelation 21:7-8?

I am immoral because I use condoms with my wife?, get real. And yes I have read it.

Aieno Wrote:

Why was Pope Honorus I declared a heretic?

This question was also raised by a Cardinal, 'What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?' It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.

"If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, 'I believe in Christ,' etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you Aieno or I.

If the pope proclaims for the whole Church something which is harmful to the faith of her members such as advocating a heresy, then he himself becomes a heretic and thereby cuts himself from the Church. He loses his authority because a true vicar of Christ cannot propose for the whole Church that which is harmful to the Faith. With papal infallibility, a pope is also protected by a secondary infallibility the object of which are the Church's rites and disciplines thereby making it impossible for him to prescribe things for the Church which are harmful and evil. A pope may lose his position and authority tacitly if he acts contrary to his position. St. Robert Bellarmine said "Papa haereticus depositus est"--"A pope who is a heretic is deposed.

The Popes: A Concise Biographical History (ed. Eric John) says: "In the case of Pope Honorius, since he was obviously dealing with a matter properly the subject of an infallible pronouncement, the problem is, whether he was speaking ex cathedra, and, if so, was he really teaching error.... He was certainly in ignorance of the true state of affairs: it is not likely that such an occasion could be then considered as the pope speaking ex cathedra. Again he was not in any sense denying the orthodox doctrine, but merely giving assent to the formula which he understood very differently from the heretic he was writing to. Whilst the case of the condemnation of Pope Honorius for heresy certainly raises important questions for the INTERPRETATION of the doctrine of papal infallibility, it hardly threatens the BASIC FORMULATION of that dogma" (page 115).

Aieno Wrote:

Lets start with this to show that the Papacy is a fraud. We can also show where Pope Gregory I stated than any one claiming to be "universal bishop" was from the spirit of the antiChrist, although Gregory I was one of the first "Popes" to grab power and authority from other bishops. Although Gregory made this statement in condemnation of the Bishop of Constantinople, it does show at least one of your Popes denied a "supreme bishop".

Your comments about Pope Gregory the Great (or Pope Gregory I, who reigned from 590-604) in letters to John the Faster (Bishop or Patriarch of Constantinople at the time) that are seized upon often by Evangelical Protestant apologists in an attempt to argue against the Papacy of the Catholic Church. The objection or charge made is that Pope Gregory was denying his own papal authority as visible head of the Church in rejecting the term "universal bishop."

The main question that should be asked in considering what I'll call the "universal bishop" controversy is: What did Gregory the Great precisely mean by the terms "universal" and "universal bishop" in his letters to the Patriarch of Constantinople?

Evangelical Protestant apologists do not stop to ask that question, nor have they done much research into Pope Gregory's actual writings which are full of his claims to papal authority and universal jurisdiction. If he really was denying his own papal authority (as asserted above by you)
why would such an eminent Protestant (Anglican) scholar as J.N.D. Kelly write that Gregory I

"was indefatigable...in upholding the Roman primacy, and successfully maintained Rome's appellate jurisdiction in the east....Gregory argued that St. Peter's commission [e.g. in Matthew 16:18f] made all churches, Constantinople included, subject to Rome" (The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, page 67).

Was Gregory then directly contradicting himself in rejecting the title "universal bishop" ? A careful examination of his writings and his use of the term "universal bishop" answers the question: No, Pope Gregory knew that he was Pope and said so explicitly and constantly in his writings.

To understand the sense in which Pope Gregory condemned the expression "universal Bishop," you must understand the sense in which John the Faster intended it. It has always been Catholic teaching that the bishops are not mere agents of the Pope, but true successors of the Apostles. The supreme authority of Peter is perpetuated in the Popes; but the power and authority of the other Apostles is perpetuated in the other bishops in the true sense of the word.

The Pope is not the "only" Bishop; and, although his power is supreme, his is not the "only" power. But John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, wanted to be bishop even of the dioceses of subordinate bishops, reducing them to mere agents, and making himself the universal or only real bishop. Pope Gregory condemned this intention, and wrote to John the Faster telling him that he had no right to claim to be universal bishop or "sole" bishop in his Patriarchate.

Gregory was Pope, and knew that he was Pope. Far from refusing the title, he showed that he was universal Bishop by excommunicating John the Faster, over whom he could not have had such jurisdiction had he not the privilege of being universal Bishop. In his 21st Epistle Gregory writes, "As to what they say of the Church of Christ, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See [i.e. Rome] ?"

Peace

[Aineo]

Aieno Wrote:

So what "brand" of Catholicism do you want to belong to? There is more than one. Again a Catholic is resorting to sarcasm with nothing more to back it up than what he wants to believe. Yes, there are branches of Christianity, but unless you can prove there are 30,000 your are posting what can be considered as a lie.

The only brand there is. I am not being sarcastic, that site I visited was actually a Protestant site.

I can list a few hundred Protestant denominations if you like,ovbiously not off the top of my head.

A hundred Protestant denomination is far short of 30,000. I can name at least 5 Baptist denominations who accept essentially the same doctrine but differ on administration. At one time there were many Presbyterian denominations that merged into the Presbyterian Church USA. The reason they were different is because they originated in different parts of the globe where they were persecuted by the Catholic Church and then emigrated to America. There doctrine was identical they simply had different names.

Aieno Wrote:

I used to use a search engine other than Google, it does not matter what search engine one uses. BTW, Yahoo has an anti-Christian bias so why would you use it?

You just said it doesnt matter, so why are you asking? I use multiply search engines not just one.

Why did you bring it up?

Aieno Wrote:

It makes sense for an immoral person to use condomes. So if you use condomes you must be an immoral person, therefore being a Catholic is not going to save you. Have you read Revelation 21:7-8?

I am immoral because I use condoms with my wife?, get real. And yes I have read it.

So you void Catholic dogma and then make a post that does not explain why you use a condome. Now you sound like Kerry and Kennedy.

Aieno Wrote:

Why was Pope Honorus I declared a heretic?

This question was also raised by a Cardinal, 'What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?' It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.

"If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, 'I believe in Christ,' etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you Aieno or I.

If the pope proclaims for the whole Church something which is harmful to the faith of her members such as advocating a heresy, then he himself becomes a heretic and thereby cuts himself from the Church. He loses his authority because a true vicar of Christ cannot propose for the whole Church that which is harmful to the Faith. With papal infallibility, a pope is also protected by a secondary infallibility the object of which are the Church's rites and disciplines thereby making it impossible for him to prescribe things for the Church which are harmful and evil. A pope may lose his position and authority tacitly if he acts contrary to his position. St. Robert Bellarmine said "Papa haereticus depositus est"--"A pope who is a heretic is deposed.

The Popes: A Concise Biographical History (ed. Eric John) says: "In the case of Pope Honorius, since he was obviously dealing with a matter properly the subject of an infallible pronouncement, the problem is, whether he was speaking ex cathedra, and, if so, was he really teaching error.... He was certainly in ignorance of the true state of affairs: it is not likely that such an occasion could be then considered as the pope speaking ex cathedra. Again he was not in any sense denying the orthodox doctrine, but merely giving assent to the formula which he understood very differently from the heretic he was writing to. Whilst the case of the condemnation of Pope Honorius for heresy certainly raises important questions for the INTERPRETATION of the doctrine of papal infallibility, it hardly threatens the BASIC FORMULATION of that dogma" (page 115).

The infallibility of the Pope was declared dogma 1200 years after Honorus I died. You have not answered my question. Why was Honorus I declared a heretic?

Aieno Wrote:

Lets start with this to show that the Papacy is a fraud. We can also show where Pope Gregory I stated than any one claiming to be "universal bishop" was from the spirit of the antiChrist, although Gregory I was one of the first "Popes" to grab power and authority from other bishops. Although Gregory made this statement in condemnation of the Bishop of Constantinople, it does show at least one of your Popes denied a "supreme bishop".

Your comments about Pope Gregory the Great (or Pope Gregory I, who reigned from 590-604) in letters to John the Faster (Bishop or Patriarch of Constantinople at the time) that are seized upon often by Evangelical Protestant apologists in an attempt to argue against the Papacy of the Catholic Church. The objection or charge made is that Pope Gregory was denying his own papal authority as visible head of the Church in rejecting the term "universal bishop."

The main question that should be asked in considering what I'll call the "universal bishop" controversy is: What did Gregory the Great precisely mean by the terms "universal" and "universal bishop" in his letters to the Patriarch of Constantinople?

Evangelical Protestant apologists do not stop to ask that question, nor have they done much research into Pope Gregory's actual writings which are full of his claims to papal authority and universal jurisdiction. If he really was denying his own papal authority (as asserted above by you)
why would such an eminent Protestant (Anglican) scholar as J.N.D. Kelly write that Gregory I

"was indefatigable...in upholding the Roman primacy, and successfully maintained Rome's appellate jurisdiction in the east....Gregory argued that St. Peter's commission [e.g. in Matthew 16:18f] made all churches, Constantinople included, subject to Rome" (The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, page 67).

Was Gregory then directly contradicting himself in rejecting the title "universal bishop" ? A careful examination of his writings and his use of the term "universal bishop" answers the question: No, Pope Gregory knew that he was Pope and said so explicitly and constantly in his writings.

To understand the sense in which Pope Gregory condemned the expression "universal Bishop," you must understand the sense in which John the Faster intended it. It has always been Catholic teaching that the bishops are not mere agents of the Pope, but true successors of the Apostles. The supreme authority of Peter is perpetuated in the Popes; but the power and authority of the other Apostles is perpetuated in the other bishops in the true sense of the word.

The Pope is not the "only" Bishop; and, although his power is supreme, his is not the "only" power. But John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, wanted to be bishop even of the dioceses of subordinate bishops, reducing them to mere agents, and making himself the universal or only real bishop. Pope Gregory condemned this intention, and wrote to John the Faster telling him that he had no right to claim to be universal bishop or "sole" bishop in his Patriarchate.

Gregory was Pope, and knew that he was Pope. Far from refusing the title, he showed that he was universal Bishop by excommunicating John the Faster, over whom he could not have had such jurisdiction had he not the privilege of being universal Bishop. In his 21st Epistle Gregory writes, "As to what they say of the Church of Christ, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See [i.e. Rome] ?"

Peace

I read the same website. Now if you are going to post what is on another site you have to link to that site or you are in violation of our posting rules and are exposing this board to action for copyright infringement.

What this actually shows is Gregory I was a hypocrit by condemning the Bishop of Constantinople for what the Catholic Church itself does. If the Bishop of Constantinople is claiming something that is of the spirit of the antiChrist then Gregory is doing the same thing. Gregory I stands condemned by his own words and actions.

[Aineo]

I notice you decided not to comment on when Jesus added "Cephas" to Simon's name and the possible Aramaic meaning of PTR. Is there a reason for this?

[RomeSweetHome]

Aieno Wrote:

I read the same website. Now if you are going to post what is on another site you have to link to that site or you are in violation of our posting rules and are exposing this board to action for copyright infringement.

I took two paragraphs from one website, the rest was my own writting.

Paste the link to that website, I am 100% sure it wont be the same as mine, only the same as two of the Paragrahps I quoted.

I thought I only have to link the site, if I post all of the site? not parts of it, like a paragraph or two.

Aieno Wrote:

The infallibility of the Pope was declared dogma 1200 years after Honorus I died. You have not answered my question. Why was Honorus I declared a heretic?

No pope has ever been deposed as a heretic. Pope Honorius I was CENSURED not deposed by the 6th Ecumenical Council.

Peace

[Aineo]

I will give you an official warning as the administrator of this website. We have posted rules for those who join this message board. One of them regards posting material from other sites without linking to that site. I will also remind you that the last time you were banned it was for you arrogant disregard for our posting rules. So stop making excuses and keep the rules or you are out of here.

Why was Pope Honorus declared a heretic after he died? I know that no Pope has been deposed that was not my question.

Are you avoiding when Jesus added "Cephas" to Simon's name for a reason?

[RomeSweetHome]

Aieno Wrote:

I will give you an official warning as the administrator of this website. We have posted rules for those who join this message board. One of them regards posting material from other sites without linking to that site. I will also remind you that the last time you were banned it was for you arrogant disregard for our posting rules. So stop making excuses and keep the rules or you are out of here.

I basically was ignorant of the exact nature of the posting rules, I am sorry.

Aieno Wrote:

Why was Pope Honorus declared a heretic after he died? I know that no Pope has been deposed that was not my question.

My knowlegde is limited on Pope Honorus, but what I do know is that Pope Honorius I was censured not deposed by the 6th Ecumenical Council. I do know why he was declared herectecal, I will post this when I return from work.

Aieno Wrote:

Are you avoiding when Jesus added "Cephas" to Simon's name for a reason?

I also am not a scholar. I must talk to Catholic cleregy before commenting, as I do not wish to say something then contradict the Church.

Dont worry, I will reply when I return from work.

Peace

[Aineo]

Copyright infringement is a serious offense. You can post up to 500 words from a source without written permission but in either case you are required to credit the source, that RomeSweetHome is included in International corpyright law.

[RomeSweetHome]

Aieno Wrote:

Copyright infringement is a serious offense. You can post up to 500 words from a source without written permission but in either case you are required to credit the source, that RomeSweetHome is included in International corpyright law.

I did not know that, thank you for pointing it out to me. I most certainly didn't even go above 200 words. From now on if I ever submit a paragraph from a article, I will link it.


God bless

[Aineo]

Aieno Wrote:

Copyright infringement is a serious offense. You can post up to 500 words from a source without written permission but in either case you are required to credit the source, that RomeSweetHome is included in International corpyright law.

I did not know that, thank you for pointing it out to me. I most certainly didn't even go above 200 words. From now on if I ever submit a paragraph from a article, I will link it.


God bless

It is immaterial if you quote one or two sentences a link to the source must be included. And that includes Bible references. Check out the Tyndale's site or any other official site of copyright holders of Bible translations. There are specific rules for publishing quotations from their copyrighted material.

[tuppence]

I also am not a scholar. I must talk to Catholic cleregy before commenting, as I do not wish to say something then contradict the Church.

This is EXACTLY the one of the points I made at the end of the lead post here! One of the legs of the RC church is ignorance. Another is fear. This person is AFRAID of saying something which would contradict the church he belongs to. That is the hold the RC church has over its members. No matter what the Bible says, the RC church has primacy.

That's just like a cult. They control using fear, just like a cult. They demand money, just like a cult. They prey on their members' ignorance and even encourage it by telling them they cannot possibly understand what the Bible says without the church interpreting it for them.....just like a cult.

Dear sir or ma'm, you do not have to be a scholar to read the Bible. God's Word is extraordinarily clear on its own. Read it cover to cover (preferably withouth the Apocrypha) and see if you can possibly come away and still be a Roman Catholic.

From the Bible you will learn that God Himself is the Rock.

From the Bible you will learn that one need only believe on Jesus to be saved, not be a member of a church.

From the Bible you will learn that Jesus did all the work for us, and penance, indulgences, and the myriad of other RC rites and works are simply not needed -- in fact they contradict the Bible.

From the Bible you will learn that Mary was just a young woman, born a sinner like the rest of us, and chosen to do something extraordinary -- bear the Messiah and raise Him to manhood.

From the Bible you can learn so much!

[RomeSweetHome]

tuppence Wrote:

This is EXACTLY the one of the points I made at the end of the lead post here! One of the legs of the RC church is ignorance. Another is fear. This person is AFRAID of saying something which would contradict the church he belongs to. That is the hold the RC church has over its members. No matter what the Bible says, the RC church has primacy.

In a previous popst I said I was ignorant of the posting rules. Now tuppence is saying one of the "legs" of the Roman Catholic Church is ignorance.

I believe that you tuppence are ignorant of the Catholic faith.

If you read my previous post you would have seen that I stated I used/use contraception with my wife, if you knew Catholic dogma etc.. you would have known this was against church teachings.

Now if I was "scared" of the Church, why would I go against its teaching concerning contraception?

then you say I am "afraid" of saying something that would contradict the church.

This is not true, I do not wish to say anything that may contradict the church because that would be stupid. Think about it I say something then another Catholic says something eles, that contradicts what I said, totally foolish.

The Church is there specifically for that reason, thats why you wont find Catholics contradicting each other on doctrine, like Protestants do.

tuppence wrote:

That's just like a cult. They control using fear, just like a cult. They demand money, just like a cult. They prey on their members' ignorance and even encourage it by telling them they cannot possibly understand what the Bible says without the church interpreting it for them.....just like a cult.

Show me how the Catholic Church controls its members with "fear", show me prove your accusations. The Catholic Church never "demands" money from its members, they give money to the Church out of free will.

However there are some Protestant denominations that do demand a certain percentage of there members money, if they dont pay up there out. I can give you further information about these denominations if you wish.

The Church put together the bible, I think it would make sence for the Church to interpretate it. We do not believe in self interpretation. Just look at what it has caused in Protestantism, denominations after denominations.

tuppence wrote:

Dear sir or ma'm, you do not have to be a scholar to read the Bible. God's Word is extraordinarily clear on its own. Read it cover to cover (preferably withouth the Apocrypha) and see if you can possibly come away and still be a Roman Catholic.

Actually thats a very silly remark, you do need scholars and men of learning to understand the bible.

The bible was written originally in hebrew and Greek, who do you think translated it? Tom, dick or harry? Obviously men of learning, cleregy of the Catholic Church.

Do you think anyone can Just preach the bible? The Protestant Churches I went to in America, in the state of Florida, All went to Bible study courses so that they could preach and teach there members. Why is that?

tuppence wrote:

From the Bible you will learn that God Himself is the Rock.

Yes indeed God is the rock, so was Abraham to his children, and peter to the faithful.

tuppence wrote:

From the Bible you will learn that one need only believe on Jesus to be saved, not be a member of a church

Actually you need to do a bit more then that to be saved.

tuppence wrote:

From the Bible you will learn that Jesus did all the work for us, and penance, indulgences, and the myriad of other RC rites and works are simply not needed -- in fact they contradict the Bible.

Show me the contradictions that you speak of, I am waiting.

tuppence wrote:

From the Bible you will learn that Mary was just a young woman, born a sinner like the rest of us, and chosen to do something extraordinary -- bear the Messiah and raise Him to manhood.

For us Mary was sinless, for you Mary was a sinner and a baby factory, full stop. I have spoken about this topic so many times its getting borring.

tuppence wrote:

From the Bible you can learn so much!

Indeed you can. Stuff like; Denominationism is non biblical, there is only one Church, sola scripture is non biblical, self interpretation of scripture is non biblical, sola fides and much more.

Peace

[Aineo]

All you have done is parrot Catholic propaganda. Paul wrote that men need a teacher, so non-Catholics go to school to be taught God's truth. Doctrine driven faiths depend on the doctrines of men and not God's whole truth. We are admonished by Scripture to "study to show yourself approved". This does not mean we are to study doctrine. Paul praised the Bereans for being more noble-minded than those in Thessolinica because they "searched the Scriptures daily" to verify Paul's teaching. The only Scriptures available to the Berean's were the OT writings.

As to "fear" do a search of the Catholic catechism using "fear". Fear of eternal damnation is used by the Catholic Church to enforce Catholic doctrine. Lack of space prohibits posting all the references I found by doing this very search of your catechism.

You can check with your priest concerning when Simon was first called Peter but if he denies what is recorded in John then he is a false teacher.

BTW, Honorius I 625-638
Condemned by Church for heresy.
Founder of Monothelitism: Christ has two natures (Council of Chalcedon), but only one will.
Condemned in 1680 at 6th General Council.

The Bible is clear Jesus had 2 natures or Paul's teaching in Hebrews is a lie.

John 14:26
26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. NAS

Just as Jesus called, commissioned and taught Paul apart from the other apostles demonstrates He can do the same today or whenever He needs His truth to be taught in lieu of the doctrines of men. To deny this is to elevate men above the sovereignty of God.

[RomeSweetHome]

Aieno Wrote:

All you have done is parrot Catholic propaganda. Paul wrote that men need a teacher, so non-Catholics go to school to be taught God's truth. Doctrine driven faiths depend on the doctrines of men and not God's whole truth. We are admonished by Scripture to "study to show yourself approved". This does not mean we are to study doctrine. Paul praised the Bereans for being more noble-minded than those in Thessolinica because they "searched the Scriptures daily" to verify Paul's teaching. The only Scriptures available to the Berean's were the OT writings.

I never said that you couldnt search the scriptures to verify a persons teachings. I said self interpretation of that scripture is non biblical.

Aieno Wrote:

As to "fear" do a search of the Catholic catechism using "fear". Fear of eternal damnation is used by the Catholic Church to enforce Catholic doctrine. Lack of space prohibits posting all the references I found by doing this very search of your catechism.

Eternal damination is used by the Catholic church because unlike many Protestant denominations who do not even believe in hell, we do.

Aieno Wrote:

You can check with your priest concerning when Simon was first called Peter but if he denies what is recorded in John then he is a false teacher

.

Why dont you Just tell me? Give me your exact question please.

I will talk about the nature of Christ later, I am very busy at the moment.

I will reply later tonight, Lord willing.


Peace

[tuppence]

I have a radical idea. Let's not talk about denominations or the Roman Catholic, or any other Catholic, church. Let's talk about what the Bible says. I find it to be extraordinarily clear for the most part. If something actually needs interpreting, then we can discuss different interpretations.

But the Bible says God is the Rock. Always and forever. Period.

Where does it ever say Abraham is the Rock???

And where do we ever find ANY of the Apostles looking to Peter for leadership over the entire Christian community?

I do not find either of these things myself and would appreciate being shown.

[RomeSweetHome]

tuppence Wrote:

I have a radical idea. Let's not talk about denominations or the Roman Catholic, or any other Catholic, church. Let's talk about what the Bible says. I find it to be extraordinarily clear for the most part. If something actually needs interpreting, then we can discuss different interpretations

.

I agree totally.

tuppence Wrote:

But the Bible says God is the Rock. Always and forever. Period.

I agree, but that very same bible says Peter is the rock too.

Why is God called 'Rock'?

Because God is 'refuge', 'protection', and 'fortress'. The Jews take the image of rock meaning something solid, something concrete, something weighty and that becomes a term for God. Because it signifies God's protection. His integrity that He is always a solid refuge and fortress for those who call upon Him.

tuppence Wrote:

Where does it ever say Abraham is the Rock???

If I answer this, the whole thread is closed. Why? Because you opened it claiming only God was called "rock" in the bible.

But I will answer you. There is only one other person besides Peter in the bible who is called rock.

That person is Abraham.

Isaiah 51:1 "Listen to me, you who pursue justice, who seek the LORD; Look to the rock from which you were hewn, to the quarry from which you were digged;"

Abraham is called rock.

Aieno Wrote:

And where do we ever find ANY of the Apostles looking to Peter for leadership over the entire Christian community?

I spoke of the Primacy of Peter in another thread, Check it out.

Throughout the bible you can clearly see Peters authority and leadership.

Even if he didnt have either one, Its enough to say Christ choose him.

tuppence Wrote:

I do not find either of these things myself and would appreciate being shown.

I have shown you.

Peace

[Aineo]

Aieno Wrote:

You can check with your priest concerning when Simon was first called Peter but if he denies what is recorded in John then he is a false teacher

.

Why dont you Just tell me? Give me your exact question please.

I will talk about the nature of Christ later, I am very busy at the moment.

I will reply later tonight, Lord willing.


Peace

I gave you a Scripture and the question in a prior post, and your answer was you would have to check with your priest for the answer. If you cannot remember the question and the Scripture how can you check with your priest?

As to your Isaiah quote, which refers to Abraham the rock in Matthew 16:18 is Jesus, not Peter. The Bible makes this clear in the epistles of Peter.

As to Peter exercising authority over the church you cannot show this Biblically. James had authority over Jerusalem and Paul makes it clear his authority did not come through any human being and tells those churches he founded that his authority is second only to God's. Not once does Paul tell any church to appeal to Rome or Peter.

Only the Catholic Church interprets Scripture in an attempt to prove a false doctrine.

2 Peter 1:19-21
20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
NAS

Every interpretation found in Catholic doctrine is someone's own interpretation of Scripture, which is demonstrated by the Church councils where some bishops dissented and disagreed with other bishops based on personal interpretations.

Again you have posted an uninformed and ignorant of what non-Catholics believe. I believe that hell is a real place, and all the Christians I know also believe hell is a real place. You can name some cults who do not believe hell is a real place but those cults are not Christian.

God is a God of live and asks us to have faith in Him and His Son out of love, not fear of hell. Jesus said if you "love" me you will keep my commandments; He did not say you keep my commandments because you fear hell and eternal damnation.

Purgatory, indulgences, and a multitude of the Catholic concepts are based on fear, not love.

You have not shown Peter is the rock.

[tuppence]

You are being illogical. You cannot agree that the Bible claims, as it does, that God is the only Rock forever and then claim the Bible also calls Peter the rock. First of all, as already shown, Peter was named Peter BEFORE his statement of faith in Christ. Secondly, regardless of the language Jesus spoke, the translations (which I'm sure you will claim are the result of the Roman Catholic translators!) all use a different word for the rock "Cephas" or "Petros" which is Peter and the feminine form Petra, which Jesus says will be what the church is built on. When you add to this that Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone, which are words Peter himself wrote, you have no contradiction in the Bible at all, but simply that Jesus is the Rock and it is faith in this Rock, as shown by Peter's statement, which is what the church will be built upon. As has already been shown here, it is the faith of the apostles in particular which is the foundation of the true church -- which is spiritual and not physical.

You referenced Isaiah 51:1: "Listen to me, you who pursue justice, who seek the LORD; Look to the rock from which you were hewn, to the quarry from which you were digged;"

The interesting thing is that that translation is not in accord with the modern Hebrew text itself. Here is the word for word of the text:

"Hear me pursuers of righteousness and seekers of Jehovah. Look to the rock from which you were cut, and to the hollow of the pit from which you were dug. Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you..."

This is a LIST.

Even more interesting is the Alexandrian Septuagint, which was translated by the Hebrew Scholars themselves from the ancient original paleo Hebrew to Classical Greek several hundred years before Christ. Here is that translation, and there is a very interesting difference:

"Hearken to me, you that follow after righteousness and seek the Lord: Look to the solid rock which you have hewn and to the hole of the pit which you have dug...."

As interesting as these differences are, neither suggests the rock being spoken of is Abraham.

Which is not surprising since God had already stated through Isaiah that He knew of no other God and no other Rock but Himself (44:8 )

In the meantime, I totally miss Peter's authority and leadership among the Apostles! I see where Paul rebuked him publicly, however! And I see where Peter identifies himself as both a servant and apostle in introducing his two letters. But I do not read of him either claiming to be a leader of the Apostles or being treated like one by them. In fact, in Acts 15, at the Great Council in Jerusalem, you find that it was James (the half-brother of Jesus Christ) who was the leader or chairman of the meeting. Each person gave their accounts and it is James in Acts 15:13 who sums up and gives the answer.
"And after they had become silent James answered, saying 'Men and brethren, listen to me. Simon [note: NOT Peter] has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name, and with this the words of the prophets agree...therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God..."

In other words, it was James who was the leader of the church there, not Peter, and he did not even refer to Peter as Peter, but as Simon!

[RomeSweetHome]

tuppence you seem upset by the Catholic Church for calling Peter rock.

This is because Protestants mistakingly believe only God can be called rock.

Isaiah 51:1 "Listen to me, you who pursue justice, who seek the LORD; Look to the rock from which you were hewn, to the quarry from which you were digged;"

What does that mean?

In v. 2, we are told what is meant by line 1.
"Look to Abraham, your father, and to Sarah, who gave you birth;"
So, look to the rock from which you were hewn - 'look to Abraham'.
He is the ancient 'father' of all the Israelites.
If Abraham is rock & father of Israel in the Old Testament then wouldn't it be fitting, if Jesus chose someone as rock & father of the New Israel, His Church, in the New Testament?

Also;

1Kings 18:31 "He took twelve stones, for the number of tribes of the sons of Jacob, to whom the LORD had said, "Your name shall be Israel." 32 He built an altar in honor of the LORD with the stones, and made a trench around the altar large enough for two seahs of grain."

We see from this verse that God saw each tribe of Israel as stones and He conveyed this through the Prophet Eli'jah.

first you said or Aieno said that all the apostles are Peter/Rock. Now you say that Christ is the Rock. Can you please make up your mind? Why are you backpedaling? Which one is it? Can you simply choose one position so that I don't have to go back and forth?

By the way, where in the text does Jesus say he is the rock? Please show me from the text where exactly Jesus says, "Upon myself I will build my Church." Just because Jesus uses the word "I", does not mean that the pronoun refers to the rock. I think you need some basic, elementary school grammar lessons.

Jesus says, "Upon THIS ROCK I will build my Church." Jesus will be doing the building, since he says "I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH." That is what the I pronoun refers to; who exactly is doing the building. But Jesus uses the phrase "THIS ROCK", meaning that he is referring to something outside of himself. Where exactly does the text suggest your faulty interpretation? I'm afraid that this is pure eisegesis, or inserting a false interpretation into the text.

UPON THIS ROCK means that the Church will be built upon something; Jesus will be building his Church UPON THIS ROCK. What rock? "YOU ARE PETER", which means, YOU ARE ROCK.

Jesus Said "you are rock and upon this rock I will build my Church" -- Peter is the Latinized version of the word Cephas - the name given to Simon. It means ROCK.

This rock refers directly to the antecedent.

Peter is the Rock on which Christ built. Clearly and unequivocally stated here.

THIS rock = peter as in no other rock. That also means that NO OTHER CHURCH is Christ's, if it is not on THIS ROCK.

Peace

[Aineo]

RomeSweetHome, have you spoken with your priest concerning when Jesus changed Simon's name to "Cephas"?

[RomeSweetHome]

Aieno Wrote:

RomeSweetHome, have you spoken with your priest concerning when Jesus changed Simon's name to "Cephas"?

Unfortunately I have not.

I was going to speak with him on Sunday, but I am sick and I didnt go to Church on Sunday or to work on Monday.

[Aineo]

Aieno Wrote:

RomeSweetHome, have you spoken with your priest concerning when Jesus changed Simon's name to "Cephas"?

Unfortunately I have not.

I was going to speak with him on Sunday, but I am sick and I didnt go to Church on Sunday or to work on Monday.

Well then to continue to defend a doctrine based on Jesus changing Simon's name in Matthew 16:18 to Peter is fruitless isn't it?

[tuppence]

tuppence you seem upset by the Catholic Church for calling Peter rock.

Yup. It's blasphemy.

This is because Protestants mistakingly believe only God can be called rock.

God Himself said there was not other Rock but Himself. It has nothing to do with Protestantism. It has to do 1) with believing God's Word and 2) letting Bible explain Bible.

I already went through Isaiah 51 with you, in THREE different versions! It has NOTHING to do with Abraham being the Rock!

Nor is anyone's ideas of 'fitting' a good defense for faulty doctrine. Remember, His ways are higher than ours?

You said 1Kings 18:31 "He took twelve stones, for the number of tribes of the sons of Jacob, to whom the LORD had said, "Your name shall be Israel." 32 He built an altar in honor of the LORD with the stones, and made a trench around the altar large enough for two seahs of grain."

We see from this verse that God saw each tribe of Israel as stones and He conveyed this through the Prophet Eli'jah.

Yeah, and the altars were often made of stones. Elijah was using a picture. Don't take it too literally! Which one of those tribes is missing in Revelation? A picture is only a picture, not a doctrine.

Jesus called Simon "Petros" which is 'little pebble.' This not only has nothing to do with Peter being the "Rock" which is and can only be God, by HIS OWN WORD, but this is also different from Peter's statement in his first letter regarding believers being 'living stones.'

Look again at what PETER, your "first Pope" says there:

As you come to him, the living Stone -- rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him -- you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trust in him
will never be put to shame."

Peter is referring to the Stone as someone other than himself, first of all. If you don't believe God in Isaiah, do you believe Peter?

Secondly, we are LIKE living stones -- the picture is being used of building up a spiritual church, not a physical one, which the Roman Catholics and others have tried to do.

Thirdly, is Peter the one you trust in, so you will never be put to shame? Or is it Christ Himself?

The something outside of Himself that Jesus said He would build His church on was Peter's statement of faith. As Peter said, "the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

Peter declared to the Pharisees and high priest, in Acts 4:11: "He [Jesus Christ] is 'the stone you builders rejected which has become the capstone.' Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

The fact that we, the spiritual church are built up and build one another up in faith through the talents God has given us is a major New Testament doctrine.

On the other hand, the Roman Catholic church might want to take the stern warnings in Habakkuk 2:

Woe to him who piles up stolen goods and makes himself wealthy by extortion!

...For you have shed mens' blood;
you have destroyed lands and cities and everyone in them.

...Woe to him who builds his realm by unjust gain
to set his nest on high,
to escape the clutches of ruin!
You have plotted the ruin of many peoples.

...Woe to him who builds a city with bloodshed
and establishes a town by crime!

That perfectly describes what the Roman Catholic church as done through time!

Built on doctrines designed to elevate men, the Roman Catholic church as slaughtered thousands upon thousands of real believers through the ages. But you know something?

We're still here. The gates of hell have not prevailed against us.

How many times did Jesus heal someone and say "Your faith has saved you."? It is that faith IN JESUS which is the rock upon which the church is built. It is not a person. Those who live according to HIS teachings are building upon the rock as well -- not those who are living according to the teachings of men and tradition. You want to know what Jesus thought of men's adding to the law with traditions and new laws and such? Reach Matthew 23. He's pretty clear about how His judgment lies there!

The Roman Catholic church is NOT the church of the Jesus of the Bible. It is the result of an unholy union of Roman government, paganism, and Christian terminology. There are some saved Catholics. They have read the Bible and put their full faith in Jesus rather than the church. Interestingly, most of them also leave the Catholic church.

But that takes a lot of courage, for that church, as all cult churches do, claims that if you leave them, you are condemned forever. Since most people don't read the Bible, most people don't know any better, and so fear keeps them in the clutches of others.

[RomeSweetHome]

tuppence Wrote:

Yup. It's blasphemy.

Jesus called peter "Rock", how can God blaspheme?

tuppence Wrote:

God Himself said there was not other Rock but Himself. It has nothing to do with Protestantism. It has to do 1) with believing God's Word and 2) letting Bible explain Bible.

Isaiah 44
8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Here it is saying that there is no other GOD, God is not saying there is not another rock as in Peter being the rock, to take this as your defence is weak. Because Peter is not God. This is how the verse is to be read.

It is true there is no other rock/GOD but God.

tuppence Wrote:

Jesus called Simon "Petros" which is 'little pebble.' This not only has nothing to do with Peter being the "Rock" which is and can only be God, by HIS OWN WORD, but this is also different from Peter's statement in his first letter regarding believers being 'living stones.'

Jesus never called Peter "petros". Mark 3:16; John 1:42 - Simon is renamed "Kepha" in Aramaic by Jesus which literally means "rock."

Stop twisting the bible to suit your needs.

The rest of what you wrote is your personal opinion, and I dont have the time to post mine.

Establish your claim biblically, and I will reply.

The fact is JESUS HIMSELF called PETER "ROCK" no other.

Peace

[Aineo]

I posted a link to a site where a man took the time to research the Aramaic and the fact that the Aramaic for "rock" was a common surname, which you did not respond to.

Your insistance that the Aramaic is what we should base our understanding on is ludicrous when all we have is the Greek and Greek grammer to explain what Jesus said in Matthew 16, which totally ignores what John writes in his gospel.

[tuppence]

Stop twisting Bible to suit my needs? Give me a break! I twisted nothing. I have just looked at passages in context and let Bible explain Bible, which I think is vastly preferable to any human explaining it, including the dear old pope and his minions.

[webmaster]

Jesus called peter "Rock", how can God blaspheme?

So Peter is God because only upon the Rock should I build my House!

[IAMFREE]

Jesus called peter "Rock", how can God blaspheme?

Shortly there after Jesus called Peter "Satan" Mathew 16:23" Jesus turned and said to Peter, Get behind me Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."niv.

[RomeSweetHome]

I cannot believe how determined Protestants are to assert that Jesus didn't call Peter the rock. Some say it was "petros", others say he was pointing to himself and then some say only God is called rock! Then others say rock was a common surname!

For Christ sakes people wake up.

Stop trying to find a way around the obvious.

You are adding your own wishes to the Bible. Matthew 16 does not say Jesus pointed at Himself etc... it does not say you want it to say so desperately, so that you can reject Catholicism.

Just step back and look at what Jesus is saying. He changes Simon's name to Cephas (translated as Peter) which means rock. He then immediately says "On this rock I will build my church". Immediately after Jesus changes Simon's name to rock, He speaks about building a church on a rock. Immediately. And not just any rock, but "this rock". Immediately after naming Simon as rock He says "on this rock I will build my church".

Be brave and just face reality.

Peace

[IAMFREE]

I cannot believe how determined Protestants are to assert that Jesus didn't call Peter the rock. Some say it was "petros", others say he was pointing to himself and then some say only God is called rock! Then others say rock was a common surname!

For Christ sakes people wake up.

Stop trying to find a way around the obvious.

You are adding your own wishes to the Bible. Matthew 16 does not say Jesus pointed at Himself etc... it does not say you want it to say so desperately, so that you can reject Catholicism.

Just step back and look at what Jesus is saying. He changes Simon's name to Cephas (translated as Peter) which means rock. He then immediately says "On this rock I will build my church". Immediately after Jesus changes Simon's name to rock, He speaks about building a church on a rock. Immediately. And not just any rock, but "this rock". Immediately after naming Simon as rock He says "on this rock I will build my church".

Be brave and just face reality.

Peace

Any information as to Peter's other name. If when Jesus called Peter the rock and that makes Peter the rock he builds his church, then When Jesus calls Peter "Satan" then Peter must be Satan right?

[RomeSweetHome]

IAMFREE Wrote:

Any information as to Peter's other name. If when Jesus called Peter the rock and that makes Peter the rock he builds his church, then When Jesus calls Peter "Satan" then Peter must be Satan right?

Are you serious?

Jesus once called Peter "satan" because he discouraged Jesus from submitting to his crucifixion (Matthew 16:23).

He obviousaly didnt litrally believe he was satan.

Study your bible.

[IAMFREE]

UPON THIS ROCK means that the Church will be built upon something; Jesus will be building his Church UPON THIS ROCK. What rock?

So there is no way it could have been Peters confession sence his conffesion was not from him but from God?

[Aineo]

IAMFREE Wrote:

Any information as to Peter's other name. If when Jesus called Peter the rock and that makes Peter the rock he builds his church, then When Jesus calls Peter "Satan" then Peter must be Satan right?

Are you serious?

Jesus once called Peter "satan" because he discouraged Jesus from submitting to his crucifixion (Matthew 16:23).

He obviousaly didnt litrally believe he was satan.

Study your bible.

John writes the Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter (Cephas) on the same day Peter was called to be an apostle. Now, if your can appeal to Matthew 16:18 to establish a doctrine why can't IAMFREE appeal to Jesus calling Peter Satan as a rebuttal?

Another inconsistancy in Catholic logic.

[RomeSweetHome]

Aieno Wrote:

John writes the Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter (Cephas) on the same day Peter was called to be an apostle. Now, if your can appeal to Matthew 16:18 to establish a doctrine why can't IAMFREE appeal to Jesus calling Peter Satan as a rebuttal?

Chapter and verse please.

IAMFREE can appeal to what he likes but we all agree Peter wasnt satan, so how far is it going to get him?

[Aineo]

Aieno Wrote:

John writes the Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter (Cephas) on the same day Peter was called to be an apostle. Now, if your can appeal to Matthew 16:18 to establish a doctrine why can't IAMFREE appeal to Jesus calling Peter Satan as a rebuttal?

Chapter and verse please.

IAMFREE can appeal to what he likes but we all agree Peter wasnt satan, so how far is it going to get him?

None of us believe Peter was Satan, and only the deceived believe Peter was the "rock". So what is your point?

Matt 16:22-23
22 And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You." 23 But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's."
NAS

[RomeSweetHome]

Aieno Wrote:

None of us believe Peter was Satan, and only the deceived believe Peter was the "rock". So what is your point?

lol, you serious? the only people deceived especially in this area, are you and your protestants that try to find there way around what Jesus very clearly stated.

[Aineo]

Aieno Wrote:

None of us believe Peter was Satan, and only the deceived believe Peter was the "rock". So what is your point?

lol, you serious? the only people deceived especially in this area, are you and your protestants that try to find there way around what Jesus very clearly stated.

I am still waiting for your explanation of John and when Jesus added Cephas to Simone's name. The Bible easily shows you are deceived.

[RomeSweetHome]

Aieno Wrote:

I am still waiting for your explanation of John and when Jesus added Cephas to Simone's name. The Bible easily shows you are deceived.

Explanation of John what? chapter and verse would be much appreciated.

We can sit here all day pointing fingers at who is "deceived", but can you prove it?

So far you have failed.

[Aineo]

Aieno Wrote:

I am still waiting for your explanation of John and when Jesus added Cephas to Simone's name. The Bible easily shows you are deceived.

Explanation of John what? chapter and verse would be much appreciated.

We can sit here all day pointing fingers at who is "deceived", but can you prove it?

So far you have failed.

When I first posted chapter and verse you refused to comment until you could check with our priest. Apparently you had no intention of checking with your priest if you did not even note the chapter and verse.

John 1:35-42

35 Again the next day John was standing with two of his disciples, 36 and he looked upon Jesus as He walked, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!" 37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. 38 And Jesus turned, and beheld them following, and said to them, "What do you seek?" And they said to Him, "Rabbi (which translated means Teacher), where are You staying?" 39 He said to them, "Come, and you will see." They came therefore and saw where He was staying; and they stayed with Him that day, for it was about the tenth hour. 40 One of the two who heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. 41 He found first his own brother Simon, and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which translated means Christ). 42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas" (which is translated Peter). NAS

[RomeSweetHome]

Aieno Wrote:

When I first posted chapter and verse you refused to comment until you could check with our priest. Apparently you had no intention of checking with your priest if you did not even note the chapter and verse.

I was going to re read the post so that I could get your exact question, before going to church on Sunday. I told you in a previous post I was sick (still am) and I couldnt make it to church on Sunday.

I did have the intention to ask my priest, I need not lie about such things.

John 1:42--And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter).

"Cephas" (Aramaic) and "Peter" (Greek) mean "Rock"
Matthew 16:18a--"And I tell you that you are Peter [Rock], and on this rock I will build My Church…"

So Jesus doesnt know the furture? is that what you are implying?

There is a law in Bible study called 'The Law of First Mention'. It means, the first time something is mentioned in the Bible, the same meaning holds true for that subject in all subsequent verses in which it is mentioned. This law helps to hold the harmony and integrity of scripture.

For example: God is eternal and unchanging, therefore what he said in Genesis has the same meaning for all chapters. It doesnt matter if Peter was named rock in Genesis or John 1:42, Jesus called Peter the rock and on that rock He will build His church.

This is Just off the top of my head, I still want to ask my priest.

[webmaster]

18.
|2504| I also
|1161| And
|4671| to you
|3004| say,

|3754| that
|4771| You
|1487| are
|4074| Peter,

|2532| and
|1909| upon
|5026| this
|4073| rock

|3618| I will build
|3450| of me
|3588| the
|1577| community

|2532| and
|4439| gates
|0086| of Hades
|3756| not
|2729| will prevail against
|0846| her.

Strong's Number: 4073
Transliterated: petra
Phonetic: pet'-ra
Text: feminine of the same as 4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): --rock.

Strong's Number: 4074
Transliterated: Petros
Phonetic: pet'-ros
Text: apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle: --Peter, rock. Compare 2786.


Simple english doesn't work there RomeSweetHome for what you want it to say. The church is built upon Christ not Peter!

Quit going to the bible to back up what you have been taught and let the bible speak for itself.

As a matter of fact I would pray for this gift if I was you! Just be prepared for the answer that the Lord will give you and accept the answer!

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

[Aineo]

Aieno Wrote:

I am still waiting for your explanation of John and when Jesus added Cephas to Simone's name. The Bible easily shows you are deceived.

Explanation of John what? chapter and verse would be much appreciated.

We can sit here all day pointing fingers at who is "deceived", but can you prove it?

So far you have failed.

Aieno Wrote:

When I first posted chapter and verse you refused to comment until you could check with our priest. Apparently you had no intention of checking with your priest if you did not even note the chapter and verse.

I was going to re read the post so that I could get your exact question, before going to church on Sunday. I told you in a previous post I was sick (still am) and I couldnt make it to church on Sunday.

Well, I do think you need to make up you mind. You ask for chapter and verse and then say you posted you were ill and could not ask your pastor.

And you say you are not playing games?

[RomeSweetHome]

Webmaster Wrote:

Simple english doesn't work there RomeSweetHome for what you want it to say. The church is built upon Christ not Peter!

Yes simple english, but the bible was written in Greek not english.

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever You shall bind on earth, it shall bound also in heaven: and whatsoever Thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be Bound also in heaven: and whatsoever Thou shalt loose on earth, It shall be bound in heaven." - MATHEW 16:18 -19

Although your objections to these clear words of Christ are numerous because of the implications it bestows upon Christians to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. The claim that Christ is referring to himself as the Rock does violence to text since it is clear that Christ is praising Peter for having confessed his divinity and not praising Himself as otherwise it would be but an insult to Peter.

Webmaster Wrote:

Quit going to the bible to back up what you have been taught and let the bible speak for itself.

If I dont go to the bible, then what in God's name am I supposed to go to?

Webmaster Wrote:

As a matter of fact I would pray for this gift if I was you! Just be prepared for the answer that the Lord will give you and accept the answer!

I have done so. I think you should take your own advice, and get ready for the shock of a life time.

Webmaster Wrote:

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Amen!

Aieno Wrote:

Well, I do think you need to make up you mind. You ask for chapter and verse and then say you posted you were ill and could not ask your pastor.

I asked for the Chapter and verse so I could look it up in my bible.
If you actually read my previous post you would have seen that I stated I was sick and could not attend church, to ask my priest not pastor.

And you say you are not playing games?

Thats correct.

[Aineo]

Webmaster Wrote:

Simple english doesn't work there RomeSweetHome for what you want it to say. The church is built upon Christ not Peter!

Yes simple english, but the bible was written in Greek not english.

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever You shall bind on earth, it shall bound also in heaven: and whatsoever Thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be Bound also in heaven: and whatsoever Thou shalt loose on earth, It shall be bound in heaven." - MATHEW 16:18 -19

Yep, I am so pleased to see you post that Matthew was written in Greek, not Aramaic, which makes Greek grammar the rule on what the Greek actually means. Greek grammar totally defeats your thesis.

And again, in order for your thesis to stand Jesus had to give Peter the name Cephas in Matthew 16 and not in John.

Aieno Wrote:

Well, I do think you need to make up you mind. You ask for chapter and verse and then say you posted you were ill and could not ask your pastor.

I asked for the Chapter and verse so I could look it up in my bible.
If you actually read my previous post you would have seen that I stated I was sick and could not attend church, to ask my priest not pastor.

And you say you are not playing games?

Thats correct.

Well, you are making a total fool of yourself by denying you don't know what verse I am talking about and then making excuses that you could not talk to your priest because you were ill. That Rome ol' boy is playing games.

[webmaster]

The church is built upon Christ not Peter!

[RomeSweetHome]

Aieno Wrote:

And again, in order for your thesis to stand Jesus had to give Peter the name Cephas in Matthew 16 and not in John.

Sometime I think im wasting my time posting here, re read my previous post. That does not have to be the case, that is your assumption.


Aieno Wrote:

Well, you are making a total fool of yourself by denying you don't know what verse I am talking about and then making excuses that you could not talk to your priest because you were ill. That Rome ol' boy is playing games.

I am not making excuses, I am ill for heavens sake, what do you want? a medical note from my doctor to prove it?

The only person playin games here is you.

[Aineo]

Biblical truth is not just my opinion. As to your game playing, you have asked 3 times for me to post that verse from John, and each time played the I am sick plow. If you are that ill what are you doing on the Internet? If you are that ill and interested in truth there is a neat invention called a telephone that you could use to call a priest.

You dance around issues just like you did last time. Only this time I have had 10 months to read and study Catholic history, the catechism and read your ECF's.

You will never convince us protestors that the Catholic Church is the church Jesus Christ founded. Your "holy traditions" are direct imports from Mithraism, which can be traced to Egyptian mythology.

Leo on TimeBombers used the correct term for the Catholic Church. Greek thugs attempted to take over the pure and holy Church of Jesus Christ and failed.

[RomeSweetHome]

Aieno Wrote:

Biblical truth is not just my opinion. As to your game playing, you have asked 3 times for me to post that verse from John, and each time played the I am sick plow. If you are that ill what are you doing on the Internet? If you are that ill and interested in truth there is a neat invention called a telephone that you could use to call a priest.

Biblical truth to you is your own opinion, other Protestants on this forum do not agree with you totally, you are not the sole bible interpretator nor are you a scholar. I refuse to accept your personal interpretation, and I will continue to do so.

I have been sick for a few days now with the flu, I am not disabled I can still type, thats why im on the internet. I have been to the doctors and they have given me pills to take. I havent gone out because im sneezing and coughing, I have a blocked nose, would you like the full story?

I do not know my priests phone number, simple as that.

Aieno Wrote:

You dance around issues just like you did last time. Only this time I have had 10 months to read and study Catholic history, the catechism and read your ECF's.

It doesn't seem like its done you any good.

Aieno Wrote:

You will never convince us protestors that the Catholic Church is the church Jesus Christ founded. Your "holy traditions" are direct imports from Mithraism, which can be traced to Egyptian mythology.

I am not here to convince you of anything, im here to set the facts straight about Catholicism. BTW many Protestants have been "convinced" and embraced the faith, its not impossible.

Aieno Wrote:

Leo on TimeBombers used the correct term for the Catholic Church. Greek thugs attempted to take over the pure and holy Church of Jesus Christ and failed.

I could care less about what Leo has to say. I dont want opinions and story's, just biblical facts.

[Aineo]

I am well aware of the problems and symptoms of the flu. I have had Pneumocystis cariini pneumonia and if you think a simple case of the flu is bad try recovering from PCP. I was bed ridden for 6 weeks, but I could still pick up a phone book, look up a phone number and make a call.

Being on disability is not a bed or roses. I am single and have a home to care for by myself. Should I list all the details this implies? I don’t live in an apartment; I have a yard to care for as well; and other responsibilities that preclude spending 24/7 on my computer.

Truth is not based on “opinions”. Biblical truth is not open to interpretation. Just as you refuse to accept what I believe based on what the Vatican dictates as truth I reject what common sense and the ability to understand plain English plainly shows is heretical error mandated by the Vatican.

Pilate asked Jesus “What is truth”? Jesus did not answer Pilate but Jesus told us “what is truth”. “Sanctify them in truth your word is truth.” John 17:17

The Vatican rejects God’s word as truth and I accept God’s word as truth.

John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. NAS

The Holy Spirit gives gifts, and one of those gifts is “teaching”. There are a vast number of Godly teachers I can rely on to help me understand (not interpret) God’s truth. And the Vatican is not one of them.

[RomeSweetHome]

Aieno Wrote:

I am well aware of the problems and symptoms of the flu. I have had Pneumocystis cariini pneumonia and if you think a simple case of the flu is bad try recovering from PCP. I was bed ridden for 6 weeks, but I could still pick up a phone book, look up a phone number and make a call.

Yes I would have looked up the phone number but the problem is I dont have the number, how do I know this? Because I never asked my priest for his number in the first place.

Aieno Wrote:

Being on disability is not a bed or roses. I am single and have a home to care for by myself. Should I list all the details this implies? I don’t live in an apartment; I have a yard to care for as well; and other responsibilities that preclude spending 24/7 on my computer.

I never said it was a bed of roses, did I?

Aieno Wrote:

Truth is not based on “opinions”. Biblical truth is not open to interpretation. Just as you refuse to accept what I believe based on what the Vatican dictates as truth I reject what common sense and the ability to understand plain English plainly shows is heretical error mandated by the Vatican.

Then why do you interpretate it? The bible was not written in plain english, was it?

Aieno Wrote:

Pilate asked Jesus “What is truth”? Jesus did not answer Pilate but Jesus told us “what is truth”. “Sanctify them in truth your word is truth.” John 17:17

What is that supposed to prove?

Aieno Wrote:

John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. NAS
The Holy Spirit gives gifts, and one of those gifts is “teaching”. There are a vast number of Godly teachers I can rely on to help me understand (not interpret) God’s truth. And the Vatican is not one of them.

You may have a "vast number" of "Godly teachers", but I have only one, thats the Vatican.

[Aineo]

The OT was written in plain Hebrew that any Jew could comprehend. The NT was written in plain Greek that any Greek could comprehend. The weird thing about languages is they have grammatical structure and rules. So to understand the plain Greek of the NT one needs to understand Greek grammar and Greek grammatical structure and rules.

Would you agree with the above?

The Greek grammatical structure of Matthew 16:18 proves your interpretation of Matthew 16:18 lacks scholarship and truth. I have a lesbian cousin who not only reads modern Greek, she reads, writes and speaks, Biblical Greek, Hebrew, Chaldean, Aramaic, Latin and 19 other foreign languages including Swahili, and can read and write 50+ other foreign languages. She is a linguists of the first order. I will accept her knowledge and scholarship over yours and your lying Vatican any day of the week.

[Aineo]

Any time you are ready to continue this discusson, be my guest.

[hisway]

I also am not a scholar. I must talk to Catholic cleregy before commenting, as I do not wish to say something then contradict the Church.

This is EXACTLY the one of the points I made at the end of the lead post here! One of the legs of the RC church is ignorance. Another is fear. This person is AFRAID of saying something which would contradict the church he belongs to. That is the hold the RC church has over its members. No matter what the Bible says, the RC church has primacy.

That's just like a cult. They control using fear, just like a cult. They demand money, just like a cult. They prey on their members' ignorance and even encourage it by telling them they cannot possibly understand what the Bible says without the church interpreting it for them.....just like a cult.

Dear sir or ma'm, you do not have to be a scholar to read the Bible. God's Word is extraordinarily clear on its own. Read it cover to cover (preferably withouth the Apocrypha) and see if you can possibly come away and still be a Roman Catholic.

From the Bible you will learn that God Himself is the Rock.

From the Bible you will learn that one need only believe on Jesus to be saved, not be a member of a church.

From the Bible you will learn that Jesus did all the work for us, and penance, indulgences, and the myriad of other RC rites and works are simply not needed -- in fact they contradict the Bible.

From the Bible you will learn that Mary was just a young woman, born a sinner like the rest of us, and chosen to do something extraordinary -- bear the Messiah and raise Him to manhood.

From the Bible you can learn so much!

Very well said. Excellent thread you started here. The subject of the conversation between Jesus and Peter was simply "Who" Jesus Christ is. Jesus asked the question and Peter answered it. The revelation of who Jesus Christ is the "Rock". Jesus Christ who is God manifest in the flesh is the Rock. He is the invisible God of the O.T. revealed in the flesh in the N.T. Every believer needs to have a personal revelation of who Jesus Christ is as Peter did in order to have the relationship God desires with His people. No where in Scripture is it even inferred that Peter was some divinely appointed overseer of the Church. If anyone, it would be Paul who assumed a dominate role in establishing Truth and order in the Church. Not once did Paul consult Peter for a blessing in his ministry. Paul submitted himself to the True Head of the Church which is Jesus Christ alone. The administration of the Church is to be carried out by the ministries of Pastor, Teacher, Apostle, Evangelist, and Prophet. All these offices have their place within the Body. And Jesus Christ is the only One who appoints who will assume any of those offices. The Pope is not a Biblical office established by the Lord but a man-made one. The concept of a "Pope" usurps the authority of Jesus Christ and the Word of God over the Church thus making Jesus Christ void as the Head and the Word of God null. The result is vain religion.

[RomeSweetHome]

I would rather listen to Aieno's theories on "the rock" issue then listen to a cult member, at least Aieno is not a heretic. You are a Oneness Apostel correct? Ifso, how in God's name can I trust your view of scripture regarding "the rock" when you dont even accept the doctrine of the Holy Trinity? which is a core doctrine of Christianity as a whole!, obviously not including other cult "christians" like you, the JW's, Christadelphians and Unitarians etc..

Hisway, the only religion that is vain in this debate is yours friend.

I am not even in the mood to get into a full scale debate at the moment to be honest.


Peace

[Aineo]

My views have already been expressed on this thread. The Bible states Jesus is the rock - not Peter.

[RomeSweetHome]

I know what your view is regarding the "rock", dear friend, and I respect it.

[Aineo]

I know what your view is regarding the "rock", dear friend, and I respect it.

Fine, but I am still waiting for an explanation of:

John 1:35-42

35 Again the next day John was standing with two of his disciples, 36 and he looked upon Jesus as He walked, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!" 37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. 38 And Jesus turned, and beheld them following, and said to them, "What do you seek?" And they said to Him, "Rabbi (which translated means Teacher), where are You staying?" 39 He said to them, "Come, and you will see." They came therefore and saw where He was staying; and they stayed with Him that day, for it was about the tenth hour. 40 One of the two who heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. 41 He found first his own brother Simon, and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which translated means Christ). 42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas" (which is translated Peter).
NAS

This was brought on page 3 of this thread and as yet you have not responded. You reason was you had to ask your priest.

Aieno Wrote:

I am still waiting for your explanation of John and when Jesus added Cephas to Simone's name. The Bible easily shows you are deceived.

Explanation of John what? chapter and verse would be much appreciated.

We can sit here all day pointing fingers at who is "deceived", but can you prove it?

So far you have failed.

http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic ... 8&start=40

You are the one who has failed by refusing to address direct questions.

[hisway]

I would rather listen to Aieno's theories on "the rock" issue then listen to a cult member, at least Aieno is not a heretic. You are a Oneness Apostel correct? Ifso, how in God's name can I trust your view of scripture regarding "the rock" when you dont even accept the doctrine of the Holy Trinity? which is a core doctrine of Christianity as a whole!, obviously not including other cult "christians" like you, the JW's, Christadelphians and Unitarians etc..

Hisway, the only religion that is vain in this debate is yours friend.

I am not even in the mood to get into a full scale debate at the moment to be honest.


Peace

Call Oneness Apostolics a cult as you wish. Every cult has it's leader and the leader of Oneness Apostolics is the Lord Jesus Christ alone. And we put our faith and our trust for salvation in Jesus Christ alone. I'll take Jesus anytime over Popes, Mary, the Apostles, and a bunch of dead so-called saints all of whom combined couldn't save a dog. The Jesus I know and worship is the only Great God and Saviour and not some junior God in a trinity of three Gods. And there is no salvation in any other name but the name of Jesus (Acts 4:12). There is no salvation in the names of Peter, Paul, Jehovah, Yahweh, Mary or Mother Teresa or great uncle Harry just because a Pope may say so. You have your Pope, your goddess Mary, and your dead saints but I have Jesus Christ. Others have Jehovah and Yahweh but I have Jesus Christ. And I don't need to crawl down an aisle and kiss a statue on the toe to feel spiritual. All I need to do is lift up my hands toward heaven and call upon the name of Jesus and begin to praise Him and Him alone to feel His Glorious presence around me and in me.

[Aineo]

Lets try to keep threads on topic.

Hisway, if you want to totally deny what the Bible teaches concerning the Trinity that is your choice and decision but I am getting tired of your malevolent and hate filled rhetoric concerning the Trinity. You have not made your case concerning this subject and any further attempts to inject your false beliefs into threads dealing with other topics will be deleted, and this applies to all who attempt to change the direction of any thread.

[hisway]

Lets try to keep threads on topic.

Hisway, if you want to totally deny what the Bible teaches concerning the Trinity that is your choice and decision but I am getting tired of your malevolent and hate filled rhetoric concerning the Trinity. You have not made your case concerning this subject and any further attempts to inject your false beliefs into threads dealing with other topics will be deleted, and this applies to all who attempt to change the direction of any thread.

Dear Aineo, I was only attempting to respond to remarks made by RomeSweetRome. I have no intention of bringing up further discussions about the Godhead. I think all that could and can be said on that topic has been done and I rested my case some time ago. However, I have as much right to express my opinion as a member on this forum as you and others do.

I was not looking for a confrontation with anyone. I expressed my support for Tuppence as we share the same view on this topic as do you. And like you, I'm tired too...tired of being labelled a cult member when all I've ever done on this forum is exalt Jesus Christ. Cults degrade and deny Jesus as to His true identity. This is the very issue Jesus focused on when He asked Peter, "But who do you say that I am?" Jesus is asking this same question to each of us. He wants us all to know who He really is. This is essential to having the level of intimate relationship the Lord desires with His people. The "Rock" upon which the Church is built is Jesus Christ, a fact accepted by Protestants. But there's a much deeper issue here than an intellectual fact. Any unbeliever can discern that much. But the real issue at stake is "identity" and that's what flesh and blood cannot discern but comes only by revelation by God Himself. Peter had a revelation from God about who Jesus really is. That is why Jesus entrusted Peter with the keys to the Kingdom. And Peter revealed what those keys were under Divine revelation in his first sermon and in no uncertain terms in Acts 2:38. Without having a revelation of who the Rock is in terms of true and full identity is superficial intellectual knowledge and hardly a sound foundation to build faith upon.

[Aineo]

You have the right to express your opinion with courtesy and respect or you are history. In spite of your arrogant denial, Trinitarians worship our God and Savior Jesus Christ and unlike you we accept the absolute inerrancy and total accuracy of the whole Bible not just the book of Acts.

You should also bear in mind that since the UPC is considered a cult and therefore not a true Christian church your ability to post in the Christians Forum is a courtesy not a right.

[RomeSweetHome]

This portion of post edited out for being off topic.

Aieno Wrote:

You have the right to express your opinion with courtesy and respect or you are history. In spite of your arrogant denial, Trinitarians worship our God and Savior Jesus Christ and unlike you we accept the absolute inerrancy and total accuracy of the whole Bible not just the book of Acts.

I agree.

Aieno Wrote:

You should also bear in mind that since the UPC is considered a cult and therefore not a true Christian church your ability to post in the Christians Forum is a courtesy not a right.

Again I totally agree, well said.

Aieno concerning John 1:35-42, your point is Jesus changed Peters name Before Peter made the "confession"? ifso it doesnt really change anything, Christ knows all things including the future, he knew Judas would betray him yet he made him one of the 12, didnt he?

Peace

[Aineo]

RomeSweetHome, you need to go back and reread what you posted concerning Simon's name change to Peter. You are being inconsistent.

[RomeSweetHome]

awww man, my rely ti hisway was edited oh well it is only fair.

Why is it inconsistent?

[Endurance]

Rome-

I hope you are feeling better...

[Aineo]

Why is it inconsistent?

The following is what you posted on page 3 of this thread:

Just step back and look at what Jesus is saying. He changes Simon's name to Cephas (translated as Peter) which means rock. He then immediately says "On this rock I will build my church". Immediately after Jesus changes Simon's name to rock, He speaks about building a church on a rock. Immediately. And not just any rock, but "this rock". Immediately after naming Simon as rock He says "on this rock I will build my church".

Be brave and just face reality.

Peace

John records Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter the same day He called Peter as an apostle. Also Matthew 4 backs up John’s account. You are being inconsistent in what you post.

[RomeSweetHome]

Endurance Wrote:

Rome-

I hope you are feeling better...

Thank you, but why wasn't I feeling ok?

Aieno Wrote:

John records Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter the same day He called Peter as an apostle. Also Matthew 4 backs up John’s account. You are being inconsistent in what you post.

Does it really matter? no. Where and when Jesus gave Simon the name Peter is not that big of a issue, it all fits into place very neatly as long as you can understand that Christ knows the future. Maybe Christ was reaffirming Peters name?

"On this rock I will build my church"

I really dont see what all the fuss is about.

Peace

[Aineo]

In light of your prior comments it seems you are changing your position because you got caught in an error.

However, the rock Jesus is building His "ekklesia" on is one's profession of faith not a human being.

[RomeSweetHome]

Aieno Wrote:

In light of your prior comments it seems you are changing your position because you got caught in an error.

What "error"? caught? you think I didn't know about John 1:35-42 and Simons name change?

Aieno Wrote:

However, the rock Jesus is building His "ekklesia" on is one's profession of faith not a human being.

That is nothing but a opinion and personal interpretation of scripture, that I just happen to disagree with.

[Aineo]

Aieno Wrote:

In light of your prior comments it seems you are changing your position because you got caught in an error.

What "error"? caught? you think I didn't know about John 1:35-42 and Simons name change?

:) This is one time you prior posts on this thread call your credibility into question. I quoted your prior post and if you take the time to read the full exchange you seemed ignorant of John 1:35-42 until I asked you about it.[/quote]Aieno Wrote:

However, the rock Jesus is building His "ekklesia" on is one's profession of faith not a human being.

That is nothing but a opinion and personal interpretation of scripture, that I just happen to disagree with.[/quote]The only people who interpret the Bible is Catholicism. You need to read the catechism, which repeatedly uses the word interpretation. By interpreting the Bible to establish Catholic doctrine Catholicism ignores what was written by your first Pope in 2 Peter 1:20-21.

[RomeSweetHome]

Aieno Wrote:

This is one time you prior posts on this thread call your credibility into question. I quoted your prior post and if you take the time to read the full exchange you seemed ignorant of John 1:35-42 until I asked you about it.

maybe so, but I was not.

Aieno Wrote:

The only people who interpret the Bible is Catholicism. You need to read the catechism, which repeatedly uses the word interpretation. By interpreting the Bible to establish Catholic doctrine Catholicism ignores what was written by your first Pope in 2 Peter 1:20-21.

The only people who interpretate the bible are Catholics? LOL, what about all those Protestant denominations that can't agree with each other on fundamental issues?

II Peter 1:20-21

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

I do not interpretate the bible, you Protestants practice private interpretation, us Catholics rely on the Church Christ made.

"Is it possible to misunderstand the Bible? Yes. 'In these epistles there are certain things difficult to understand, which the unlearned and the unstable distort, just as they do the rest of the Scriptures also, to their own destruction' (2nd Peter 3:16)." (A Catechism for Adults, p. 10)

An individual cannot make a private interpretation of Scripture and is therefore dependent on the Catholic Church for the correct interpretation. If not, then whom do you turn to for the interpretation of scripture?

Can you honestly say you dont practice private interpretation of the bible?

I think not!

Peace

[Aineo]

I suggest you go back and read what you actually posted when I asked you about John 1 before you deny what you posted since your posts indicate you were ignorant of John 1 until I asked you about it.

The interpretations of Bible passages by the Catholic Church are "personal interpretations" of some men who had enough votes in councils to win debates; so your appeal to the non-existent authority of the Catholic Church to change God's truth is self-serving.

[RomeSweetHome]

Aieno Wrote:

I suggest you go back and read what you actually posted when I asked you about John 1 before you deny what you posted since your posts indicate you were ignorant of John 1 until I asked you about it.

Indeed I have taken your suggestion, and you are correct, I was sounding ignorant. I however knew that Simons name was changed to Peter before the "confession".

Aieno Wrote:

The interpretations of Bible passages by the Catholic Church are "personal interpretations" of some men who had enough votes in councils to win debates; so your appeal to the non-existent authority of the Catholic Church to change God's truth is self-serving.

Is that so? Who compiled the bible? the Catholic church, I therefore trust her to interpretate it. The difference is that Catholic LEARNED MEN interpretate scripture, not lay Catholics. On the other hand lay Protestants always interpretate scripture.

Do you not wonder why there are so many protestant denominations? My wifes church believes in the doctrine of Once saved always saved, my wife attends that Church and calls herself a Baptist yet rejects this doctrine, why? she self interpretates scripture, like you all do.

Peace

[Aineo]

The Catholic clergy are mere men. As to who compiled the Bible you always come back to that one. The Holy Spirit inspired the Bible not those the Catholic Church lays claim to as ECF's. The historical facts are that the Catholic Church is an invention of men, which did not exist before Constantine established the original 5 Patriarchies. If it was not for the brutality and atrocities committed by the Catholic hierarchy the Byzantine Church might have replaced the Catholic Church as the dominant force in Europe. John Paul II acknowledged and apologized for many of the atrocities committed by the Catholic Church, which should tell you that at least he understood real history even if you refuse to.

However, I know you will always accept the official revisionist history of the the first apostate church since if you accepted real history your whole thesis goes up in smoke.

However, this thread regards the who was the "rock" upon which Jesus built His church and that rock was not Peter. Now can you show us any where in Scripture where any apostle or disciple acknowledged that Peter was the first in a long line of chief bishops? The answer is no.

[RomeSweetHome]

Aieno Wrote:

The Catholic clergy are mere men. As to who compiled the Bible you always come back to that one. The Holy Spirit inspired the Bible not those the Catholic Church lays claim to as ECF's. The historical facts are that the Catholic Church is an invention of men, which did not exist before Constantine established the original 5 Patriarchies. If it was not for the brutality and atrocities committed by the Catholic hierarchy the Byzantine Church might have replaced the Catholic Church as the dominant force in Europe. John Paul II acknowledged and apologized for many of the atrocities committed by the Catholic Church, which should tell you that at least he understood real history even if you refuse to.

The Catholic clergy are mere men yes, but the difference between them and you is that they are LEARNED men, you are not.

You always come back to many subjects that we have already discussed.

Historical facts show that the oldest church in the world is the Catholic church, however protestant denominations are the inventions of men, men like Luther, Calvin and Henry the VIII invented and created your doctrines and caused a spilt with Rome.

Your assumption that Constantine "created" or "invented" Catholicism is futile. Who cares who might have replaced who? most of the Byzantine Christians are ethier Catholic or Orthodox, no Byzantine protestants my friend.

If John Paul II understood real history, why did he remain a Catholic? according to you HISTORICAL facts show that the Catholic Church is an invention of men?

Aieno Wrote:

However, I know you will always accept the official revisionist history of the the first apostate church since if you accepted real history your whole thesis goes up in smoke.

This "apostate" church is better then any Protestant church will ever be, because all protestant churches are made up with the thoughts and biblical interpretations of men like Luther and Calvin.

Aieno Wrote:

However, this thread regards the who was the "rock" upon which Jesus built His church and that rock was not Peter. Now can you show us any where in Scripture where any apostle or disciple acknowledged that Peter was the first in a long line of chief bishops? The answer is no.

Well at least you admit that Jesus said "rock" and not "small stone" as many of your fellow protestants probably force themselves to believe, in order that they can deny that Peter is the "rock" that Jesus built his church on and thus reject Catholicism.

Peter was the first Apostle selected by Christ.

Peter spoke for the Apostles (Acts 5:29).

Peter delivered the first Church sermon (Acts 2:14-16).

Peter made the first Apostolic visit to the churches (Acts 9:31).

Peter was first to receive the Gentiles (Acts 11:1-3).

Peter cast out the first heretic, Simon Magus (Acts 8:20).

Peter acted as judge in the case of Ananias and Saphira; when he inflicted the first ecclesiastical penalty (Acts 5:1-6).

Peter presided on the occasion when the vacancy among the Apostles was filled, caused by the death of Judas.

Peter presided at the first Church Council meeting (Jerusalem) (Acts 15).

Peter's word settled the dispute at the Church Council (Acts15).

Peter performed the first miracle (Acts 5:16)

This is but a few, Peters surpemecy over the other apostels is but to clear IN scripture, if only you would take a second to look.

There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Coelestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place." Philip, presbyter, legate of the Apostolic See at the Council of Ephesus, AD 431 ("Jesus, Peter & the Keys" by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren and David Hess pg 258)

Would you like quotes from early church fathers regarding St Peter?

I would rather believe them then Henry, Calvin or you as a matter of FACT.

Peace

[Aineo]

And you always ignore real history, which does not back up your contention that the first church was the Catholic Church.

BTW, there are a lot of learned men outside Catholicism that have a better grasp of Biblical truth than the Catholic Church. Also God is not lazy or the author of confussion, which is why we have the Bible.

[spunky]

Peter died

Why would an allmighty ever present onipotent God base his the foundation of His church on a mere mortal when He has the shepard of men to base it on It makes no sense to appoint peter a rock and then have that position passed down to the next guy to get the vote and so on when the ever present god had the vote all along? .. all those things you posted Peter bieng the first of he was actually the seconded Christ did them all first. Christ is the rock on which the chuch was built and Peter in his faith followed him..

Also I know this is off topic but I was always taught that Paul was the greatest of the apostles not Peter.. If

[Aineo]

Ephesians 2:17-22
17 And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; 18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, 20 having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit. NAS

Peter is a rock in the foundation of the church of which Jesus is the cornerstone. Peter is not the chief rock or a person with more authority than any of the other apostles.

Jesus is the head of the Church not the Pope or any other man chosen by men.

[RomeSweetHome]

Aieno Wrote:

And you always ignore real history, which does not back up your contention that the first church was the Catholic Church.

Well the first church certainly was not any Protestant church, I am sure we can agree on that.

Aieno Wrote:

BTW, there are a lot of learned men outside Catholicism that have a better grasp of Biblical truth than the Catholic Church. Also God is not lazy or the author of confussion, which is why we have the Bible.

Yes there are a lot of learned men outside of Catholicism, men like the Protestant Bible scholars, that I quoted on page 1 of this thread! do you agree?

Yes, the reason we have the Holy Bible is because God intended we have it.

But God also choose the Catholic church to give it to us, not any protestant church, remember that.

spunky Wrote:

Peter died

Jesus died, point?

spunky Wrote:

Why would an allmighty ever present onipotent God base his the foundation of His church on a mere mortal when He has the shepard of men to base it on It makes no sense to appoint peter a rock and then have that position passed down to the next guy to get the vote and so on when the ever present god had the vote all along? .. all those things you posted Peter bieng the first of he was actually the seconded Christ did them all first. Christ is the rock on which the chuch was built and Peter in his faith followed him..

It is obvious you dont know what your talking about. I was speaking about the apostels and who did what first, obviously Christ did them first, duh?

spunky Wrote:

Also I know this is off topic but I was always taught that Paul was the greatest of the apostles not Peter.. If

Protestants usually teach this, perhaps to disregard the correct Catholic position regarding Peter and Paul?

Aieno Wrote:

Peter is a rock in the foundation of the church of which Jesus is the cornerstone. Peter is not the chief rock or a person with more authority than any of the other apostles.

Can you tell me where you got that from? Jesus is a rock in the foundation of the church? what church? so Peter is not a "small stone" or "pebble" to you? according to tuppence Peter is Petros!

And the funny thing is you two belong to the same denomination, no?

Aieno Wrote:

Jesus is the head of the Church not the Pope or any other man chosen by men.

I and the early church fathers would have to disagree with you there, or dont you care about what the early church fathers have to say unless you THINK it supports your position?

Also as Catholics we believe Jesus is the head of the church, the Pope is the earthly head a representative of Christ on earth.

Peace

[Aineo]

Aieno Wrote:

And you always ignore real history, which does not back up your contention that the first church was the Catholic Church.

Well the first church certainly was not any Protestant church, I am sure we can agree on that.

And we can also agree the first church was not the Catholic Church headquartered in Rome.Aieno Wrote:

BTW, there are a lot of learned men outside Catholicism that have a better grasp of Biblical truth than the Catholic Church. Also God is not lazy or the author of confussion, which is why we have the Bible.

Yes there are a lot of learned men outside of Catholicism, men like the Protestant Bible scholars, that I quoted on page 1 of this thread! do you agree?[/quote]Learned men like those you quoted also disagree that the Catholic Church is not the first and only true Christian church. Also if you check out the sources these men use to agree with Peter being in Rome are from the Catholic Church since there is no independent evidence that Peter died in Rome or even that he was ever in Rome.

Yes, the reason we have the Holy Bible is because God intended we have it.

But God also choose the Catholic church to give it to us, not any protestant church, remember that.

God chose Jewish men to bring His word to us, and those Jewish men were not members of the Catholic Church headed by a man you call the Pope. The "holy traditions" used by the Catholic Church are imports from Greek paganism as demonstrated by the Gnostic writings available to us today.

Aieno Wrote:

Peter is a rock in the foundation of the church of which Jesus is the cornerstone. Peter is not the chief rock or a person with more authority than any of the other apostles.

Can you tell me where you got that from? Jesus is a rock in the foundation of the church? what church? so Peter is not a "small stone" or "pebble" to you? according to tuppence Peter is Petros!

And the funny thing is you two belong to the same denomination, no?

I get this from Scripture, specifically Matthew 18:18, Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17, Acts 4:11, Ephesians 2:20, 1 Peter 2:6-7, and Isaiah 28:16.

And I don't know if tuppence has a denominational affiliation so the answer to your assumption is NO.


Aieno Wrote:

Jesus is the head of the Church not the Pope or any other man chosen by men.

I and the early church fathers would have to disagree with you there, or dont you care about what the early church fathers have to say unless you THINK it supports your position?

Also as Catholics we believe Jesus is the head of the church, the Pope is the earthly head a representative of Christ on earth.

Peace[/quote]The interesting thing about some of your ECF's is that they do not really support your "holy traditions" including the Papacy. So your response is both ludicrous and inaccurate. The fact that your ECF's did not agree on the names of the early Bishops of Rome (in fact one list includes the same man twice under two different names) indicates the early church did not put any emphasise on who was Bishop in Rome. Add to this the fact that the Orthodox Churches reject the Catholic Church's claims also shows the revisionism of the Catholic Church's official and bogus history. Who was it that said tell a big enough lie and you can make most people believe you? I think it was Hitler.

[RomeSweetHome]

Aieno Wrote:

And we can also agree the first church was not the Catholic Church headquartered in Rome

It doesnt really matter where it was headquartered, we know it was Catholic and not Protestant. I also wish to add that we most certianly know the Catholic church exsisted before any protestant church by at least 1,500 years.

put it this way, if I was a gambling man I would bet the first church was Catholic not Protestant.

Aieno Wrote:

Learned men like those you quoted also disagree that the Catholic Church is not the first and only true Christian church. Also if you check out the sources these men use to agree with Peter being in Rome are from the Catholic Church since there is no independent evidence that Peter died in Rome or even that he was ever in Rome.

I am not surprised they disagree that the Catholic church was the first and only true church, if they didnt they would be Catholic!

Would you like to discuss St Peters status regarding his presence in Rome in more depth?

Aieno Wrote:

God chose Jewish men to bring His word to us, and those Jewish men were not members of the Catholic Church headed by a man you call the Pope.

What Jews? Jews wanted people to believe that Jesus was the Messiah?

Be specific without the Catholic church you would have no bible and that is a fact, the problem is you already know it.

What monks protected the bible? were they not Catholic?

In 397 A. D. by the Council of Constantinople, from which it follows that non-Catholics have derived their New Testament from the Catholic Church; no other source was available.

Aieno Wrote:

The "holy traditions" used by the Catholic Church are imports from Greek paganism as demonstrated by the Gnostic writings available to us today.

Please dont hesitate to show me some proof.

Aieno Wrote:

And I don't know if tuppence has a denominational affiliation so the answer to your assumption is NO.

You dont? This is her (tuppence) "signature";

born again Christian, non-denominational. Young universe creationist.

You are a non-denominational, no? That is still a Protestant denomination regardless of the title it bares.

Aieno Wrote:

The interesting thing about some of your ECF's is that they do not really support your "holy traditions" including the Papacy. So your response is both ludicrous and inaccurate. The fact that your ECF's did not agree on the names of the early Bishops of Rome (in fact one list includes the same man twice under two different names) indicates the early church did not put any emphasise on who was Bishop in Rome. Add to this the fact that the Orthodox Churches reject the Catholic Church's claims also shows the revisionism of the Catholic Church's official and bogus history. Who was it that said tell a big enough lie and you can make most people believe you? I think it was Hitler.

You dont know much when it comes to the early church fathers. I have caught you out regarding to what exactly the ECF's have said and believed. The ECF's support the Catholic church not you, want proof?

Peace

[Aineo]

When are you going to learn to stick to the topic of a thread? When you can't refute Scripture you bring up the fact the "Protestant" churches did not exist before the 1500's. But then that is not exactly true since the Catholic Church slaughtered those who disagreed with its heretical theology in areas where they had political control.

God gave us the Bible not an arrogance bunch of men who had to support the destruction of Byzantium to destroy the power of the Orthodox Church, which refused to accept the revisionist history of the Catholic Chruch.

Now do you think you can stay on topic or shall I simply delete any and all posts you make that wander off topic? And RomeSweetHome I will delete every single post you make that wanders off topic with just one sentence.

[RomeSweetHome]

Aieno Wrote:

When are you going to learn to stick to the topic of a thread? When you can't refute Scripture you bring up the fact the "Protestant" churches did not exist before the 1500's. But then that is not exactly true since the Catholic Church slaughtered those who disagreed with its heretical theology in areas where they had political control.

I cannot answer the above because it will be deleted, am I correct?

I try to stay on topic, but as you know when debates begin they start of with one topic and that topic leads to another, that is the nature of a debate. I am not changing the course of the debate intentionally.

Aieno Wrote:

God gave us the Bible not an arrogance bunch of men who had to support the destruction of Byzantium to destroy the power of the Orthodox Church, which refused to accept the revisionist history of the Catholic Chruch.

Again I would like to answer this but whats the point if you will just delete it?

Aieno Wrote:

Now do you think you can stay on topic or shall I simply delete any and all posts you make that wander off topic? And RomeSweetHome I will delete every single post you make that wanders off topic with just one sentence.

I dont mean to sound rude but I think you are abusing your authority as I am not going off topic on purpose.

Peace

[Aineo]

As to abusing my authority:

5. Use descriptive subject lines. This will allow members and guests to determine if the subject of your post is something they want to read or discuss.

Added a new Rule #11

Moderators have final say. jesus-christ-forums.com administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit, relocate and/or remove any message, at any time, for any reason. Consider all editing decisions final. If you don't agree with a decision, you may discuss it with the moderator who made the judgment in private. If you cannot reach resolution with the Moderator in private, contact the site administrator via e-mail (http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/email/), explaining the entire situation, with all relevant links/excerpts/emails, etc. Under no circumstance attempt to start a 'debate' about specific moderation decisions in a public forum.

This thread deals with "Who was the Rock"?; it does not deal with the canon, the revisionist history of the Roman Catholic Church, or any other issue you always bring up in an attempt to side track and obfuscate most threads.

Now if you do not want to address Scripture just admit it and lets move on. I will delete any of your posts that attempt to side track this thread. If you don't care for my decision take it up with the webmaster.

[RomeSweetHome]

Aieno Wrote:

This thread deals with "Who was the Rock"?; it does not deal with the canon, the revisionist history of the Roman Catholic Church, or any other issue you always bring up in an attempt to side track and obfuscate most threads.

Like I said above this is the nature of a debate, it leads us into and out of different areas surrounding the one topic we started of with.

Aieno Wrote:

Now if you do not want to address Scripture just admit it and lets move on. I will delete any of your posts that attempt to side track this thread. If you don't care for my decision take it up with the webmaster.

admit it? I always address scripture what are you on about now?

I do "care" about your decision and I will agree to it as long as you dont abuse it.

Peace