Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Umm, HELLO, you put in parantheses "Referrign to 16". That is not in there obviosuyl. The line says you are Rock and on this Rock I will build my Church. Care to tell me how you get anything out of that other than that Peter is the Rock? And please don't tell me about the Greek. PLEASE.
LOL, Drummer. You don't know me very well. Only those who wrest Scripture use the 'original Hebrew and Greek'. We mature AVphiles don't need to. You'll NEVER see me stoop so low as to use another language to support our English Bible.Uncertaindrummer said:
Well, shock horror, I actually agree with AV on this one and so would many many Church Fathers, as I'm sure you're aware. When that one phrase is not ripped out of context but the entire NT considered it's quite clear that words like rock and cornerstone are used to describe Christ and faith in Him, not Peter. Even if, for the sake of argument, the RC interpretation of that passage were correct (and I do dispute that), it still would not help the Papal claims as you're still left having to explain how the Pope is the rather than a successor to Peter and to show that any prerogatives pertaining to Peter were to be inherited by his successors.Uncertaindrummer said:
First, we do not rely the entire case on this verse, but it is certainly a strong one.AV1611 said:
Hey guess what: Peter means rock. In fact, Jesus spoke Aramaic, and so the passage would read like this: "Thou art Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church". NOWHERE does it imply that this is Christ.
No, actually, the "Rock" is Peter. That's why he says you are "rock". Peter and rock are different in the English language. They are NOT in Aramic, or heck, even French. Speaking of which, I am still curious as to how French speaking people are supposed to read the Bible when the ONLY good version is written in English.
Well its a good thing I didn't misquote it then. Just so happens that your beloved English translation is somewhat deficient here, because "Peter" and "Rock" are different words in English. Not so when Jesus was actually uttering them.
Actually, I haven't seen a singel Church father ever who said that the Rock reffered to here was Christ. Granted, many did say it was Peter's faith and not necessarily Peter, but then again there is also plenty of early Church writings which speak of Mary being blameless and withotu sin, yet you still say she wasn't.IacobPersul said:
Ripped out of context? It's CONTEXT is that Jesus is building a Church and He is building it ON something. He jsut so happens to build it ON Rock, or Peter.
You act as if no one has thought of these things before. Not only does Jesus say "You are Peter (Rock) and upon this Rock I will build my Church", but He then goes onto say that Peter has the keys to the kingdom of Heaven and the power to bind and loose. You believe in Apostolic succession, what is so hard about believeing in Papal succession?
Domination. Because the Orthodox Church doesn't "dominate". Wonderful.
Firstly, I didn't say the Rock referred to here was considered to be Christ by any Church Fathers - faith in Him, yes. It's the other places in the NT where the Rock clearly refers to Christ. Secondly, we do believe that the Theotokkos was sinless, whatever makes you think otherwise?Uncertaindrummer said:
That's the context of the passage but I was referring to the wider context of the NT as a whole.
And you assume these promises were to Peter alone rather than Peter first, whereas the Patristic Concensus contradicts this view.
Nothing, but how do I know who is the successor to Peter and why should it be the Pope of Rome? The Patriarch of Antioch and Pope of Alexandria have equally good and prior claims to succession from Peter.
Did you somehow miss ND's use of that word. I didn't come up with it. He basically accused you of arguing against sola scriptura so that the RCC could dominate Christendom. I was trying to help you out here but as usual you get offended. Does my refutation of Papal Supremacy really cause you that much pain? I'm sorry if it does (though it does not change my beliefs at all), but could we please get back to the question of sola scriptura?
Assuming you were referring to Matthew 16:18, my reply is: That's true. You also mistranslate 1 Peter 5:13 to fit your heresy.Uncertaindrummer said:
Hey guess what: Peter means pebble. In fact, the translators spoke English, and so the passage would read like this: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." NOWHERE does it imply that this is Peter.[/quote]
No kidding!
Try Hebrew. I'm sure his mother didn't give him a Greek name.
I thought I answered that. They use the AV1611 in their own language. They even call it the King James Bible --- only they say it in French.
You weren't there, and as far as I know, you don't have a time machine, either. So don't try to act like some kind of Bible translator. Believe me, they're a dime a dozen with nine cents change. But I do know Someone Who was there, and He says otherwise.
Here's the word picture:Katzpur said:
Thetokkos? Sorry you will have to enlighten me, I am somewhat ignorant on that. Anyway I could have sworn you arguing agaisnt the IC a long tiemn ago. Sorry if I misunderstood you.IacobPersul said:
Yes, I know, and I also agree takign the whole Bible into account is important. But I don't see interpreting "you are Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my Church" as taking it out of context to say Kepha is what the Church is being built on.
What on Earth in the text supports a view that someone besides Peter was given the keys?
That is a different argumen,t but all I was trying to say is that Papal Succession would certainly make sense--sure it wouldn't have to be in Rome without looking at further evidence, but it is not a huge leap to say "There are Apostles, and we believe in Apostolic succession, so if there was a Pope, Papal succession would follow", that was all I was attemptign to get across.
Hmmm.... I must have missed that. Sorry. I seem to be sayign that a lot. I am invovled in so many threads on so many boards right now that I am getting really confused, lol
In what language?AV1611 said:
So? Your heretical Arian Gothic translators mean nothing to me. They are not Apostles inspired to correctly translate the word of God.
I dont' care what the English says. JESUS DIDN'T SPEAK ENGLISH.
Even in English it is obvious that it is Peter. Much less in the original languages.
His mother gave him the name of Simon, which is totally irrelavent
And yet in French the word for rock is the same as the name, so a French Bible would be "Thou art (Rock) and upon this (Rock) I will build my Church". What kind of anglo-saxon ego-maniac are you? You think God only made the Bible for English speaking peoples?
No He doesn't, YOU say otherwise. Your wonderful KJV translators who were born 1500 years after Revelation ended have no mroe claim to inspiration than me, and your reliance on the KJV as the only correct Bible is so faulty misguided and without base that it is downright laughable.
I've never said they claimed inspiration. And while you're laughing, YOU tell ME then, if it's not the King James, then which is it? That's all I hear on this website, It aint the KJ, It aint the KJ; but no one, but No One, but NO ONE, tells me which one it IS. That's because you don't know, and you're not man or woman enough to say so. So until you can tell me which IS THE RIGHT ONE, don't tell me WHICH IS THE WRONG ONE. Fair enough?Uncertaindrummer said:
First off, the KJV is as good as any other protestant version. Missing seven books, but other than that its fine. So calm down.AV1611 said:
Sorry, there was a typo there, it should have read Theotokos. That's the title we almost invariably use for Mary and is Greek for God bearer (bearer as in bearing a child) which is what you usually translate (though it's not quite 100% accurate - good enough, though) as Mother of God.Uncertaindrummer said:
Seeing as neither of us are sola scripturalists I find this rather a perplexing question. I find my answer to this in Holy Tradition and, above all, in the Fathers. You know as well as I do that you cannot argue a positive doctrine from the mere absence of something in Scripture. Otherwise, why do we both disagree so with people like the Baptists when they argue against infant baptism?
No problem. It happens to all of us. I'm just happy if we can get back on track and forget about this.
Neither do I. Since the Sin Nature comes from the seed of the man (Romans 5:12), it was necessary to bypass this. Thus Jesus was not born from the seed of man, lest He too would be in need of a Saviour. He was conceived instead from the Holy Ghost.IacobPersul said:
Let's try this from another angle as to what it means to the Catholic...AV1611 said:
)
2 Timothy 3: 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good workUncertaindrummer said:
Bless you Linus... this thread and those like it don't do much to promote the Gospel... while I may not agree with your reading of 2Tim, I just want to make it clear that the most important thing is that you have faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior... how you come to salvation is secondary to my happiness that you will be saved!:jiggy:Linus said:
