BLAZEr Posted October 6, 2003 Posted October 6, 2003 i dont think anyone has come up with a valid counter arguement I challenge anyone to prove these points, using scritpural reference, or any other VALID source 1. Christ didnt found HIS church on Peter. 2. Christ didnt found any church, we founded churches on Him. 3. The Catholic church is NOT the church that Christ founded. bring it on They won't bring it, cuz they can't bring it. They will just ignore, or change the subject, or skew the issue. To be honest with you, most of the Protestants on this board don't even know what their churches actually teach. Scott Hahn made this point once in a talk he gave at Notre Dame. Basically he said: When Catholics try to catechize anti-Catholics they are fighting ignorance and misunderstanding and personal interpretation mixed with pride. It's like well verse Protestants trying to argue with run of the mill poorly catechised but faithful Catholics. They just go nuts when their "logic" doesn't convince them to abandon their faith. He said the difference is that the logic of the Protestants is faulty and the logic of the Church is complete.
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted October 6, 2003 Posted October 6, 2003 (edited) Actually Dude, "it" refers to the Church not the Rock/Peter. Secondly, Skuba Steve, watch those low blows (no pun intended but childishly laughing ). I know that "it" is refering to the Church and not Peter. That is what I said. I just wanted to post the whole verse. Why would one Church be as good as another? Since no Church is the same, only one of them can be 100% correct. Edited October 6, 2003 by thedude
CatholicAndFanatical Posted October 6, 2003 Posted October 6, 2003 I saw a post somewhere on here where Trooper posted something like "YOU (plural) are Rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church" Meaning that the YOU meant everyone, or at least all the Apostles. If this is inDouche what you meant, then consider the first few words BEFORE that quote "YOU ARE PETER..." didnt mention a word about anyone else, but PETER..dont see how the "YOU" in that sentence could mean multiple people. and if you didnt mean that, then just pretend this post doesnt exist and go on with your side stepping CatholicAndFanatical
Paladin D Posted October 6, 2003 Posted October 6, 2003 and if you didnt mean that, then just pretend this post doesnt exist and go on with your side stepping Isn't that a type of country western dance?
skuba steve Posted October 7, 2003 Posted October 7, 2003 So, Steve, Let me see if I get you straight: Any denomination calling itself "Christian" is a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, and the Catholic Church happens to be the buttocks?" umm.... *looks at celing* So.... how about those Nicks!? This aint anything but say the colour of each word out loud. Or maybe it's the other way around. RED BLUEYELLOW GREEN BLACK PINK ORANGE WHITE
Trooper4DaHolyG Posted October 7, 2003 Posted October 7, 2003 I saw a post somewhere on here where Trooper posted something like "YOU (plural) are Rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church" Meaning that the YOU meant everyone, or at least all the Apostles. If this is inDouche what you meant, then consider the first few words BEFORE that quote "YOU ARE PETER..." didnt mention a word about anyone else, but PETER..dont see how the "YOU" in that sentence could mean multiple people. and if you didnt mean that, then just pretend this post doesnt exist and go on with your side stepping CatholicAndFanatical hahaha nice one dude cept that one wasn't me! my argument, is that the rock referred to Christ and not Peter
Dave Posted October 7, 2003 Posted October 7, 2003 my argument, is that the rock referred to Christ and not Peter Why could it only have referred to Christ? Because Christ is often referred to as "rock"? Well, we know that this does not have to mean Peter was not the rock because, not only would it contradict all other evidence, it would also contradict Old Testament passages where Abraham is called "rock" (such as Isaiah 51:1-2), even though the word "rock" was a title reserved primarily for God. So what do we conclude? That Peter, like Abraham, was given a title usually reserved to God. The mere fact that "rock" was a title often applied to God, then, proves nothing.
Trooper4DaHolyG Posted October 7, 2003 Posted October 7, 2003 ur smart Dave I will give you that. I am not sure i really like that verse, its hard to understand. Except I believe as the only logical thing to do, Christ was that Rock, not Simon as he was refferd to by Jesus.
Paladin D Posted October 7, 2003 Posted October 7, 2003 ur smart Dave I will give you that. I am not sure i really like that verse, its hard to understand. Except I believe as the only logical thing to do, Christ was that Rock, not Simon as he was refferd to by Jesus. But Jesus changed his name from Simon, to Peter, right?
Dave Posted October 7, 2003 Posted October 7, 2003 ur smart Dave I will give you that. Why thank you! You're making me blush! I am not sure i really like that verse, its hard to understand. How so? Except I believe as the only logical thing to do, Christ was that Rock, not Simon as he was refferd to by Jesus. Why would that be logical? Peter means "rock," just like Kephas does. Why would Jesus call Peter "rock" if He was that rock? I mean, in other foreign languages, it's more obvious -- there's no different word for the name Peter and rock. For example, in French it would read, "Tu es Pierre, et sur cette pierre . . . ."
IcePrincessKRS Posted October 7, 2003 Posted October 7, 2003 But Jesus changed his name from Simon, to Peter, right? Right.
foundsheep Posted October 7, 2003 Posted October 7, 2003 ur smart Dave I will give you that. I am not sure i really like that verse, its hard to understand. Except I believe as the only logical thing to do, Christ was that Rock, not Simon as he was refferd to by Jesus. 16 11 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Do you not see the distinction here if you read the whole thing? First He calls him Simon then says you are peter. Do you know who Cephas or kephas is in pauls letters?
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted October 7, 2003 Posted October 7, 2003 The name Peter means rock. Jesus was refering to Peter, the rock.
Anna Posted October 7, 2003 Posted October 7, 2003 Jesus, Who Is the Rock of our salvation, was appointing Peter to be Rock... Peter was to carry on Christ's work on earth, once Christ left this earth. Peter was to be Christ's representative, the spokesman of Christ's Church. Bible scholars and historians both understand this to be correct and true. Pax Christi. <><
foundsheep Posted October 8, 2003 Posted October 8, 2003 I was hoping trooper could answer that guys.
Anna Posted October 8, 2003 Posted October 8, 2003 There is no other logical conclusion. He may not like this verse, but it is True. Jesus established a Church, and someone to lead His Church. His Church has existed and carried on the traditions He taught them for over 2000 years now. His Church composed the New Testament. And His Church compiled the Holy Bible. Oh, yeah, and .... His Church is Infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit. ;)
Anna Posted October 8, 2003 Posted October 8, 2003 (edited) opppp....im on my moms name Edited October 8, 2003 by Anna
TempleofVesarius Posted October 8, 2003 Author Posted October 8, 2003 a swing and a miss strike one come ON guys... you arent even showing any effort...id fail you if this was phys ed. (thats what i meant to post, but i did it under my moms name) :ph34r:
[jas] Posted October 8, 2003 Posted October 8, 2003 There is no other logical conclusion. He may not like this verse, but it is True. Jesus established a Church, and someone to lead His Church. His Church has existed and carried on the traditions He taught them for over 2000 years now. His Church composed the New Testament. And His Church compiled the Holy Bible. And that church that God used Peter to establish 2000 years ago is now made up of many believers from many different backgrounds in many different denomenations. What's your point?
TempleofVesarius Posted October 8, 2003 Author Posted October 8, 2003 [jas], you answer is logically and philisophically unsound. There is only one COMPLETE TRUTH, and the rest of the versions have to contain some mistruths.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now