Trusting Holy Scriptures Over The Church

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='ckozlowski' post='1387470' date='Sep 17 2007, 08:35 PM']hey guys!

I feel like i've stirred this inter-religious debate room so much.[/quote]


hehe, sorry. No offense I just thought it was funny for someone with 60 posts all in 2 threads to claim they have stirred up the board. Its all good.

[quote]QUOTE(ckozlowski @ Sep 16 2007, 08:07 AM)
I personally believe, after picking up a major in biblical studies, that many who truly trust in their bibles over the church -as scripture commands- and believe in this phenomena will come to the conclusion that satan has used his great signs and wonders to crawl his way into catholic dogma over the course of history.[/quote]

WHere did you get your major from? Just a personal note if I knew your prof.

Scripture does not command to trust the bible over the church. Scripture has no references to the nEw test cannon. And please dont assume that proto doctrine is based on an old test exegesis.

Could you tell me where Satan has crawled into catholic dogma? In your opinion of course.

Edited September 18, 2007 by Revprodeji

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1387086' date='Sep 17 2007, 02:04 PM']According to Chris (ckozlowski), we should trust the Holy Bible over the Church. Quoting him:So my question: where does the Holy Bible make such a command which explicitly shows this relationship between Church and Scriptures?

I'll start with a pretty well known quote ([url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1timothy/1timothy3.htm#v15"]1 Tim 3:15[/url]):[/quote]


There is no such command in the Scriptures.

Many non-Catholics think that the Church was built around the teachings of the bible... in reality, the Church gave us the bible in 400 AD.

There are at least a dozen verses that contradict the bible before church belief, and not a single one supporting it. This arguent dates back hundreds of years when people couldn't read, if people could read, the protestant deformation would have never grown so quickly or large.

A few verses:

[b]Acts 8:27[/b]
So he got up and set out. Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, that is, the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury, who had come to Jerusalem to worship,
[b]28 [/b]and was returning home. Seated in his chariot, [u]he was reading the prophet Isaiah[/u].
[b]29 [/b]The Spirit said to Philip, "Go and join up with that chariot."
[b]30 [/b]Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, [b]"Do you understand what you are reading?" [/b]
[b]31 [/b]He replied, [b]"[u]How can I, unless someone instructs me?[/u]" [/b]So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.

[b]2 Peter 1:20[/b] Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

[b]2 Peter 3:16[/b]As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

[i]Call me crazy, but I think "To their own destruction" is a pretty big "You NEED the Church"[/i]


[b]St Matt 18:17 [/b] (Jesus said) If he refuses to listen to them, [b]tell the church[/b]. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.


[b]Luke 10:16 [/b]"He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me"


[b]2 Timoty 3:14 [/b]
But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know [u][b]from whom you learned it[/b], [/u]

[b]2 Tim 2:2 [/b]
And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

[b]Romans 10:17[/b]
Thus faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.

[b]1 Peter 1:25[/b]
But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news [b]which was preached to you[/b]


[b]Ephesians 3:5 [/b]
which was not made known to human beings in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit,


[b]Ephesians 2:20[/b]
built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone.

[b]1 Corin 15:11[/b]
Therefore, whether it be I or they, so we preach and so you believed.



There are more, but it's getting late and I'm sure you get my point


God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited September 18, 2007 by ironmonk

[ironmonk]

Oh yeah, one more thing, when you point this out to them, they go into massive denial... you'll get the "You know how to twist scripture" rebuttal and they change the subject.

There are ways to rebut that, but they are barking dogs, swine not to cast your pearls in front of... you can only hope that you planted seeds that will grow with God's Grace.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[ckozlowski]

Deo, i'm just referring to the variants of the translation. So if Jesus meant "small stone" then Christ was the bottom stone, and peter was just one that goes on top of that. Which would imply that Peter was not the only foundation.

First, the meaning of the word has different variants, as with many, many words we find in the bible. Seeing as it's been translated more than we'd like it to have been and we don't have a solid grasp of what Jesus really meant, we look to other places in the bible where the word has been used. Jesus had a thorough knowledge of the OT. He throws words at us that draw a plethora of meaning from the OT which give us really good insight as to exactly what he meant when he spoke. Back then many people knew what he meant, but our cultures are so far apart we couldn't even grasp many things in the NT without scholarly instruction.

These are verses from the bible that I believe is the proper way of biblical interpretation. All of my bib. stu. professors have more than this one basis for showing the true meaning of this text. This is just one that i'll argue due to my lack of knowledge.

first let me quote my fellow Socrates:

"The first thing to do when looking at scripture is to look at the immediate context, not to pull out other passages in the Bible not directly related to claim the word refers to something other than what it obviously refers to in the sentence. A word has no meaning out of context."

This couldn't be any more valid than presented here. But what Socrates fails to mention is that this word is very much in question. I'll show you why.

I'm going to quote my friend socrates here because i know that these are going to be your next argument.

"The "Petra/Petros" argument is bogus, as first of all, Christ would have originally spoken Aramaic to Peter, not Greek. There is only one word for "rock" in Aramaic - Kepha. The name "Petros" was given when translated into Greek, because "petra" is a feminine noun in Greek, and was changed to the masculine "Petros" to be a man's name. The word means the same thing."

First of all, this couldn't be any more false if your mothers life depended on it. The book of matthew was not written in Aramaic. Yes, Jesus spoke aramaic, but the gospels were written a while after Jesus' time. It was passed down by oral tradition, i'm sure your aware of this..you see where i'm going with this.

I will quote Soc again because this is your next line of reason:

"This statement of Christ is followed immediately by the following solemn declaration to Peter: "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matt. 16:19)
Christ gives Peter the authority to bind and loose on Heaven on Earth. It is nonsensical to say that Christ is not referring to Peter here."

This right here is where your mixing nonsense with rhetoric to make what you're conveying much more powerful. Let's keep this forum free of powerful but senseless words.

These are a list of verses from the bible that use the word "ROCK" in other contexts so one can derive an absolute meaning. Why do we do this? simply because one cannot take a guess. The variant is clearly undetermined. It can only be determined by looking how it is used through out the bible. This is a scholarly tool. Fail to use it. Fail to understand the bible.

This list can be found within this article which I did not write. [url="http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/bible/rock.html"]http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/bible/rock.html[/url]

Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (II Timothy 2:15)

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in Righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (II Timothy 3:16, 17)

Now we should be prepared to apply this method, in order to find God's answer to our question. Once again our question. In Matthew 16:18 is the "Rock" upon which Christ established His church Peter? Or is the "Rock" Christ? God's answer:

For other foundation NO ONE can lay, but that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus. (I Corinthians 3:11)

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST). (I Corinthians 10:4).

Jesus said to them, "Did ye never read in the Scriptures, The stone which the builders rejectcd, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?" (Matthew 21:42) (Compare with Psalm 117:21, 23)

For they stumbled or the stumbling-stone, as it is written, "Behold I lay in Sion, a stumbling-stone and a ROCK of offence: and whosoever believeth on him (Christ) shall not be ashamed." (Romans 9:33)

Let us see what the apostle, St. Peter, had to say concerning this.

To whom coming (Christ), as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men but chosen of God, and precious,

Wherefore also it is contained in the Scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious; and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe He is preciou: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, and, a stone of stumbling, and a ROCK of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: (I Peter 2:4. 6-8)

This is The stone which was set at naught of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: For there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Also the words of St. Peter, speaking of Jesus Christ, as recorded in Acts 4:11, 12)

Turning to the Old Testament we find the following:

The Lord is my ROCK, and my fortress, and my deliverer. My God, is the ROCK of refuge. Psalm 18:2, 94:22.

God was their ROCK, and the high God their redeemer. Psalm 78:35.

Unto Thee will I cry, O LORD, MY ROCK; Psalm 28:1.

Bow down Thy thine ear to me; deliver me speedily: be Thou my strong ROCK, FOR A HOUSE of defense to SAVE me. for Thou art my ROCK and my FORTRESS; therefore for Thy name's sake lead me, and guide me. Psalm 31:2,3).

I will say unto God my ROCK, why hast Thou forgotten me? Psalm 41:l0.

Lead me to the ROCK that is higher than I Psalms 61:2

He Only is my ROCK and my salvation; He is my defense; I shall not be moved. In GOD is my salvation and my glory: THE ROCK of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. Trust in him at all times, ye people, Pour out your heart before him; God is a refuge for us. Selah Psalm 62:6-8

To shew that the Lord is upright: He is my ROCK, and there is no unrighteousness in Him. Psalm92:15.

but the Lord is my defense; and MY GOD IS THE ROCK of my refuge. Psalm 94:22.

O Come, let us sing unto THE LORD; let us make a joyful noise to THE ROCK of our salvation. Psalm 95:1.

The stone which the builders refused is become the head of the corner. This is the Lord's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes. Psalm 118:22, 23.

Therefore thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Isaiah 28:16.

Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto OUR GOD! He is THE ROCK, His work is perfect: for all his ways are judgement: Deuteronomy 32:3,4.

Then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed THE ROCK of his salvation. Deuteronomy 32:15, 18).

And he said: THE LORD IS MY ROCK, and my fortress, and my deliverer II Samuel 22:2.

So, what do you make of this?

[ckozlowski]

[quote]Many non-Catholics think that the Church was built around the teachings of the bible... in reality, the Church gave us the bible in 400 AD.[/quote]

Yep..
[quote]There are at least a dozen verses that contradict the bible before church belief, and not a single one supporting it. This arguent dates back hundreds of years when people couldn't read, if people could read, the protestant deformation would have never grown so quickly or large.[/quote]

We're not talking contradiction..we're talking "assuming". ...even if your church was the real church as you caim.. satan knows your not dumb!


[quote][b]Acts 8:27[/b]
So he got up and set out. Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, that is, the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury, who had come to Jerusalem to worship,
[b]28 [/b]and was returning home. Seated in his chariot, [u]he was reading the prophet Isaiah[/u].
[b]29 [/b]The Spirit said to Philip, "Go and join up with that chariot."
[b]30 [/b]Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, [b]"Do you understand what you are reading?" [/b]
[b]31 [/b]He replied, [b]"[u]How can I, unless someone instructs me?[/u]" [/b]So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.

[b]2 Peter 1:20[/b] Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

[b]2 Peter 3:16[/b]As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

[i]Call me crazy, but I think "To their own destruction" is a pretty big "You NEED the Church"[/i]
[b]St Matt 18:17 [/b] (Jesus said) If he refuses to listen to them, [b]tell the church[/b]. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
[b]Luke 10:16 [/b]"He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me"
[b]2 Timoty 3:14 [/b]
But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know [u][b]from whom you learned it[/b], [/u]

[b]2 Tim 2:2 [/b]
And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

[b]Romans 10:17[/b]
Thus faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.

[b]1 Peter 1:25[/b]
But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news [b]which was preached to you[/b]
[b]Ephesians 3:5 [/b]
which was not made known to human beings in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit,
[b]Ephesians 2:20[/b]
built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone.

[b]1 Corin 15:11[/b]
Therefore, whether it be I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
There are more, but it's getting late and I'm sure you get my point [/quote]

These really don't have much to do with what will refute my argument.

[ckozlowski]

I have to read the rest of the book of Exodus tonight, i'll try and find more time for this tomorrow. see you guys. looking forward to your comments

[N/A Gone]

'ckozlowski'

[quote]Deo, I'm just referring to the variants of the translation. So if Jesus meant "small stone" then Christ was the bottom stone, and peter was just one that goes on top of that. Which would imply that Peter was not the only foundation.[/quote]

Christ never calls himself a stone. Regardless of the translation. You are not using exegesis here.

[quote]First, the meaning of the word has different variants, as with many, many words we find in the bible. Seeing [b]as it's been translated more than we'd like it to have been and we don't have a solid grasp of what Jesus really meant[/b], we look to other places in the bible where the word has been used. Jesus had a thorough knowledge of the OT. He throws words at us that draw a plethora of meaning from the OT which give us really good insight as to exactly what he meant when he spoke. [b]Back then many people knew what he meant[/b], but our cultures are so far apart we couldn't even grasp many things in the NT without scholarly instruction.[/quote]

You just provided the arguments for what I said on the previous page. That is, the universal interpretation of the church that Peter was the rock. I can provide the specific quotations if you want but this is a serious issue for your point. If there was discussion or even doubt it would not have been universal. If your view had any validity to it then show me someone in the patristic period who thinks that way. Like you said, people back then knew what he meant.

[quote]These are verses from the bible that I believe is the proper way of biblical interpretation. All of my bib. stu. professors have more than this one basis for showing the true meaning of this text. This is just one that i'll argue due to my lack of knowledge.[/quote]

Where did you go to school? Biblical criticism and schools of exegetical thought are constantly changing and produce nothing more than pluralism that is not the Christian message. For a guru and his school of thought to change their interpretation with every generation does not provide a proper understanding of the scripture or the Christian metaphysic.


[quote]First of all, this couldn't be any more false if your mothers life depended on it. The book of matthew was not written in Aramaic. Yes, Jesus spoke aramaic, but the gospels were written a while after Jesus' time. It was passed down by oral tradition, I'm sure your aware of this..you see where I'm going with this.[/quote]

With your biblical studies I am sure you know the Male/feminine issue of the greek word for Rock right?

[quote]This right here is where your mixing nonsense with rhetoric to make what you're conveying much more powerful. Let's keep this forum free of powerful but senseless words.[/quote]

He just quoted the passage. No power trip to be seen.

[quote]These are a list of verses from the bible that use the word "ROCK" in other contexts so one can derive an absolute meaning. Why do we do this? simply because one cannot take a guess. The variant is clearly undetermined. It can only be determined by looking how it is used through out the bible. This is a scholarly tool. Fail to use it. Fail to understand the bible.[/quote]

The word rock is used in different ways. Whats your point? The idea that the word is used in different ways does not discredit the meaning of the passage. Look at it in context. Jesus calls peter rock, he cites what the rock will do. Sounds like Jesus did a good job explaining it. How would you have recommended he do it different in order for you to understand? The issue of variable text meanings does not hurt a catholic because we have the universal teaching of the church on this subject. But a protestant using the scripture only is bound to their own interpretation skills or whatever guru they have decided to follow.

[quote]So, what do you make of this?[/quote]

You should buy Strong's concordance and not use a website because it is a better tool.

If you are debating exegesis it will come down to my view vs your view. it is a stand still because neither of us has authority to interpret scripture on its own. The smarter one of us will win. But when we look at the teaching of the Church in this matter she has always declared that peter is that rock. So either you are wrong, or the entire church and all her fathers have been wrong and you are finally providing light.

Edited September 18, 2007 by Revprodeji

[Socrates]

[quote name='ckozlowski' post='1387570' date='Sep 17 2007, 09:48 PM']"The first thing to do when looking at scripture is to look at the immediate context, not to pull out other passages in the Bible not directly related to claim the word refers to something other than what it obviously refers to in the sentence. A word has no meaning out of context."

This couldn't be any more valid than presented here. But what Socrates fails to mention is that this word is very much in question. I'll show you why.

I'm going to quote my friend socrates here because i know that these are going to be your next argument.

"The "Petra/Petros" argument is bogus, as first of all, Christ would have originally spoken Aramaic to Peter, not Greek. There is only one word for "rock" in Aramaic - Kepha. The name "Petros" was given when translated into Greek, because "petra" is a feminine noun in Greek, and was changed to the masculine "Petros" to be a man's name. The word means the same thing."

First of all, this couldn't be any more false if your mothers life depended on it. The book of matthew was not written in Aramaic. Yes, Jesus spoke aramaic, but the gospels were written a while after Jesus' time. It was passed down by oral tradition, i'm sure your aware of this..you see where i'm going with this.[/quote]
Yes, we know Matthew's Gospel was written in Greek, but the point was that [b]Jesus Christ[/b] spoke Aramaic.
(And some scholars believe the Greek Matthew was translated from an Aramaic original.)
Christ would have used the same word in Aramaic: "Thou art [i][b]Kepha[/b][/i], and upon this [i][b]kepha[/b][/i] I will build my Church."
The only reason the word is different in Greek is because Petros is the masculine version of Petra (to be used as a man's name).

[quote]I will quote Soc again because this is your next line of reason:

"This statement of Christ is followed immediately by the following solemn declaration to Peter: "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matt. 16:19)
Christ gives Peter the authority to bind and loose on Heaven on Earth. It is nonsensical to say that Christ is not referring to Peter here."

This right here is where your mixing nonsense with rhetoric to make what you're conveying much more powerful. Let's keep this forum free of powerful but senseless words.[/quote]
Let's keep this forum free of senseless (and weak) insults.
I was quoting the words of Christ in the Gospel here. Christ was not speaking nonsense.
If Christ was not talking to Peter, who is He talking to??
And what is the point of Christ naming Simon "Rock," if the rock Christ speaks of has nothing to do with Peter?

Jesus Christ does not speak idly.

Edited September 18, 2007 by Socrates

[Deo Iuvente]

Chris,You're still arguing Non Sequitur.
Giving us masses of bible verses using the word 'Rock" In various contexts do not disprove that peter is the rock
No matter how you look at it Jesus Still says Peter=Rock.
Showing us verse that say that Christ Is the rock does not disprove our claim.Twice there,you employed [i]Dicto Simpliciter [/i] without showing what fallacies.
[quote]So if Jesus meant "small stone" then Christ was the bottom stone, and peter was just one that goes on top of that. [b]Which would imply that Peter was not the only foundation.[/b][/quote]
BINGO!
That's what I've been trying to prove.There is not One Singular Foundation.
I'm sure by now,that someone may have mentioned Isaiah 22:20 to you.
Isa. 22:20-here we have dynastic succession (Read:'apostolic succession')
Isa. 22:19-Shebna has an office.and office has successors who share the authority of his predecessors.
Isa. 22:21 -Eliakin is called "Father",or 'Papa' of his people.
Isa. 22:22-Here we have a clear parallel between Matthew and Isaiah.Considering that the apostles would have known these passages well,it's considerable that upon hearing Jesus' words they would have connected them.

[Dismas]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1387162' date='Sep 17 2007, 02:43 PM']I think that's a good way of putting it, with co-dependency, that is.[/quote]
Co-dependency - dependent with the other's dependency.

Perhaps Interdependency would work.

[dairygirl4u2c]

ck really got it handed to him since his last post...

[dairygirl4u2c]

maybe not...

evna is the aramaic word for stone..
couldn't jesus have said you are evna and on this kepha i will build my church?



* Peter (Petros) is defined as a stone.
* “rock” (Petra) is defined as a rock

Edited September 18, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Mateo el Feo]

I actually posted my reply the "Fatima" thread...

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=71559&st=260&gopid=1387651&#entry1387651"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...p;#entry1387651[/url]

Kinda hard to straddle two threads, but...

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1387637' date='Sep 17 2007, 11:19 PM']maybe not...

evna is the aramaic word for stone..
couldn't jesus have said you are evna and on this kepha i will build my church?
* Peter (Petros) is defined as a stone.
* “rock” (Petra) is defined as a rock[/quote]


"Petros" is greek as "small stone".
"Lithos" is greek for "little pebble"

"Evna" is aramiac for "little pebble"

If Christ had said "Evna", instead of "Kepha", they would have translated it as such. Instead, they translated it as "Petros" and "Petra", simply reflecting the masculinity as a male's name.

I believe "Lithos" is masculine as well ( not positive ) so why would they make such a change if there was no need to ( They could have translated "Evna" straight to "Lithos" if that was what Christ actually said ).

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1387554' date='Sep 17 2007, 08:32 PM'](Copied from Fatima thread)

Okay, let's look at the immmediate contect of Matthew 16:
[b]"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." [/b](Matt. 16:18)
Jesus Christ directly addresses Simon, and gives him a new name, Peter, which translates directly as "Rock."
Obviously, the rock on which Christ built His Church is Peter, as He is addressing Peter, and gave him the new name "Rock."
When God gives someone a new name in the Bible, it always indicates Him giving that person an important new mission (Abram to Abraham, Saul to Paul, Simon to Peter).
After calling Simon-Peter "Rock," why would Christ suddenly change the topic mid-sentence to refer to something entirely different? That just would not make any sense, in any language.[/quote]

It would make perfect sense if Christ had ADD:

Hey Simon, old buddy, old pal! 'Sup? Look, I was talking with my dad, and well, your new name is "Rocky"! How's that sound to ya?

Hey look! A squirrel!

Oh, and speaking of rocks, I'm founding a new Church, and I'll be the cornerstone.

And what else did Dad say to tell you?

Hey there's that squirrel again!

Oh, yeah, you're getting the Keys to Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth, that shall be bound in heaven, same thing for the things you loose on earth. That's pretty cool, huh? But don't let it get to your head--I'm not establishing Apostolic Tradition or the Papacy or anything like that...

[SarahB]

Wow......my keyboard totally did not need that shower of Pepsi.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's a lot to assume the translations are so perfect, or the transloars were so perfect so as to say.... lithos instead of petros. as lithos and petros are very similar.

but if your translations are exact and accurate, you got a better argument.

Edited September 18, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1387744' date='Sep 18 2007, 09:30 AM']it's a lot to assume the translations are so perfect, or the transloars were so perfect so as to say.... lithos instead of petros. as lithos and petros are very similar.[/quote]

Which is why, as I said, we are glad we do not need to look back on a 2000 piece of paper and try to understand it and pull whatever theory out we want. The patristic commentary about this passage and the concept of Peter as the rock of the church is universal and abundant.

Here is 50 before the year 700. (I had them individually quoted, but there is a quote limit)

[quote]“Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the church should be built,' who also obtained 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven...'” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200).

“And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail...” Origen, Commentary on John, 5:3 (A.D. 232).

“By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established.” Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 9 (ante A.D. 235).

“'...thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church' ... It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness...If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?” Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 (A.D. 251).

“...folly of (Pope) Stephen, that he who boasts of the place of the episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundation of the Church were laid...” Firmilian, Epistle To Cyprian, Epistle 75(74):17(A.D. 256).

“...Peter, that strongest and greatest of all the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others...” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2:14 (A.D. 325).

“And Peter,on whom the Church of Christ is built, 'against which the gates of hell shall not prevail'” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:25 (A.D. 325).

“...the chief of the disciples...the Lord accepted him, set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the church.” Aphraates, De Paenitentibus Homily 7:15 (A.D. 337).

“Peter, the foremost of the Apostles, and Chief Herald of the Church...” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,1 1:3 (A.D. 350).

“[B]lessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys of the kingdom...” Hilary de Poiters, On the Trinity, 6:20(A.D. 359).

“[F]or the good of unity blessed Peter, for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardon only, deserved to be placed before all the apostles, and alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to be communicated to the rest.” Optatus of Milevis, De Schismate Donatistorum, 7:3(A.D. 370).

“[T]he Lord spoke to Peter a little earlier; he spoke to one, that from one he might found unity, soon delivering the same to all.” Pacian, To Sympronianus, Epistle 3:2 (AD 372).

"Simon, My follower, I have made you the foundation of the Holy Church. I betimes called you Peter (Kepha), because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me...I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, have given you authority over all my treasures." Ephraim, Homily 4:1, (A.D. 373).

“[T]he first of the apostles, the solid rock on which the Church was built.” Epiphanius, In Ancorato, 9:6 (A.D. 374).

“Peter upon which rock the Lord promised that he would build his church.” Basil, In Isaias, 2:66 (A.D. 375).

“As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!” Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15 (A.D. 375).

“Seest thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were exalted and deserving of choice, one is called rock, and is entrusted with the foundations of the church.” Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 32:18 (A.D. 380).

“[W]e have considered that it ought be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it..."...The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither the stain nor blemish nor anything like it.” Pope Damasus, Decree of Damasus, 3 (A.D. 382).

”It was right indeed that he (Paul) should be anxious to see Peter; for he was the first among the apostles, and was entrusted by the Savior with the care of the churches.” Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Galatians, PL 17:344 (A.D. 384).

"Peter bore the person of the church.” Augustine, Sermon 149:7 (inter A.D. 391-430).

“Number the priests even from that seat of Peter. And in that order of fathers see to whom succeeded: that is the rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer.” Augustine, Psalmus contro Partem Donati (A.D. 393).

“But you say, the Church was rounded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one (Peter) among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism.” Jerome, Against Jovinianus, 1 (A.D. 393).

“The memory of Peter, who is the head of the apostles...he is the firm and most solid rock, on which the savior built his Church.” Gregory of Nyssa, Panegyric on St. Stephen, 3 (ante A.D. 394).

“Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church,” Wherefore where Peter is the Church is...” Ambrose, Commentary on the Psalms, 40:30 (AD 395).

“At length, after being tempted by the devil, Peter is set over the Church.” Ambrose, Commentary on the Psalms, 43:40 (AD 397).

“In order that he may show his power, God has endowed none of his disciples with gifts like Peter. But, having raised him with heavenly gifts, he has set him above all. And, as first disciple and greater among the brethren, he has shown, by the test of deeds, the power of the Spirit. The first to be called, he followed at once...The Saviour confided to this man, as some special trust, the whole universal Church, after having asked him three times 'Lovest thou me?' And he receive the world in charge...” Asterius, Homily 8 (A.D. 400).

"(Peter) The first of the Apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of disciples." John Chrysostom, Ad eos qui scandalizati 17(ante A.D. 407).

“Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received revelation not from man but from the Father...this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean that unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey.” John Chrysostom, De Eleemosyna, 3:4 (ante A.D. 407).

“This Peter on whom Christ freely bestowed a sharing in his name. For just as Christ is the rock, as the Apostle Paul taught, so through Christ Peter is made rock, when the Lord says to him: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church...” Maximus of Turin, Homily 63 (A.D. 408).

“...the most firm rock, who (Peter) from the principal Rock received a share of his virtue and his name.” Prosper of Aquitaine, The Call of All Nations, 2:28(A.D. 426).

“He promises to found the church, assigning immovableness to it, as He is the Lord of strength, and over this he sets Peter as shepherd.” Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Matthew (A.D. 428).

“[B]ut that great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the authority in faith and priesthood. Tell us therefore, tell us we beg of you, Peter, prince of the Apostles, tell us how the churches must believe in God.” John Cassian, Contra Nestorium, 3:12 (A.D. 430).

“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 faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior 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, lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place...” Philip, Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431).

“[B]lessed Peter preserving in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he under took...And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his See...to him whom they know to be not only the patron of this See, but also primate of all bishops. When therefore...believe that he is speaking whose representative we are:..” Pope Leo the Great, Sermon 3:3-4 (A.D. 442).

“We exhort you, honourable brother, to submit yourself in all things to what has been written by the blessed Bishop of Rome, because St. Peter, who lives and presides in his see, gives the true faith to those who seek it. For our part, for the sake of peace and the good of the faith, we cannot judge questions of doctrine without the consent of the Bishop of Rome.” Peter Chrysologus, Epistle 25 of Leo from Peter (A.D. 449).

“If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Ghost, hastened to the great Peter in order that he might carry from him the desired solution of difficulties to those at Antioch who were in doubt about living in conformity with the law, much more do we, men insignificant and small, hasten to your apostolic see in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the churches. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many privileges.” Theodoret of Cyrus, To Pope Leo, Epistle 113 (A.D. 449).

“[T]he Lord wished to be indeed the concern of all the Apostles: and from him as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body: so that any one who dares to secede from Peter's solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery.” Pope Leo the Great, To Bishops of Vienne, Epistle 10 (A.D. 450).

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith...” Council of Chalcedon, Session III (A.D. 451).

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. 'Peter, the apostle, who is the rock and support of the Catholic Church.'” Paschasinus, Council of Chalcedon, Session III (A.D. 451).

“Peter is again called 'the coryphaeus of the Apostles.’” Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25 (ante A.D. 468).

“The holy Roman Church is senior to the other churches not by virtue of any synodal decrees, but obtained the primacy from Our Lord and Savior in the words of the Gospel, 'Thou art Peter...'” Pope Gelasius, Decree of Gelasium (A.D. 492).

“[T]he statement of Our Lord Jesus Christ who said, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,'...These (words) which were spoken, are proved by the effects of the deeds, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved without stain.'” Pope Hormisdas, Libellus professionis fidei, (A.D. 519).

“To Peter, that is, to his church, he gave the power of retaining and forgiving sins on earth.” Fulgentius, De Remissione Peccatorum, 2:20 (A.D. 523).

“Who could be ignorant of the fact that the holy church is consolidated in the solidity of the prince of the Apostles, whose firmness of character extended to his name so that he should be called Peter after the 'rock', when the voice of the Truth says, 'I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven'. To him again is said "When after a little while thou hast come back to me, it is for thee to be the support of thy brethren.” Pope Gregory the Great, Epistle 40 (A.D. 604).

“The decrees of the Roman Pontiff, standing upon the supremacy of the Apostolic See, are unquestionable.” Isidore of Seville, (ante A.D. 636).

“For the extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of our fathers, according to what the six inspired and holy Councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the Incarnate Word among us, all the churches in every part of the world have possessed that greatest church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it possesses the Keys of right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High.” Maximus the Confessor, Opuscula theologica et polemica (A.D. 650).

“Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord...the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced...” Pope Agatho, To Ecumenical Council VI at Constantinople, (A.D. 680).

"A copy of the letter sent by the holy and Ecumenical Sixth Council to Agatho, the most blessed and most holy pope of Old Rome…Therefore to thee, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the most pious emperor: and we acknowledge that this letter was divinely written (perscriptas) as by the Chief of the Apostles, and through it we have cast out the heretical sect of many errors which had recently sprung up..” Constantinople III, Council to Pope Agatho, (A.D. 680).

“For, although the devil desired to sift all the disciples, the Lord testifies that He Himself asked for Peter alone, and wished that the others be confirmed my him; and to Peter also was committed the care of 'feeding the sheep'(John 21:15);and to him also did the Lord hand over the 'keys of the kingdom of heaven'(Matthew 16:19),and upon him did He promise to 'build His Church' (Matthew 16:18);and He testified that 'the gates of Hell would not prevail against it' (Matthew 16:19).” Pope Pelagius II, Quod Ad Dilectionem (c. A.D. 685).

“'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven'? When Wilfrid spoken thus, the king said, 'It is true, Colman, that these words were spoken to Peter by our Lord?' He answered, 'It is true O king!' Then says he, 'Can you show any such power given to your Columba?' Colman answered, 'None.' Then added the king, "Do you both agree that these words were principally directed to Peter, and that the keys of heaven were given to him by our Lord?' They both answered, 'We do.'” Venerable Bede, (A.D. 700), Ecclesiastical History, 3:5 (A.D. 700).[/quote]






East and west. Regardless of what new theory you can develop from your own bias and modern literary criticism you need to reconcile the over-abundant and universal testimony of the early church. Which does not ever mention your theory, but declares that peter is the rock. (Yes, there is more than this)

[dairygirl4u2c]

good call rev. what they thought is indicative. i think it's clear that peter was the rock.

i'm not convinced obviously yet, as to what that indicates. (i don't think you are either right, cause you're like coptic aren't you? a variation of catholic but you cal yourself that? id be more inclined to believe a variation of the papacy where the pope is not infallible)

[N/A Gone]

Im not what? You lost me./

We could discuss the implications of that rock, in the eccesiological sense if you want.

Are you calling me Coptic? I am confused. Could you shed a lil more light on that Dairygirl.

I have a feeling we could have a good talk about infallability also, but in its own time and place.