Zone1 Any Christians intersted in a Biblical argument that God/Jesus is THE rock and not Peter?

[Meriweather]

Mary and Peter were amazing, faithful, servants of Jesus. They deserve our love, respect, and admiration. We are not, however, supposed to pray to or worship them.

We have gone over this before. Do you chastise people who ask friends and family to pray for/with them? Then there is no excuse to jump on those who ask their brothers and sisters in Christ to pray for/with them.

It's as if some are desperate they are not doing all they could, and therefore must pull down those who seem to be going the extra mile. These prayers do not hurt you, and it does not hurt for you to forego certain types of prayer. Do so in peace and leave others in peace.

I provided scriptural proof that God/Jesus is THE rock and you accuse me of being angry and hating Peter.

No one is arguing that Jesus is not a rock. He was called the cornerstone, the capstone, of our faith. Jesus named Peter a rock as well. He did not say Peter was the cornerstone, or even the capstone, he said Peter was a rock--a rock, he the cornerstone and the capstone, would build his Church with. Guess what, Jesus was obviously not intending to use just one rock! He would use an assembly of them! But it does seem that when he did find his first rock, he made note of it. And, gave that first rock the keys.

Shrug, you wish to reduce the Church and to reduce Peter. If that's not anger, what is it?

 

[K9Buck]

Jesus named Peter a rock as well.

Yes, Peter was a rock but he is not the foundation of God's church. God is the foundation of God's church.

Once again, the Catholic Church removes and replaces God with another.

 

[K9Buck]

Shrug, you wish to reduce the Church and to reduce Peter. If that's not anger, what is it?

No, I just go where the scriptures take me. On the contrary, it is you who is perpetually triggered and angry.

 

[K9Buck]

Do you chastise people who ask friends and family to pray for/with them? Then there is no excuse to jump on those who ask their brothers and sisters in Christ to pray for/with them.

You are being dishonest, again. We are told to pray for one another. It's fine to ask others to pray for us or another. None of that is in dispute.

Jesus told us to pray to God the Father. He didn't tell us to pray to dead people. I'm confident that there isn't a single example of people of God ever praying to anyone except God. But, if you want to pray to Mary, Peter, Noah, Adam, etc., that's your right but it's not biblical.

 

[Meriweather]

Once again, the Catholic Church removes and replaces God with another.

How do you come up with that? You must be able to distinguish the difference between God and humans, or can't you?

 

[Meriweather]

No, I just go where the scriptures take me. On the contrary, it is you who is perpetually triggered and angry.

Grin. No, I am constantly bemused by what you pontificate. It's kind of like your comings and goings in this forum. You blow in and you blow out. Trying to understand you is all.

 

[Meriweather]

We are told to pray for one another. It's fine to ask others to pray for us or another. None of that is in dispute.

Jesus told us to pray to God the Father. He didn't tell us to pray to dead people. I'm confident that there isn't a single example of people of God ever praying to anyone except God. But, if you want to pray to Mary, Peter, Noah, Adam, etc., that's your right but it's not biblical.

This is funny! Read your first paragraph. We of the Body of Christ pray for and pray with one another. We don't eliminate anyone. Why are you giving a list of those that should be eliminated?

 

[K9Buck]

How do you come up with that? You must be able to distinguish the difference between God and humans, or can't you?

My brother, in Revelation 22, the last chapter in the Bible, we are told that there will be a throne shared by God and Jesus. There's nothing about Mary or Peter bring on a throne.

All prayer, worship, praise, and glory goes to God, although we can respect and admire Mary, Peter, and others.


Revelation 22

English Standard Version

​

The River of Life​

22 Then the angel[a] showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life[b] with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. 3 No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him. 4 They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 5 And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever.

 

[K9Buck]

Grin. No, I am constantly bemused by what you pontificate. It's kind of like your comings and goings in this forum. You blow in and you blow out. Trying to understand you is all.

I tried. Goodbye.

 

[Meriweather]

My brother, in Revelation 22, the last chapter in the Bible, we are told that there will be a throne shared by God and Jesus. There's nothing about Mary or Peter bring on a throne.

Catholics don't expect Mary, Peter, or any other saint to be on a throne.

 

[Meriweather]

I tried

Tried what? When it comes to people's faith and belief, we are entering holy ground. There is absolutely no reason to bash or denigrate the faith of others. You are on holy ground.

I am more than happy to explain Catholic beliefs, but there is no reason for me--or for anyone--to slam the beliefs of another. I include atheists in this. I am on their holy ground, and the Holy Spirit is more than capable to work with in that denomination or faith. It is not up to us to tell the Holy Spirit his business or to command him on what we think he should do. He goes where he wills, and he is much more effective that I.

You say God will accept all. If that is your belief, that God accepts all, what does criticizing Catholics do to further God's acceptance of them?

I do not hold the belief everyone will be with God. I believe there is a choice to either be with God or to remain apart from Him. Does holiness appeal to all? If it doesn't, they have a choice.

 

[HaShev]

I'm asking Christians, not Catholics, since they don't believe in the authority of the Bible.

but then read the verses Pastors use on Lucifer (Ezekiel 28)whereby Lucifer is the Prince of Tyre (the rock), Jesus was very popular in Tyre and you call him the Rock. Ezekiel 28 says The fallen one claimed a god would be deemed perfect (sinless) and deemed
the anointed (christ) cherub (guardian=Nazarei) , the only prophet ever claimed a god & perfect
and Christ(anointed) Nazarene(cherub) is Jesus, therefore only Jesus (who came first and fell to the pit) can be deemed Lucifer. That'a FACT!
[See Lucifer here etymology of "": "[ the morning star, a fallen rebel archangel, THE Devil, fr. OE. fr. Latin, the morning star, fr. Lucifer light-bearing, fr. luc light + -fer -ferous--more at LIGHT]" (Webster's, p.677)
· Revelation 22:16 I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify these things in the churches.
· I am the bright and Morning Star (lucifer)

 

[K9Buck]

There is absolutely no reason to bash or denigrate the faith of others.

Disagreeing with Catholicism does not equate to bashing and denigrating another's faith.

This is a DISCUSSION forum. Doctrinal discussion is fair game here. If such discussion is uncomfortable then perhaps you shouldn't participate.

 

[K9Buck]

but then read the verses Pastors use on Lucifer (Ezekiel 28)whereby Lucifer is the Prince of Tyre (the rock), Jesus was very popular in Tyre and you call him the Rock. Ezekiel 28 says The fallen one claimed a god would be deemed perfect (sinless) and deemed
the anointed (christ) cherub (guardian=Nazarei) , the only prophet ever claimed a god & perfect
and Christ(anointed) Nazarene(cherub) is Jesus, therefore only Jesus (who came first and fell to the pit) can be deemed Lucifer. That'a FACT!
[See Lucifer here etymology of "": "[ the morning star, a fallen rebel archangel, THE Devil, fr. OE. fr. Latin, the morning star, fr. Lucifer light-bearing, fr. luc light + -fer -ferous--more at LIGHT]" (Webster's, p.677)
· Revelation 22:16 I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify these things in the churches.
· I am the bright and Morning Star (lucifer)

This is interesting.

Mainstream Christianity teaches that Lucifer turned on God and became Satan and that Satan is working against God and that Satan will end up forever in the Lake of Fire. I don't share that view.

 

[Meriweather]

not Catholics, since they don't believe in the authority of the Bible.

Disagreeing with Catholicism does not equate to bashing and denigrating another's faith.

Let's take a look at one of your milder quotes (the first one I quoted).

That is absolutely bashing Catholicism. An example of a good discussion would be, "When Jesus said,, "...you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church..." I believe Jesus was saying...

There was no need to bring in other beliefs at all...invite people to discuss their beliefs about the passage and contrast them with the views in the OP.

The OP takes a swing at Catholicism and makes a false or ignorant claim about how Catholics view the Bible. Think about it...Isn't your preferred style to make wild and denigrating claims about what others "really" are doing and/or "really" believing?

Such a style is known as projecting one's own conclusions about another onto them. It is also used when an OP wants to put any opposition on the defensive, thinking that will give him/her an advantage. It triggers people into pursuing the lie instead of jumping into the heart of the meaning of a scripture passage.

 

[ninja007]

obv Jesus is the rock and chief cornerstone, not a sinful man.

 

[Limits Obelisque]

.

Peter perfectly understood the message of Jesus to write in Greek - 1Pe 1:

:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

:5 You also, AS LIVING STONES, - YOU ALSO - are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood

​

Roman Catholic Father - St. Augustine declared in writing called - Retratations ("Re-treatments"; 428 Ad - St. Augustine wrote

About the Apostle Peter: - "On him as on a rock the Church was built."
Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,"

that it be understood ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, For, "Thou art Peter" and not "Thou art the rock" was said to him. But "the rock was Christ," in confessing whom as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter.

St. Augustine concludes, saying - But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.

probable _ meaning = = most likely to be true or likely to happen. [vagueness] - probably


Roman Catholic Father - St. Chrysostom (349-407):

St. Chrysostom concludes, saying

“Peter, James, and John, were both first called, and held a primacy among the disciples”
(Commentary on Galatians, 1, vv. 1-3). How then is Peter alone the primary apostle?


Roman Catholic Father - St. Cyprian (200?-258):

Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.” (On the Unity of the Church, 4)


Roman Catholic Father - St. Origen (185-254)

(Commentary on Matthew, 12:10-11)

“And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart,

we become a Peter, ...... and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,

For a rock is every disciple of Christ ....... in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My church’?

Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them?

But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to the others,
how ---------- that which was addressed to Peter, is in common to them all
as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was.”

Roman Catholics do not have Scriptures for the Roman Catholic Faith System, therefore tradition is the ultimate authority,

ORAL TRADITION
Don’t you consider when that as St. Paul was writing to the church of the Thessalonians ​

Paul was commanding “”” ☞ the Thessalonians “”” to withdraw themselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

How can everything the Roman Catholic Faith System teaches as Oral - Tradition be defined in what St. Paul was commanding to the church of the Thessalonians ?

Even the very written words of the Bible that are designed for a specific group of people, a specific church or written for a culture of society can have ways in which these scriptures apply to future readers in a very different atmosphere and manner. - or not even apply to anyone else - - HOW DO CATHOLICS KNOW WHAT ST. PAUL WAS COMMANING when he wrote a single letter to the church of the Thessalonians commanding them to WITHDRAW FROM DOING SPECIFIC UNMENTIONED THINGS : DISORDERLY AND SIINFUL THINGS - then - after telling them to stop being DISORDERLY - he then writes to remind them to follow the good and proper TRADITIONS

☞ Paul is not creating a Roman Catholic institution of oral tradition

St. Paul writing to the church of the Thessalonians about the TRADITIONS that he had given to them - NOT WRITING TO ALL CHRISTIANS EVERYWHERE THROUGHOUT HISTORY for others to take it upon themselves and imagine or invent and claim spiritual inspiration and insight as to what “” TRADITIONS “” that St. Paul had given to the church of the Thessalonians as he rebuked and corrected them from sin and DISORDERLY conduct.

The Church in Rome did not exist when St. Paul had given specific TRADITIONS - SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED AND PORPOSED for - specifically - to the church of the Thessalonians. These Traditions are being mentioned because St. Paul physically went himself - to the literal church of the Thessalonians - there, to these specific people he presented a specific set of traditions appropriated for them specifically in Thessalonia concerning DISORDERLY SIN and Perversity - in this specific church

☞ . . . We have no idea what "" DISORDERLY conduct "" that was being done in the church of the Thessalonians to cause Paul to write reminding them of the specific and exact corrective traditions

- St Paul was not writing to anyone outside of the Thessalonian Church, this is not something that St Paul is explaining as something that is being intended as a Catholic ramp or runway or Catholic foundation to institute a new way that he will further the future teachings to other churches and other people for all eternity !

this is complete foolishness'

St. Paul is writing specifically , directly to people in Thessalonia - directly to the Church of the Thessalonians- - -
relating specifically and directly to the things he spoke and directed them to follow as traditions and teachings he visited upon them specifically . It just seems such foolishness to make the claim that this applies a new foundation to spiritually institute a new way that he will further all future teachings to other churches and all other people - to assume that this applies as a concept of someone taking the concept of TRADITION and making assumptions that this applies to them - when St Paul is not writing to other churches.

And did not mention what these traditions contained nor mentioned having provided these to any other church except directed to be directly to people in Thessalonia - St. Paul writing to the church of the Thessalonians - truly, how can we trust anything a Roman Catholic says ?

✒ the Catholic Faith demands that the Authors of Scripture were inspired to NOT include Roman Catholicism in the scriptures and instead the Holy Spirit inspired these Authors to STOP writing the bible and then to precede to begin making secret oral relationships with selected individuals about the Catholic Faith System - to a few selected individual Jews by word of mouth

unfortunately Roman Catholics are unable to provide any documents written by Catholics to support the Purgatory teachings until nearly 200 years after the scriptures were written - which was around 150 years after the Apostles had died.

In Fact - - Catholic Pope Peter never wrote about purgatory , nor did the Pope Linus after him nor did the any of the next 62 Popes write or document a single word in writing about Purgatory
The very first Pope to mention Purgatory in any written documentation was - Pope Gregory the Great -- 540 - 604

this is 400 - 500 years after the Apostles and Disciples had died and for 500 years after the new testament was written the first 63 Popes have not written a single word and probably most likely have said next to nothing about the oral tradition of Purgatory.

✒ The truth is it was not until a Roman Catholic named "" Jacques Le Goff " whom was the very first man to write down anything regarding anything whatsoever SUBSTANTIVE pertaining to the details defining anything whatsoever to defining the "birth of purgatory", . as the conception of purgatory - as a physical place,

a Roman Catholic named "" Jacques Le Goff who lived from 1170 - 1200, this man - produced the very first written documentation that defined purgatory - - expounding, building and adding doctrine and details upon previous thoughts written by earlier Roman Catholics

this means that Roman Catholics do not have written documentation to define or that resembles anything that is presented as what Purgatory exists as today, until 1000 years after the Scriptures were written..... the details, laws, rules, full scope and understanding of Catholic Purgatory remained ORAL TRADITION / UNWRITTEN and not written documented X CATHEDRA FROM THE CHAIR OF SAINT PETER - for over 1000 years

these are the facts, yet this reality does not present evidence that Purgatory is ungodly or wrong - these facts do not mean that Purgatory is something that was developed and invented and progressed upon for a period of 1000 years before anyone considered it important to write about the details, laws, rules, full scope and understanding of Catholic Purgatory. ↩

it just means that Purgatory was a tradition taught by word of mouth and was not being discussed by the Popes, Priests and Bishops in the Vatican as something important for them to provide any details upon for over 1000 years - - unwritten verbal hearsay

Imagine 1000 years passing with no Papal writings and written details and fundamentals about a teaching of doctrine - today we see the complete written picture, complete understanding and a clear explanation of what Catholic Purgatory means. We do not see this in written documents until over 1000 years after Jesus Christ ↩

this is the reality pertaining to Purgatory,

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

All scripture, Tradition are simply man made personal feelings and perspectives that can changed, be altered, adapted and can completely be forgotten and perverted and turned against God himself. Traditions are not intended for all mankind - but the word of God / Scripturas are forever and will not pass or be changed

Mar 7:13 The word of God can be made of none - effect through tradition ↩

Col 2:8 Man can be ruined and spoiled and destroyed by tradition ↩


in : 2Th_3:6 : - St. Paul is not defining and demanding that ORAL TRADITION be administered to anyone outside of the specific group of people from a specific location, time and purpose wherein he personally physically visited these people and presented the traditions to them. It is assumption to claim that these traditions were even mentioned to anyone else, they could have been private traditions, personal to a specific group of individuals and designed for their situation and environment –

in : 2Th 3:6 : St. Paul is not demanding that " ORAL TRADITION " has anything to do with the plan of God designed for spreading and distributing the Gospel - but St. Paul makes it clear

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Roman Catholics simply continually fail to provide any written evidence that the Catholic Faith System was taught by ORAL TRAITION from the Apostles and Disciples - whom never mentioned the Catholic Church Faith System in a single passage of written scripture but the facts and evidence shows written documentation and writings produced by the Roman Catholic as defining the Church teaching in gradual stages, progressive layers, development, argumentative theology building upon consensus and chance. Catholic Traditions are not something we find as completed, descriptivness or as full operations of the faith - as clearly laid out as descriptions in documentation and fully understandable concepts of faith

✣ ... There are no written documents by the Catholic Church Fathers in Rome at an early stage = but we see everywhere the evidence of written documentation that is being developed, treated, as vague mentions of surface theory - remaining as word of mouth gossip, hearsay and opinion of diversity , for hundreds, or, a thousand years before the complete concept and description of the teaching is committed to a written record - as it is also shown to be debated and developed in layers of conception in progressing stages of tradition defining full scope of the faith system. ↩

The Catholic Faith System we see today is not mentioned in any documentation for over 1000 years after the Scriptures were inspired - Islam developed exactly in this very same way
It was developed, progressing in layers and debate and evolution - Catholicism is the very description and definition of “””” theory of evolution “””” “ displayed in its perfect form.

 

[Limits Obelisque]

My above comment shows the absurdity in which the Roman Catholic Church lays claims to having been established by Jesus himself

my post explains in complete detail the argumentation and contradicting and disagreeing opinions held by early Catholic writers

this shows that the Catholic Faith System was being debated upon with a wide diversity of opinions, disagreements and that it was a development of theory, opinion and personal indifferences - and tradition was invented in stages and progression.

The Catholic Faith System we see today (( in its current form )) is not mentioned in any documentation for over 1000 years after the Scriptures were inspired - everything is being discussed, argued upon and progressing in layers of development.

 

[norwegen]

The Even haShetiya was the rock that served as the foundation for the temple, lying within the Dome of the Rock. Ultimately, this rock would fail Judaism, as the temple fell and the Temple Mount would eventually fall into Muslim hands.

Jesus would build an everlasting foundation with his apostles. Granted, Paul implies the messianic foundation of this new temple in 1 Corinthians 3:11, stating later that the apostles are the temple itself (3:16).

But he also stresses that the apostles are the foundation (Eph 2:20), (along with the prophets), while instead calling Jesus the cornerstone (1 Pt 2:6). Jesus even refers to himself as the cornerstone (Mt 21:42).

Without parsing words, the apostles would serve as the foundation of the church while Christ would serve as the cornerstone, or keystone, the crown that would hold the temple together.

This seems to be the gist of the passage, that a temple of living stones would have a stronger foundation than the temple of Judaism had, because it would have a stronger cornerstone.