What is God's first creation?

[SonOfCaleb]

See, here's the thing:

Petros is translated 161 times as Peter, and 1 time (one single time!) as stone.

The only time it's translated as "a stone" is in John 1:42, where it's providing a translation for Peter's name. It is never used in the figurative sense.

Petra on the other hand is used and translated 16 times as a mass of rock, either literal or figurative, literal in that it meant a projecting rock, cliff, or ledge, or a large stone, or metaphorically as a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul, which Peter had neither. In fact, if anything, Peter was a basket-case of a believer. If you pay attention to him throughout the four Gospels, you see he tried hard to be strong spiritually, but he failed in so many ways, even going so far as to deny his Master 3 times.

No, Petros was far from being a petra, and Jesus needed a petra to build His church on, not a petros.



This is an appeal to tradition, a logical fallacy.



And now you're just asserting things without supporting it.

Have you ever heard of Hitchens's Razor? It's similar to Occam's Razor, which is that the simplest explanation (ie, the one that makes the fewest assumptions) for something is usually the correct one.

Hitchens's Razor follows along the same lines:

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

You have presented no evidence (other than an appeal to tradition and a dismissal of evidence) that Peter is the rock Jesus built His church on, whereas I and SOC have presented not only the definitions of both petros and petras, and how Peter was not a very solid rock (figuratively speaking) in the first place, and now I have told you how both words are used throughout the NT.

Going back to Hitchens's Razor, then, you can't dismiss our argument as "anti-Catholic bias," because we have presented evidence that contradicts your interpretation of scripture, and using Occam's Razor, your argument assumes not only that petra and petros mean the same thing (they don't), and that Peter was a good rock to build on (he wasn't), and that any argument against your position must be anti-Catholic (ours is not), whereas our position looks at the proper meaning of the words petros and petra, it looks at Peter's stability as a whole throughout scripture, and does not appeal to tradition, but rather assumes that Scripture has authority over the church, and not vice-versa.

Idolater, the Bible says that two or three witnesses shall establish a matter.

We have provided you with the witness that Peter was not a petra in his spiritual life, the witness that petra and petros are not the same word, the witness that petros only means stone 0.6% of the time it's used, and the remaining 99.4% it's used as a name, the witness that petra means a literal mass of rock, and it means (in the figurative sense) a man who is spiritually sound (which as I said just a moment ago that Peter was not), and the witness that Scripture has authority over the church, and not the other way around, and the witness that Jesus, elsewhere in scripture, is called petra, whereas Peter is never called petra.

That's more than enough witnesses to establish that Peter was not the foundation of the church

Stellar post. But do remember to figuratively wipe your feet "brother" as Jesus said at Matthew 7:6

Do not give what is holy to dogs nor throw your pearls before swine, so that they may never trample them under their feet

 

[Idolater]

See, here's the thing:

Petros is translated 161 times as Peter, and 1 time (one single time!) as stone.

The only time it's translated as "a stone" is in John 1:42, where it's providing a translation for Peter's name. It is never used in the figurative sense.

What 'figurative sense' are you talking about.

Petra on the other hand is used and translated 16 times as a mass of rock, either literal or figurative, literal in that it meant a projecting rock, cliff, or ledge, or a large stone, or metaphorically as a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul, which Peter had neither. In fact, if anything, Peter was a basket-case of a believer. If you pay attention to him throughout the four Gospels, you see he tried hard to be strong spiritually, but he failed in so many ways, even going so far as to deny his Master 3 times.

No, Petros was far from being a petra, and Jesus needed a petra to build His church on, not a petros.

What are the 16 times. I don't remember reading 'mass of rock,' 'projecting rock,' 'cliff,' or 'ledge,' where are the 16 NT references for these 'petras.'

This is an appeal to tradition, a logical fallacy.

'Only trying to keep up with you all. And besides, it's the truth.

And now you're just asserting things without supporting it.

That's not what I did.

Imagine I'm Jesus, and you're Peter. Now I'm not just saying to you, "You are 'rock,' and upon this 'rock' I will build," I'm pointing right at you, when I say to you, "You are 'rock.'"

You all have me now pointing my finger at something else, or not pointing my finger at all.
I, and all of your spiritual ancestors (Christians who lived centuries and centuries ago) from 1000 years ago, all believe that I keep pointing my finger at you when I continue, "and upon this rock I will build."

I don't even know what you people think Christ was doing when He said Matthew 16:18 KJV, I get the impression still, that none of you can actually imagine an actual conversation occurring, it's just an impression.

Have you ever heard of Hitchens's Razor? It's similar to Occam's Razor, which is that the simplest explanation (ie, the one that makes the fewest assumptions) for something is usually the correct one.

Hitchens's Razor follows along the same lines:

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

You have presented no evidence (other than an appeal to tradition and a dismissal of evidence) that Peter is the rock Jesus built His church on

St. Peter's Square is a large plaza located directly in front of St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican City, the papal enclave inside Rome.... Both the square and the basilica are named after Saint Peter, an apostle of Jesus and the first Catholic Pope.

What do you all even think it means that Christ built His Church on Peter? All it means is that He's letting you know, so clearly it's ridiculous (he wears all white! and has a 'popemobile!' so easy to pick him out of a crowd!), who your PASTOR is---there's no mystery. It's not Tom, Dick, or Harry, it's Peter, and Peter's successor. He's your pastor. That's all Catholicism is, as contrasted with Protestant Christianity, where nobody knows if you have a pastor or not, not one you should agree with anyway, not in matters of faith and morals. Of course not. Why would Jesus want to confuse you, by plainly showing you who His authorized pastor is?

, whereas I and SOC have presented not only the definitions of both petros and petras, and how Peter was not a very solid rock (figuratively speaking) in the first place, and now I have told you how both words are used throughout the NT.

You know he's a unitarian, right? You're in agreement with a unitarian, against a Trinitarian (me). Is believing in the Trinity optional for you? That's a pretty important one in Catholicism.

Going back to Hitchens's Razor, then, you can't dismiss our argument as "anti-Catholic bias," because we have presented evidence that contradicts your interpretation of scripture, and using Occam's Razor, your argument assumes not only that petra and petros mean the same thing (they don't), and that Peter was a good rock to build on (he wasn't), and that any argument against your position must be anti-Catholic (ours is not), whereas our position looks at the proper meaning of the words petros and petra, it looks at Peter's stability as a whole throughout scripture, and does not appeal to tradition, but rather assumes that Scripture has authority over the church, and not vice-versa.

Not appealing to tradition for you means never cracking a history book apparently, is what I'm understanding you say. You're calling it a logical fallacy to know a bit of history.

Idolater, the Bible says that two or three witnesses shall establish a matter.

We have provided you with the witness that Peter was not a petra in his spiritual life, the witness that petra and petros are not the same word, the witness that petros only means stone 0.6% of the time it's used, and the remaining 99.4% it's used as a name, the witness that petra means a literal mass of rock, and it means (in the figurative sense) a man who is spiritually sound (which as I said just a moment ago that Peter was not), and the witness that Scripture has authority over the church, and not the other way around, and the witness that Jesus, elsewhere in scripture, is called petra, whereas Peter is never called petra.

That's more than enough witnesses to establish that Peter was not the foundation of the church

It's not a 'was,' it's an 'is.' Peter IS that upon which Christ built His Church. If anybody wants to know which one of all these 'churches' is Christ's actual Church, that He referred to Himself, in Matthew 16:18 KJV . . . Look For Peter, and you'll find her, the actual Church that Jesus Christ founded.

 

[Idolater]

Stellar post. But do remember to figuratively wipe your feet "brother" as Jesus said at Matthew 7:6

Why do you address him as quote-unquote "brother" instead of just brother.

 

[JudgeRightly]

What 'figurative sense' are you talking about.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=g4073

What are the 16 times. I don't remember reading 'mass of rock,' 'projecting rock,' 'cliff,' or 'ledge,' where are the 16 NT references for these 'petras.'

See the above link.

'Only trying to keep up with you all.

That you have to use fallacious arguments at all shows how weak your position is.

And besides, it's the truth.

It makes no difference, an appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy, and therefore should not be used, EVEN IF the statement made is true.

That's not what I did.

Considering that the portion of your comment the rest of my comment was in response to was the last sentence in your post, yes, that's exactly what you did.

Imagine I'm Jesus, and you're Peter. Now I'm not just saying to you, "You are 'rock,' and upon this 'rock' I will build," I'm pointing right at you, when I say to you, "You are 'rock.'"

You all have me now pointing my finger at something else, or not pointing my finger at all.
I, and all of your spiritual ancestors (Christians who lived centuries and centuries ago) from 1000 years ago, all believe that I keep pointing my finger at you when I continue, "and upon this rock I will build."

I don't even know what you people think Christ was doing when He said Matthew 16:18 KJV, I get the impression still, that none of you can actually imagine an actual conversation occurring, it's just an impression.

Of course we understand that there was an actual conversation. It's recorded (originally) in Greek right there in Matthew 16:18.

But diverting away from what is actually recorded in Matthew doesn't help your case.

I've shown you plenty of times now that Peter means a piece of rock and petra means a large (mass of) rock, yet you keep ignoring this fact.

What do you all even think it means that Christ built His Church on Peter? All it means is that He's letting you know, so clearly it's ridiculous (he wears all white! and has a 'popemobile!' so easy to pick him out of a crowd!), who your PASTOR is---there's no mystery. It's not Tom, Dick, or Harry, it's Peter, and Peter's successor. He's your pastor. That's all Catholicism is, as contrasted with Protestant Christianity, where nobody knows if you have a pastor or not, not one you should agree with anyway, not in matters of faith and morals. Of course not. Why would Jesus want to confuse you, by plainly showing you who His authorized pastor is?

You're begging the question. Another fallacious argument.

Why should I bother replying if all you're going to do is use fallacy after fallacy after fallacy?

There's a reason that there's no "pope" of the protestants. It's because we are all equal in the Body of Christ. Peter and the other eleven Apostles were the leaders of the church of believers in Israel, and Jesus promised them each a throne to rule on over their respective tribes in the Kingdom.

Contrast that with Paul, who says that every member of the BoC has a purpose (1 Corinthians 12) but that Christ is the head of the body (Colossians 1).

The Papacy is man's attempt at placing himself as the head of the church.

You know he's a unitarian, right? You're in agreement with a unitarian, against a Trinitarian (me).

Poisoning the well and non-sequitur. Two more fallacies.

His being unitarian NOR your and my being trinitarian has no relevance to the topic at hand, which is on who is the foundation of the church, Christ or Peter.

Is believing in the Trinity optional for you? That's a pretty important one in Catholicism.

... And has no bearing on the topic of this conversation. Please don't bring it up again unless the topic moves to the Trinity.

Not appealing to tradition for you means never cracking a history book apparently, is what I'm understanding you say. You're calling it a logical fallacy to know a bit of history.

You're arguing that the history of the church claiming to have been founded on Peter makes your argument correct. It doesn't. It just means you're appealing to tradition.

Spoiler

Appeal to tradition (also known as argumentum ad antiquitatem,[1] appeal to antiquity, or appeal to common practice) is an argument in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it is correlated with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way."[2]

An appeal to tradition essentially makes two assumptions that are not necessarily true:

The old way of thinking was proven correct when introduced, i.e. since the old way of thinking was prevalent, it was necessarily correct.

In reality, this may be false—the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds.

The past justifications for the tradition are still valid at present.

In reality, the circumstances may have changed; this assumption may also therefore be untrue.

An appeal to tradition is only a fallacious argument in itself if the argument is not developed further, for example by pointing out that the widespread acceptance of the practice means that there would be significant implications/disruption/cost involved in abandoning the tradition.

For example, arguing that the QWERTY keyboard layout should be retained "because it is traditional" would be fallacious unless the further argument is made that, being traditional, QWERTY is familiar to most current keyboard users who would need retraining if any change were made.

-Wikipedia, "appeal to tradition"

It's not a 'was,' it's an 'is.'

Peter IS NOT the foundation of the church, because of the reasons I have given. Jesus is. I can certainly show you using scripture why Jesus is petra and not Peter, who is Petros.

The one place Peter (Cephas) is called a stone is in John 1:24, and only because his name means "a stone."

However, Jesus, multiple times in the NT, is called rock, petra, and He refers to Himself (through parables as a reverse metaphor (Matthew 7, Luke 6) as petra. Paul calls Him a stumbling block and a petra of offence (Romans 9), and "Christ the Petra" (1 Corinthians 10), and EVEN PETER HIMSELF calls Jesus a petra of offence.

You could argue (though it wouldn't be a very strong argument) that the immediate context has Jesus speaking directly to Peter, and therefore Peter is the petra which Christ would build His church on.

But in doing so, you would have to ignore the context of the ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT, which has Cephas as petros, and JESUS as petra.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Why do you address him as quote-unquote "brother" instead of just brother.

Because he's (indirectly) referencing a verse in the Bible.

 

[Idolater]

You could argue (though it wouldn't be a very strong argument) that the immediate context has Jesus speaking directly to Peter, and therefore Peter is the petra which Christ would build His church on.

I could and I do. It's what I meant in saying what I said before, 'It's the most natural, plainest reading of the verse.'

And that all by itself isn't sufficient proof---understood. Which is why my next step is not to plumb the other scriptures, although there's nothing wrong in doing that, and ought to be done by any student of the Word, but to examine history, to see what the earliest Church believed and taught concerning the verse, if anything.

And all history testifies to the Church from the beginning taking Peter as her supreme pastor, and his successors. Did you know that the Gospel of John was written after Peter died, and that therefore it was actually St. Linus who was sitting in Peter's chair at the time, and what did John do, in his Gospel, among a wide variety of other differences between John and Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but he emphasized Peter's position, especially in the account in chapter 21, when Jesus actually gave Peter his post-Resurrection commission: "Feed My sheep" x 3!

But in doing so, you would have to ignore the context of the ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT, which has Cephas as petros, and JESUS as petra.

The reason I reject your conclusion, is because it defies 'the most natural, plainest reading of the verse.'

 

[Idolater]

Because he's (indirectly) referencing a verse in the Bible.

Ah.

ty

 

[Idolater]

And another thing:

There's a reason that there's no "pope" of the protestants. It's because we are all equal in the Body of Christ. Peter and the other eleven Apostles were the leaders of the church of believers in Israel, and Jesus promised them each a throne to rule on over their respective tribes in the Kingdom.

Contrast that with Paul, who says that every member of the BoC has a purpose (1 Corinthians 12) but that Christ is the head of the body (Colossians 1).

Then contrast that notion further with Paul actually consecrating bishops like Timothy and Titus, who are just two named bishops of the first Church, bishops being one of the named layers of Church hierarchy, that's littered throughout the NT epistles, including also deacons. Protestants who deny Church hierarchy are plugging their ears and covering their eyes to the scriptures, and what they testify to, concerning the earliest Church, and her hierarchy of pastors.

There are authorized pastors, and they are created through the imposition of hands, by authorized pastors; the sacrament of Holy Orders. The Apostles themselves, including Paul, created the first non-Apostle pastors, such as Timothy and Titus.

The Papacy is man's attempt at placing himself as the head of the church.

The Papacy is Christ's gift to His Bride, a permanent authorized office of supreme pastorship over her.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I could and I do. It's what I meant in saying what I said before, 'It's the most natural, plainest reading of the verse.'

And that all by itself isn't sufficient proof---understood. Which is why my next step is not to plumb the other scriptures, although there's nothing wrong in doing that, and ought to be done by any student of the Word, but to examine history, to see what the earliest Church believed and taught concerning the verse, if anything.

And all history testifies to the Church from the beginning taking Peter as her supreme pastor, and his successors. Did you know that the Gospel of John was written after Peter died, and that therefore it was actually St. Linus who was sitting in Peter's chair at the time, and what did John do, in his Gospel, among a wide variety of other differences between John and Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but he emphasized Peter's position, especially in the account in chapter 21, when Jesus actually gave Peter his post-Resurrection commission: "Feed My sheep" x 3!
The reason I reject your conclusion, is because it defies 'the most natural, plainest reading of the verse.'

And another thing:
Then contrast that notion further with Paul actually consecrating bishops like Timothy and Titus, who are just two named bishops of the first Church, bishops being one of the named layers of Church hierarchy, that's littered throughout the NT epistles, including also deacons. Protestants who deny Church hierarchy are plugging their ears and covering their eyes to the scriptures, and what they testify to, concerning the earliest Church, and her hierarchy of pastors.

There are authorized pastors, and they are created through the imposition of hands, by authorized pastors; the sacrament of Holy Orders. The Apostles themselves, including Paul, created the first non-Apostle pastors, such as Timothy and Titus.
The Papacy is Christ's gift to His Bride, a permanent authorized office of supreme pastorship over her.

I could and I do. It's what I meant in saying what I said before, 'It's the most natural, plainest reading of the verse.'

Except it's not, for a number of reasons.

Let's look at it, just the english translation.

[JESUS]And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.[/JESUS] - Matthew 16:18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew16:18&version=NKJV

If Jesus had meant He would build His church on Peter, why did He say "on this rock" instead of "on you" or "on that rock"?

"This" and "that" are relative terms. If I have two rocks, and I have one in my hand, and you're holding the other and standing in front of me, I can say "That rock is in your hand, and this rock is in my hand."

Jesus said "You are Petros, and upon this rock." Not "You are Petros, and upon you/that rock."

If Jesus had said that latter, it could be understood as "You are rock, and upon that rock I will build..."

But He didn't. He said "this rock." Peter (aside from his name) was far from being a rock (or, "petra") in his spiritual life.

In addition, and I've said this so many times already, petros means a piece of rock. Petra means a large or a mass of rock. Petros is NOT petra. A piece of rock is not a mass of rock. Jesus didn't call Peter petra. He called him petros, and then said He would build His church on petra, a mass of rock.

And that all by itself isn't sufficient proof---understood.

Exactly. If the simplest understanding of something is not clear when you read it, then delve deeper.

Which is why my next step is not to plumb the other scriptures, although there's nothing wrong in doing that, and ought to be done by any student of the Word, but to examine history, to see what the earliest Church believed and taught concerning the verse, if anything.

So instead of examining scripture to determine what scripture says, instead of delving deeper into scripture, you go to church history?

If I haven't said it before plainly, I will now.

You value tradition over what scripture says. that's why you insist that Peter is the rock Jesus built His church on, and for no other reason than that.

That is a VERY DANGEROUS position to have.

And all history testifies to the Church from the beginning taking Peter as her supreme pastor, and his successors.

And what if that testimony is wrong? Hmm? If the "Church" got it wrong, and never realized their mistake, would that mean that their interpretation is correct?

This is why you don't appeal to tradition, because that tradition might be wrong.

Did you know that the Gospel of John was written after Peter died, and that therefore it was actually St. Linus who was sitting in Peter's chair at the time, and what did John do, in his Gospel, among a wide variety of other differences between John and Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but he emphasized Peter's position, especially in the account in chapter 21, when Jesus actually gave Peter his post-Resurrection commission: "Feed My sheep" x 3!

So recording the details of the events that had transpired had nothing to do with John recording Jesus restoring Peter, considering everything that Peter had just gone through (Jesus telling Peter he would deny Him three times, and then him actually doing it and immediately realizing it, and then watching his Master be crucified)? Peter was a basket case at that point, and might I say he was a broken man.

So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, [JESUS]“Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?”[/JESUS] He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, [JESUS]“Feed My lambs.”[/JESUS]He said to him again a second time, [JESUS]“Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?”[/JESUS] He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, [JESUS]“Tend My sheep.”[/JESUS]He said to him the third time, [JESUS]“Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?”[/JESUS] Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, [JESUS]“Do you love Me?”[/JESUS] And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, [JESUS]“Feed My sheep.Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.”[/JESUS]This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, [JESUS]“Follow Me.”[/JESUS] - John 21:15-19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John21:15-19&version=NKJV

If you weren't aware of the greek words being used in this passage, You should do a study on it, because, as has been said before, there are multiple words for love, and two of them are used in this passage.

The reason I reject your conclusion, is because it defies 'the most natural, plainest reading of the verse.'

Except it doesn't, because, as you said, your appeal to what tradition says is not proof that tradition is correct.

The "simplest and most plain reading" of scripture is when you look at scripture and see what it ACTUALLY SAYS, instead of relying on what tradition says that it means.

Scripture says, if you've read it, that Peter was far from being a petra in his faith (hence Jesus restoring Peter in John 21).

Scripture says, if you've read it, that Jesus was not just a petra, but a petra that houses are built upon, won't collapse when storms come, because they are built on a solid foundation. He's a stumbling stone and petra of offence. He's the spiritual Petra that the Israelite patriarchs drank from. He is the chief cornerstone. Even Peter himself says Jesus is petra in the very next verse.

And another thing:
Then contrast that notion further with Paul actually consecrating bishops like Timothy and Titus, who are just two named bishops of the first Church, bishops being one of the named layers of Church hierarchy, that's littered throughout the NT epistles, including also deacons. Protestants who deny Church hierarchy are plugging their ears and covering their eyes to the scriptures, and what they testify to, concerning the earliest Church, and her hierarchy of pastors.

There is nothing wrong with bishops.

They don't claim to be the head of the church.

The POPE, however, does, trying to take Christ's place at the head.

There are authorized pastors, and they are created through the imposition of hands, by authorized pastors; the sacrament of Holy Orders. The Apostles themselves, including Paul, created the first non-Apostle pastors, such as Timothy and Titus.

Again, my issue is not with the positions that teach, lead, and guide Christ's flock, it's with the one person and his office who claims to be the head of Christ's flock, when, as Paul says, CHRIST is the HEAD.

The Papacy is Christ's gift to His Bride, a permanent authorized office of supreme pastorship over her.

... According to... what? Tradition?

Please, provide scripture that places Peter over the twelve, and over Paul, and over the entire church, that resolves the twelve's bickering over who among them was the greatest literally only two chapters after Matthew 16:18. You know what Jesus' answer to them was? It wasn't, "Peter is the greatest, because hes the one I'm going to build My church on." No. Here's what happened:

At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them,and said, [JESUS]“Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.[/JESUS] - Matthew 18:1-5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew18:1-5&version=NKJV

 

[Danoh]

Of course, one aspect to all this regarding the passage in question is that regardless of what the passage might or might not actually be referring to, it is nevertheless with regard to the Believing Remnant of Israel as an assembly, or church of God.

That right there is able to help allow a finer discernment of what the passage is actually referring to.

So there is that.

Another key (closely related to that one) also worth considering is the doctrine He mentions there, at the very end of the passage.

Matthew 16:18 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.

Scripture has much light to shed on both these keys, that in turn, help in the proper discernment of what the passage is actually referring to.

Just a matter of asking oneself 'what am I not considering, that I might do well to?'

Of which there is much, in Scripture.

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

For "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" - Isaiah 8:20.

 

[Idolater]

Of course, one aspect to all this regarding the passage in question is that regardless of what the passage might or might not actually be referring to, it is nevertheless with regard to the Believing Remnant of Israel as an assembly, or church of God.

That right there is able to help allow a finer discernment of what the passage is actually referring to.

So there is that.

Another key (closely related to that one) also worth considering is the doctrine He mentions there, at the very end of the passage.

Matthew 16:18 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.

Scripture has much light to shed on both these keys, that in turn, help in the proper discernment of what the passage is actually referring to.

Just a matter of asking oneself 'what am I not considering, that I might do well to?'

Of which there is much, in Scripture.

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

For "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" - Isaiah 8:20.

In the interest of not further derailing AB's thread, I've said what I had to say to you.

Take it up elsewhere on here.

Perhaps on this thread herein below, where I had mentioned to you, your failure in your attempt to prove what is actually a Doctrine based on far more than merely a passage of Scripture or two but that you have greatly mis-fired in, in your attempting to prove your error valid via your parsing, and a poor parsing at that, of just two words in one passage alone.

[This thread.]

I'll not be responding any further to you, on your obvious mis-fire over there, on this thread over here in the Politics forum.

Here is what I wrote:

I postulated that there exists a movement of Christians today who are doing 'church' exactly the way Jesus wants them to. My finding is Catholic. Here are the several examples of exceptions: One of the Orthodox churches (they aren't all one body, they're in communion with each other, but they are each independent organizations), or all the Orthodox churches (one or the other, not both), or Protestantism in some form.

That is all. By Protestantism I mean rejection of Rome as pastoral headquarters, and the popes....

If you believe that I've missed an example of an exception to my finding, then please do submit your thoughts.

 

[Danoh]

Your "doing church as Jesus wants them to" is as flawed as your assertions about who the rock in Matthew 16:18 is, and for the same reason.

For the "doing church as Jesus wants them to" would follow the Apostle of the Uncircumcision (the Gentiles): The Apostle Paul, not the Apostle of the Circumcision (Israel): the Apostle Peter.

Which is a conclusion born, not out of your erroneous comparing of any groups out there, rather, of these two in Scripture itself, that I have just mentioned.

You might as well be a Muslim comparing different forms of Islam for which might appeal to you as the one "doing Islam as Muhammad wants them to."

You have failed at the practice of the question I proposed asking.

Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[Idolater]

Your "doing church as Jesus wants them to" is as flawed as your assertions about who the rock in Matthew 16:18 is, and for the same reason.

For the "doing church as Jesus wants them to" would follow the Apostle of the Uncircumcision (the Gentiles): The Apostle Paul, not the Apostle of the Circumcision (Israel): the Apostle Peter.

Which is a conclusion born, not out of your erroneous comparing of any groups, other than these two in Scripture itself, that I have just mentioned.

You might as well be a Muslim comparing different forms of Islam for which might appeal to you as the one "doing Islam as Muhammad wants them two."

You have failed at the practice of the question I proposed asking.

Rom. 5:6-8.

You're basically non-responsive here Danoh. All I can gather from your vague critiques are that you're butthurt about me not coming to the conclusion that Dispensationalism is more Christian than Catholicism is.

Holy Catholicism = Christianity^TM. Authorized Christianity. The Christianity from Matthew 16:18 KJV, and Ephesians 4:5 KJV. The Body of Christ. The One Church.

 

[Right Divider]

You're basically non-responsive here Danoh. All I can gather from your vague critiques are that you're butthurt about me not coming to the conclusion that Dispensationalism is more Christian than Catholicism is.

Holy Catholicism = Christianity^TM. Authorized Christianity. The Christianity from Matthew 16:18 KJV, and Ephesians 4:5 KJV. The Body of Christ. The One Church.

You choose your user name correctly.

 

[Idolater]

You choose your user name correctly.

I wish you all the copies of the Catholic Bible, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that your bookshelves can fit, RD. Blessings.

 

[Danoh]

I wish you all the copies of the Catholic Bible, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that your bookshelves can fit, RD. Blessings.

Likewise.

:chuckle:

Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[Idolater]

Likewise.

:chuckle:

Rom. 5:6-8.

tyvm

 

[Right Divider]

I wish you all the copies of the Catholic Bible, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that your bookshelves can fit, RD. Blessings.

I'll stick with God's Word.... the real Bible and not that RCC propaganda.

 

[Idolater]

I'll stick with God's Word.... the real Bible and not that RCC propaganda.

The Bible has 73 books in it, but non-Catholic Bibles only have 66.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The Bible has 73 books in it, but non-Catholic Bibles only have 66.

The RCC added books.

Paul says the oracles of God were committed to the Jews. The extra books are not part of the Old Testament, because the Jews did not include them in their scriptures.