Was Peter the Rock of the Church?
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#46 Jul 12, 2013
I just love the COMEDY of these inbred WV troll socks, with their mangy dog and pony freak show.

“My name is Trunks...”

Since: Jun 10

the alternate future

#48 Jul 13, 2013
Yep, that's how it works around here.
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#49 Jul 13, 2013
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>, Aramaic was the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke. It was the common language of the place."
"most of the New Testament was written in Greek, but not all. Many hold that Matthew was written in Aramaic—we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea—but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek."
"We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross,‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means,‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’
"What’s more," I said, "in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).
"And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra.(It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this:‘You are Kepha, and on thiskepha I will build my Church.’
"When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way:‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock."
Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church.... I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peter-the-rock
Do you see where you quoted from? CATHOLIC. I dont think we can trust their authority when it comes to this.

Why would Jesus build his church upon someone he called Satan and that he said would deny him three times (and Peter continued to do this even though he had been told beforehand). This is the rock that Jesus would build his "eternal" church? Someone that he called an adversary and that denied him three times? Honest question lol

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#50 Jul 13, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you see where you quoted from? CATHOLIC. I dont think we can trust their authority when it comes to this.
Why would Jesus build his church upon someone he called Satan and that he said would deny him three times (and Peter continued to do this even though he had been told beforehand). This is the rock that Jesus would build his "eternal" church? Someone that he called an adversary and that denied him three times? Honest question lol
Jesus certainly knew that Peter was not perfect.
It certainly was not perfection in Peter that Jesus sought.

Take a look at Luke 22:32: "Simon, Simon, behold,
Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail;
and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." How does Jesus acknowledge Peter’s supremacy in this statement?

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#51 Jul 13, 2013
P.S.
It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#53 Jul 13, 2013
In other words, Catholics, American Catholics, are in the lead for voting against God!
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>IMO it is because I am a Catholic and American Catholics are in the lead in voting for SSM as well as supporting the equal rights of others in other ways.
IMO some fundies desire a theocracy of some sort and for sure Catholics do not........
:)
So, it really is political, even though some posters try to make it appear as though it is just about differences in beliefs.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#54 Jul 13, 2013
I always wondered why you were here! Now I know....lol
-The Star Reborn- wrote:
I just love the COMEDY of these inbred WV troll socks, with their mangy dog and pony freak show.

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#55 Jul 13, 2013
Chelsee11 wrote:
In other words, Catholics, American Catholics, are in the lead for voting against God!
<quoted text>
Since God created us to be who/what we are, why wouldn't God wish for all to have the same chance of marriage and happiness with the person they love?
I am speaking of consenting adults, btw, Chelsee, so don't go off on a tangent about children and animals or relatives or bigamy.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#56 Jul 13, 2013
Because to God homosexuality is an abomination......look it up.....Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:27. God does not lie! Not EVERYTHING a person does or is is of God.......satan does play THE role in lies, deceit, etc.....especially making one believe he is not real AND making one believe God made them " that " way!

I AM ONLY speaking of adults....consenting.......eve n though, it is still an abomination to God. Now Nettie, why, with this topic, would I go on about children, animals, etc......what a stupid comment!
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>Since God created us to be who/what we are, why wouldn't God wish for all to have the same chance of marriage and happiness with the person they love?
I am speaking of consenting adults, btw, Chelsee, so don't go off on a tangent about children and animals or relatives or bigamy.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#57 Jul 13, 2013
BTW, God DID NOT say it was ok if they were consenting adults! Ever read.....I mean REALLY read Gods Word?

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#58 Jul 13, 2013
Chelsee11 wrote:
Because to God homosexuality is an abomination......look it up.....Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:27. God does not lie! Not EVERYTHING a person does or is is of God.......satan does play THE role in lies, deceit, etc.....especially making one believe he is not real AND making one believe God made them " that " way!
I AM ONLY speaking of adults....consenting.......eve n though, it is still an abomination to God. Now Nettie, why, with this topic, would I go on about children, animals, etc......what a stupid comment!
<quoted text>
* Rabbi Jacob Milgrom says that, YES, the Bible prohibits homosexual behavior. However, only in the land of Israel and only for males, and, possibly, only in certain interfamily relationships.

* Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill believes that the so-called "homosexual" act in the Bible that is prohibited is actually an act of HETEROSEXUAL SUBSTITUTION of a male in place of a female by a heterosexual male, and, possibly, may even need to be done in an idolatrous worship scenario.

Rabbi Steinberg-Caudill posits that even if Moses taught that God did command against homosexuality in the Torah (which Rabbi Steinberg-Caudill does not believe that God did), that command, like other commandments that Moses claimed as God given Torah commands, such as the command to kill the "stubborn and rebellious" son (Deuteronomy 21: 18-21), the rabbis negated totally a century after the beginning of the Christian era. The Talmudic rabbis declared that God did not say such a command through Moses. Similarly, any vestige of a supposed Torah prohibition against homosexuality also would need to be negated for this new day and age.
http://home.earthlink.net/~ecorebbe/id18.html

The foremost modern authority on the Book of Leviticus is Rabbi Jacob Milgrom.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#59 Jul 14, 2013
That is the biggest crock!

Roma s 1:26 -27" For this reason God gave them up to vile passions ( homosexuality). For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature."
27: Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

The Bible says about homosexuality, It IS an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with a woman, OR a woman to lie with a woman as with a man.

Tell me, Nettie.......where does the interpretation YOU gave even come close to the truth of the Holy Bible? Here, what you said, you are taking the word of man and not of God!

NOWHERE does it say this ONLY pertains to men of Israel! Romans 1:18-32 is Gods Wrath on Unrighteousness. And , according to God, it is an abomination for both men & women!

You state the " foremost modern authority on the book of Leviticus is Rabbi Jacob Milgrom......true, BUT the WHOLE AUTHORITY of the Bible belongs to God. Who do you listen to? It seems any man that you find agrees with YOUR interpretation for what you want the Bible to mean! This is an observation but one I'm sure many will agree with if they see this.
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>* Rabbi Jacob Milgrom says that, YES, the Bible prohibits homosexual behavior. However, only in the land of Israel and only for males, and, possibly, only in certain interfamily relationships.
* Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill believes that the so-called "homosexual" act in the Bible that is prohibited is actually an act of HETEROSEXUAL SUBSTITUTION of a male in place of a female by a heterosexual male, and, possibly, may even need to be done in an idolatrous worship scenario.
Rabbi Steinberg-Caudill posits that even if Moses taught that God did command against homosexuality in the Torah (which Rabbi Steinberg-Caudill does not believe that God did), that command, like other commandments that Moses claimed as God given Torah commands, such as the command to kill the "stubborn and rebellious" son (Deuteronomy 21: 18-21), the rabbis negated totally a century after the beginning of the Christian era. The Talmudic rabbis declared that God did not say such a command through Moses. Similarly, any vestige of a supposed Torah prohibition against homosexuality also would need to be negated for this new day and age.
http://home.earthlink.net/~ecorebbe/id18.html
The foremost modern authority on the Book of Leviticus is Rabbi Jacob Milgrom.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#60 Jul 14, 2013
* Romans* sorry, didn't hit keys hard enough......

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#61 Jul 14, 2013
Chelsee11 wrote:
That is the biggest crock!
Roma s 1:26 -27" For this reason God gave them up to vile passions ( homosexuality). For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature."
27: Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
The Bible says about homosexuality, It IS an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with a woman, OR a woman to lie with a woman as with a man.
Tell me, Nettie.......where does the interpretation YOU gave even come close to the truth of the Holy Bible? Here, what you said, you are taking the word of man and not of God!
NOWHERE does it say this ONLY pertains to men of Israel! Romans 1:18-32 is Gods Wrath on Unrighteousness. And , according to God, it is an abomination for both men & women!
You state the " foremost modern authority on the book of Leviticus is Rabbi Jacob Milgrom......true, BUT the WHOLE AUTHORITY of the Bible belongs to God. Who do you listen to? It seems any man that you find agrees with YOUR interpretation for what you want the Bible to mean! This is an observation but one I'm sure many will agree with if they see this.
<quoted text>
The word homosexual did not appear in the Bible until 1946.

You really need to expand your research.

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#62 Jul 14, 2013
To whom was the book of Leviticus written?
The book was written to the priests, Levites and the people of Israel for generations to come.
Chelsee11 wrote:
That is the biggest crock!
Roma s 1:26 -27" For this reason God gave them up to vile passions ( homosexuality). For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature."
27: Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
The Bible says about homosexuality, It IS an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with a woman, OR a woman to lie with a woman as with a man.
Tell me, Nettie.......where does the interpretation YOU gave even come close to the truth of the Holy Bible? Here, what you said, you are taking the word of man and not of God!
NOWHERE does it say this ONLY pertains to men of Israel! Romans 1:18-32 is Gods Wrath on Unrighteousness. And , according to God, it is an abomination for both men & women!
You state the " foremost modern authority on the book of Leviticus is Rabbi Jacob Milgrom......true, BUT the WHOLE AUTHORITY of the Bible belongs to God. Who do you listen to? It seems any man that you find agrees with YOUR interpretation for what you want the Bible to mean! This is an observation but one I'm sure many will agree with if they see this.
<quoted text>

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#63 Jul 14, 2013
Chelsee11 wrote:
That is the biggest crock!
Roma s 1:26 -27" For this reason God gave them up to vile passions ( homosexuality). For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature."
27: Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
The Bible says about homosexuality, It IS an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with a woman, OR a woman to lie with a woman as with a man.
Tell me, Nettie.......where does the interpretation YOU gave even come close to the truth of the Holy Bible? Here, what you said, you are taking the word of man and not of God!
NOWHERE does it say this ONLY pertains to men of Israel! Romans 1:18-32 is Gods Wrath on Unrighteousness. And , according to God, it is an abomination for both men & women!
You state the " foremost modern authority on the book of Leviticus is Rabbi Jacob Milgrom......true, BUT the WHOLE AUTHORITY of the Bible belongs to God. Who do you listen to? It seems any man that you find agrees with YOUR interpretation for what you want the Bible to mean! This is an observation but one I'm sure many will agree with if they see this.
<quoted text>
It is quite impossible for a man to lie with a man as with a woman.
It is impossible for a woman to lie with a woman as a man.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The teaching God is a trinity is a lie! 25 min Taranis 3
Poll The Greatest Threat to America's Security (Sep '15) 1 hr GarytheHOMO 4,815
IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS Gospel 1 hr truth 506
Early Christianity 3 hr Taranis 900
Intelligent People Question Everything 3 hr scientist 1,909
News Abortion law reform in Northern Ireland 'unfini... 6 hr Big Al 11
If you see demons or angels you have schizophre... (Nov '09) 10 hr McGee 81
More from around the web