Jesus Christ is the Rock. not peter

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

He is the Bishop of Rome and considered "first among equals. However by being the Bishop of Rome, he as first among equals has more influence than the other Bishops like for example the Bishop of Jerusalem, Hippo, or Antioch.

Well no, he isn't and hasn't been for a LONG time...

 

[rturner76]

Well Yeshua founded HIS Church in Jerusalem where the first Council occurred as far as I know. From there the Apostles spread it.

You are correct. The Church in Jerusalem was the first unified Church and it was full of Jewish converts. At that time, Christianity was considered a Jewish sect. When it spread to Rome and Greece, and the Apostles' letters were mostly written in Greek, the Greek language was the language of education so many Greek-speaking people were able to read the Epistles and Gospel, even though at that point the Books and Epistles hadn't been settled upon to make up the New Testament.

The Roman Church was small and underground when it was founded and mostly only Romans who could also read Greek had first hand access to the books that would become the New Testament. When Christianity was legalized and St Jerome translated the Greek and Hebrew into the Latin Vulgate, the Roman Empire then had their Latin manuscript and the Church of Rome Exploded because so many people in Western Europe read Latin. In was the language of "classical education" along with Greek. IThe Latin Bible had so much influence on the Western world, that Rome became the seat of power for the largest number of Parishoners. That is when the other languages the Bible was translated into were local Churches but they were united with Rome as there was only one Church at the time, the Catholic (universal) Church, and it was that way until the Great Schism.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

You are correct. The Church in Jerusalem was the first unified Church and it was full of Jewish converts. At that time, Christianity was considered a Jewish sect.

Well if it was a Jewish sect within Judaism, did a Jew convert to belief in our own Messiah?

 

[concretecamper]

The problem is, you explicitly claimed it was Clement. You didn't specify Clement of Rome, but at any rate it was neither Clement of Rome nor Clement of Alexandria, but an unknown writer claiming to be Clement of Rome.

Thank you for your opinion.

 

[Dan Perez]

What are we called out of Dan?

In 1 Cor 12:27 Paul wrote , Now you are CALLED the Body of Christ and members in PART , and 1 Cor 12:15- 17 what PART real means .

Verse 15 we are his foot

Verse 16 We are his Ear

Verse 16 we are his EYES

Verse 17 we are his Sense of Hearing

and his sense of Smell .

dan p

 

[rturner76]

Well no, he isn't and hasn't been for a LONG time...

Are you sure? Because the number of Roman Catholics all over the world seem to outnumber any other Christian organization by having over a billion adherents. Are you sure the Bishop of Rome has no influence?

 

[Der Alte]

Indeed, nor was it meant to, since you’re the expert when it comes to the Bible!

I do not consider myself, nor claim to be, an "expert." I have earned a Master's degree in Theology, in the previous century, and I have the current Hebrew and Greek lexicons, both hard back and digital, and "I am not burdened by what has been."

 

[JulieB67]

Because the number of Roman Catholics all over the world seem to outnumber any other Christian organization by having over a billion adherents.

Being in the majority isn't always the place to be.

Matthew 7:13 "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in there at:"

Matthew 7:14 "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Are you sure? Because the number of Roman Catholics all over the world seem to outnumber any other Christian organization by having over a billion adherents. Are you sure the Bishop of Rome has no influence?

There are 1.9 billion Muslims in the world...so? He is no longer the first among equals nor has ever been head of the Church. His importance is solely within the Roman church...

 

[rturner76]

Well if it was a Jewish sect within Judaism, did a Jew convert to belief in our own Messiah?

Yes, all of the Apostles did. Some like Peter, kept Jewish dietary law and some like Paul at with the Pagans but they were all Jewish converts and Apostles like Peter and James went to the Jews with their message and I believe the first major universal church was in Jerusalem which was Jewish country. So it stands to reason the the first Christians were also Jews.

 

[rturner76]

Being in the majority isn't always the place to be.

Matthew 7:13 "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in there at:"

Matthew 7:14 "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

Quite however, it does also seem to imply that the original Church is still where every other denomination got their theology from. As they (and the Eastern church after the great scism) Delivered the message of salvation and still do. I wonder why it was good enough for thtire wester world for about 1500 years. At that point, Christianity became a buffet. Take what you like from Catholicism and leave what you don't. And there are over 1,000 different buffets to choose from.

My main point about the longevity of the original Church is that the theology has largely gone unchanged for 2.000 years. There were some major shifts to modernize at Vatacan II but doctrine stayed untouched though some rules were change. The Church differentiates between church law and church theology. All of the Reformers made changes to what was already established but what was established is still being taught to over a billion citizens of Earth. I believe that is God's work that has allowed the Roman Church to still be the largest 2.000 years later.

 

[Cockcrow]

Are you sure? Because the number of Roman Catholics all over the world seem to outnumber any other Christian organization by having over a billion adherents. Are you sure the Bishop of Rome has no influence?

Matthew 7:14 “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”

Jesus said narrow is the way, few find it, if the Roman Catholic Church is true, thats not a narrow way. Works salvation is not narrow at all, every single religion believes in a Works based salvation. not Jesus Christ alone. the Roman Catholic Church is on the broad road that leads to destruction.

 

[JulieB67]

Quite however, it does also seem to imply that the original Church is still where every other denomination got their theology from.

Yes, but the original church was that body of believers that had that foundation laid for them by the prophets, disciples/apostles with of Christ being the cornerstone. They met wherever and it was God that added to the church not man. (that's not the case today for many physical churches) And yes, every denomination gets their theology from that. But imo anyone that veers off of that foundation and doesn't uphold the teachings and traditions that they brought forth is way off course of what we would call the " original true church" today. They might have had good intentions and held to those at first but again, if you steer from that....
That goes for all.

 

[rturner76]

Matthew 7:14 “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”

Jesus said narrow is the way, few find it, if the Roman Catholic Church is true, thats not a narrow way. Works salvation is not narrow at all, every single religion believes in a Works based salvation. not Jesus Christ alone. the Roman Catholic Church is on the broad road that leads to destruction.

I see you are also deceived by the concept of "works." Your Protestant leader (whoever they were, could be Luther, Calvin, or Joyce Meyer) There is no agreement on Protestant doctrine, only 1,000+ different ways of picking and choosing what Catholic theology is valid and what is invalid as if your denomination had a global consensus on any doctrine. One out of 5 billion on Earth IS the narrow gate. Would you like your random Protestant denomination founded by some random dude who claimed he knew better than the Church Christ founded to have a billion+ + adherents? I am inclined to think so. But they don't because they can't overtake the Church that Christ and his Disciples founded. Go your way and I'll go mine knowing the Bible of your likely "Sola Scriptura," was approved by the first universal church ever founded. Set forth by Christ, the keys to the Kingdom were passed to St Peter. Many others are Paulians rather than Christians. That's even a more narrow path choked off with reeds, reeds, thorn, thistles and blocked by the ambition of those who want to think they have more knowledge than the worldwide magisterium.

Perhaps the road followed by whatever sect of Christianity will lead you nowhere because Christ and his disciples didn't establish it but some guy who thought he knew better.

 

[rturner76]

There are 1.9 billion Muslims in the world...so? He is no longer the first among equals nor has ever been head of the Church. His importance is solely within the Roman church...

Of course, since the CHurch you follow was founded by some guy who thought he knew better and deceived you into thinking the Church established by Christ with the keys passed to Peter, youwould believe anything they say. Maybe it feels more comfortable I don't know but I do know that whoever founded your church never had a conversation with Christ, whereas the founder of the Roman Chursh (Saint Peter) sat at the foot of Christ every day of his ministry. Did Christ hand the keys to the kingdom to whatever dude founded your Church? No, he gave them to St Peter and whatever he bound on Earth will be bound in heaven and whatever he lososed on Earth will be loosed in heaves. As a believer of Sola Scripture, why do you throw the verses of the well-established Catholic Canonized New Testament?

That's the whole problem with the Protestant ununited set of over 1,000 thousand different churches with different beliefs. They think they know better what is Canon Law better than the Canon Law they adopted for their churches. Like I always say, they have Catholic theology and believe in the writings of the Catholic church but take out what they don't like and add what they like. That is why no Protestant church has ever overtaken the original Church and they are splintered into literally over 1.000 pieces. You can't just go to the cafeteria and take what you like from the gospel and throw away what you don't like.

 

[rturner76]

Yes, but the original church was that body of believers that had that foundation laid for them by the prophets, disciples/apostles with of Christ being the cornerstone. They met wherever and it was God that added to the church not man. (that's not the case today for many physical churches) And yes, every denomination gets their theology from that. But imo anyone that veers off of that foundation and doesn't uphold the teachings and traditions that they brought forth is way off course of what we would call the " original true church" today. They might have had good intentions and held to those at first but again, if you steer from that....
That goes for all.

I agree. No Protestant Church can say they had a more accurate revelation than the revelation that was given to the Apostles. They all start and end in a different place choosing what they like from the original Church and throwing out what they like.

 

[The Liturgist]

Of course, since the CHurch you follow was founded by some guy who thought he knew better and deceived you into thinking the Church established by Christ with the keys passed to Peter,

@Yeshua HaDerekh and I are members of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which your own church acknowledges to have valid Apostolic Succession, valid sacraments, and a valid priesthood, to the extent that we are, along with the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East, the only churches whose members can partake of the sacraments from Roman Catholic clergy according to your own canon law, and likewise, the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Catholic Churches permits Roman Catholics to receive the sacraments from us.

The Assyrian Church of the East will even give Roman Catholics communion (their policy is to offer the chalice to any baptized Christian who confesses the Nicene Creed and believes in the Real Presence), but I’ve never heard of an Eastern Orthodox parish giving Roman Catholics communion, but it could happen in the event of a war or major disaster, but usually we will insist on reception, usually by Chrismation, as a prerequisite before any Roman Catholic can partake of our Eucharist. However, ecumenical talks between the Catholics and Orthodox are ongoing.

I myself don’t object to the Assyrian policy, but given recent disturbing incidents like Fiducia Supplicans, if the Roman Church should capitulate on homosexuality, which it nearly did last year (only the clarification issued by Pope Francis stopped it, and there was an entirely inappropriate blessing of a sexually immoral relationship by a diocesan bishop in Kentucky), I would join with the Athonite and Georgian monks who advocate for ecumenical dialogue with your denomination to be terminated. But I would be very sad if that happened, since my hope had been to see the Great Schism reversed before 2054.

 

[jas3]

You are in fact wriggling! Jesus named Simon/Cephas Petros [masculine] a small stone. And upon this rock Petra [feminine] bed rock I will my church. Petra, feminine cannot refer to Peter a male.

As I pointed out in post #7, it's common in Greek for names to take on a gender other than that of the base word in order to match the gender of the person. So even if we grant this distinction in meaning (which I reject, but for the sake of argument let's say we grant it), your line of reasoning where the name "Petros" can't be a masculine name based on the word "petra" and must be a direct application of the word "petros" to the person is 1) inconsistent with what we know about Greek names, and 2) would make it impossible for Jesus to name Peter "bedrock" due to the existence of a masculine variant of the word with the sense of a lesser rock.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Of course, since the CHurch you follow was founded by some guy who thought he knew better and deceived you into thinking the Church established by Christ with the keys passed to Peter, you would believe anything they say. As a believer of Sola Scripture, why do you throw the verses of the well-established Catholic Canonized New Testament?

My Church was founded by Yeshua Himself...some "guy" indeed! I believe what He said....almost 2000 years ago...I am not protestant. Your church was part of my Church until your church left in 1054 AD...

 

[JulieB67]

They all start and end in a different place choosing what they like from the original Church and throwing out what they like.

This goes for many denominations and churches. (Protestant, CC, etc) One can't throw out anything or add anything upon the foundation and teachings they brought forward. If there's a man made tradition that wasn't part of that original teaching than we have to ask ourselves has that church veered off course of the original church that was founded by the apostles? Christ has foretold us all things. Nothing to be taken away or added.