What is the rock?

[Illuminator]

What is this Rock? The testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Gospel.

I see you have not been following the thread.

Which faith??

View attachment 50

The faith that decries killing in the name of God, that faith. and you are not even aware how badly you exclude yourself.

But, since you point to false ecumenism, proved with a misleading photo with no context.........I'll reply to your malice.

Or maybe you prefer more blood shed in the name of religion, and get that Armageddon train a rollin' .


DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
NOSTRA AETATE
OCTOBER 28, 1965

1. In our time, when day by day mankind is being drawn closer together, and the ties between different peoples are becoming stronger, the Church examines more closely her relationship to non-Christian religions. In her task of promoting unity and love among men, indeed among nations, she considers above all in this declaration what men have in common and what draws them to fellowship.

One is the community of all peoples, one their origin, for God made the whole human race to live over the face of the earth.(1) One also is their final goal, God. His providence, His manifestations of goodness, His saving design extend to all men,(2) until that time when the elect will be united in the Holy City, the city ablaze with the glory of God, where the nations will walk in His light.(3)

Men expect from the various religions answers to the unsolved riddles of the human condition, which today, even as in former times, deeply stir the hearts of men: What is man? What is the meaning, the aim of our life? What is moral good, what is sin? Whence suffering and what purpose does it serve? Which is the road to true happiness? What are death, judgment and retribution after death? What, finally, is that ultimate inexpressible mystery which encompasses our existence: whence do we come, and where are we going?

2. From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense.

Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.(4)

The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.
read more here

Last I checked, your Protestant missionaries do the same thing, don't they?

 

[ChristB4us]

Protestantism borrowed wholesale many Catholic teachings, things like the Trinity and the Nicene Creed, So if the CC is as wrong as you say it is, then so are you. Deal with it. Your statement is either denial or avoidance of the quote.

Not every Christian church became "Catholic" for Protestant to come out of.

Pope Clement first epistle to the Corinthians for denying his collectors from Rome is evidence of that.

 

[ChristB4us]

The charity and health centers run by covetous power hungry ego tripping maniacs around the world include:

• 5,245 hospitals, mostly in Africa (1,418) and America (1,362);
• 14,963 dispensaries, mainly in Africa (5,307), in America (4,043);
• 532 Care homes for people with leprosy, mainly in Asia (269) and Africa (201);
• 15,429 Homes for the elderly, chronically ill or disabled, mainly in Europe (8,031) and America (3,642);
• 9,374 orphanages, mainly in Asia (3,233) and Europe (2,247);
• 10,723 nurseries, mainly in Asia (2,973) and America (2,957);
• 12,308 marriage counseling centers, mainly in Europe (5,504) and America (4,289);
• 3,198 social reintegration centers and
• 33,840 other types of institutes.

Tell me, ChrsitB4us, which of these would you like to burn down first???

Pope John blessed a homeless faithful after visiting the area where an earthquake devasted his home. Cannot find that article again, but that was all that he did. I am talking about those covetous power hungry ego tripping maniac ruling from Rome.

Catholics that actually love others are not power hungry ego tripping maniacs. Big difference.

Right now, the Pope defrocked the Arch Bishop in charge of Pro Life as it is being seen as to silence him and stop his campaign. He is still a member of the church but no office, but what he did below was reason enough?

Vatican defrocks an anti-abortion priest who once placed an aborted fetus on an altar

The Pope says for Catholics not to evangelize unbelievers as the Catechism says they are saved anyway but to evangelized non-Catholics Christians to come back to the RCC.

Pope Francis Urges Christians Not to Try to Convert Nonbelievers

Catechism of the Catholic Church

From the Catholic catechism: "Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337 End of quote

The Pope has adopted a new religion of combining Christianity with Islam called Chrislam.

With the adoption this week by the 7th World Religions Congress of the Human Fraternity document created by Pope Francis and Mohamed bin Zayed, Chrislam is now the official One World Religion.

Do you like the direction the Vatican is going now?

How else can the RCC survive in Rome at the beginning other than by making compromises after the execution of Peter & Paul?

2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

 

[Carbon]

What is this Rock? The testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Gospel.

I believe the rock is Peter's confession.
This is something not of flesh and blood. This is regeneration, the Spirit giving the new heart (new birth) and opening the eyes. This is the rock, from being regenerated, being alive in the Spirit, we know Christ.

 

[civic]

The Rock is the foundation and no other foundation can be laid besides Christ. God is the foundation for our salvation, beliefs/doctrines, not any man

1 Corinthians 3
For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

I believe the rock is Peter's confession.
This is something not of flesh and blood. This is regeneration, the Spirit giving the new heart (new birth) and opening the eyes. This is the rock, from being regenerated, being alive in the Spirit, we know Christ.

That's what I said.

Matthew 16:
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, saying, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.”15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”16 And Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”17 And Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

 

[Romishpopishorganist]

Which faith??

View attachment 50

The Christain Faith.

 

[ChristB4us]

The Christain Faith.

Then why Chrislam? Why an ecumenical agreement with all other religions of the world?

2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

I do not see the Vatican as following what Paul has taught all churches to do.

 

[Illuminator]

Then why Chrislam? Why an ecumenical agreement with all other religions of the world?

There is no such ecumenical agreement with other religions. You just want there to be to justify your authority complex.

2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

I do not see the Vatican as following what Paul has taught all churches to do.

You have a comic book view of the Vatican. The result of anti-Catholic brain washing propaganda by fundie bigots. The best Catholic news source is zenit.org that publishes what the Pope actually says, not the false mainstream media lies that is 97% owned by Satan.

Nostra aetate

Declaration on the Relation of the Church to non-christian religions - Nostra aetate

www.vatican.va

This is the shortest encyclical ever. It spells out the relationship the Church has with non-Christian regions that you won't read. Hate cults make false claims and misrepresent it in the worst way imaginable. The CC does not endorse Islam. Stop swallowing down whole every lie printed against the CC. I think you are a good sincere Christian but bashing Catholicism the way you do incriminates yourself.

 

[ChristB4us]

There is no such ecumenical agreement with other religions. You just want there to be to justify your authority complex.

What do you call this from the Vatican website?

CRITERIA FOR ECUMENICAL AND INTER-RELIGIOUS COOPERATION IN COMMUNICATIONS

You have a comic book view of the Vatican. The result of anti-Catholic brain washing propaganda by fundie bigots. The best Catholic news source is zenit.org that publishes what the Pope actually says, not the false mainstream media lies that is 97% owned by Satan.

I admit that I should not have shared my intense prejudices with Pope Clement and these other evil Popes on all Popes, but Clement's attempt to reign in all churches to give to the Church at Rome was a practice that was continued to this day. I am sure you are aware of the Vatican billions.

Eight of the worst popes in church history

Like I said, I should not have allow judgment on Pope Clement and certain Popes as if that is how all Popes are but again, the practice of collecting from the churches for the church at Rome's treasury is still going on today for how I apply covetousness to all of them since Pope Clement.

I thank you for informing me that Pope Clement was the fourth Pope but do you know who the other Popes were as supposedly after Peter as the first Pope in between supposedly Peter & then Clement?

 

[Illuminator]

What do you call this from the Vatican website?

CRITERIA FOR ECUMENICAL AND INTER-RELIGIOUS COOPERATION IN COMMUNICATIONS

I call it something Protestantism is incapable of doing.

I admit that I should not have shared my intense prejudices with Pope Clement and these other evil Popes on all Popes, but Clement's attempt to reign in all churches to give to the Church at Rome was a practice that was continued to this day. I am sure you are aware of the Vatican billions.

Eight of the worst popes in church history

Like I said, I should not have allow judgment on Pope Clement and certain Popes as if that is how all Popes are but again, the practice of collecting from the churches for the church at Rome's treasury is still going on today for how I apply covetousness to all of them since Pope Clement.

I thank you for informing me that Pope Clement was the fourth Pope but do you know who the other Popes were as supposedly after Peter as the first Pope in between supposedly Peter & then Clement?

Stop posting 5 or 6 different topics in one post. I've better things to do than answer them all in a long post that non one will read.
It's not that you hate popes, its that you hate false caricatures of your imagination.

Authority of the First Popes - Fr. Dwight Longenecker

The Early Church and the Development of the Papacy The Trail of Blood Some time ago an acquaintance from my days as a fundamentalist sent me an email.

www.patheos.com

 

[ChristB4us]

I call it something Protestantism is incapable of doing.

What are you incapable of doing?

Stop posting 5 or 6 different topics in one post. I've better things to do than answer them all in a long post that non one will read.
It's not that you hate popes, its that you hate false caricatures of your imagination.

I am not sure how you can get 5 or 6 different topics from that small comment in my quote.

Authority of the First Popes - Fr. Dwight Longenecker

The Early Church and the Development of the Papacy The Trail of Blood Some time ago an acquaintance from my days as a fundamentalist sent me an email.

www.patheos.com

The authority of the Popes as established by the RCC & the Popes after Peter and now the Vatican, is not what Peter had taught for the RCC & the Vatican to say that Peter being that rock that the church is built on.

What is it that Peter had taught that the RCC & the Catholic Catechism can point to that was built on by Peter? Do you know?

Or is it all based on how the RCC & the Vatican apply scriptures to mean rather than what Peter had taught from his two epistles?

 

[Illuminator]

What are you incapable of doing?

I am not sure how you can get 5 or 6 different topics from that small comment in my quote.

The authority of the Popes as established by the RCC

Nonsense. The authority of the Popes is established by Jesus Himself. It's explained in detail in the link you ignored.

& the Popes after Peter and now the Vatican, is not what Peter had taught for the RCC & the Vatican to say that Peter being that rock that the church is built on.

What is it that Peter had taught that the RCC & the Catholic Catechism can point to that was built on by Peter? Do you know?

The Catholic Church is not built by Peter, it's built by Jesus. (... You are Peter (ROCK) and upon this ROCK I will build My Church He doesn't build junk that would later need a re-build. Jesus didn't take a vacation for 15 centuries. Jesus builds the Church on a person and the Apostles, not an ideology.
Jesus builds the Church. Jesus builds the Church. Get it yet???

Or is it all based on how the RCC & the Vatican apply scriptures to mean rather than what Peter had taught from his two epistles?

How to Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church

Frequently Asked Questions about the Catechism​

Now you have a choice. You can continue with [edit by mod; end your ad hominem attacks] and find out what it is you are bashing.
Now you have no excuse.

Authority of the First Popes - Fr. Dwight Longenecker

The Early Church and the Development of the Papacy The Trail of Blood Some time ago an acquaintance from my days as a fundamentalist sent me an email.

www.patheos.com

You didn't read it because you are afraid of it.

 

[ChristB4us]

Nonsense. The authority of the Popes is established by Jesus Himself. It's explained in detail in the link you ignored.

Then why is it not endorsed or confirmed in any of the epistles, even by Peter? That is what you need to look at as found wanting.

The Catholic Church is not built by Peter, it's built by Jesus. (... You are Peter (ROCK) and upon this ROCK I will build My Church He doesn't build junk that would later need a re-build. Jesus didn't take a vacation for 15 centuries. Jesus builds the Church on a person and the Apostles, not an ideology.
Jesus builds the Church. Jesus builds the Church. Get it yet???

How to Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church

Frequently Asked Questions about the Catechism​

Now you have a choice. You can continue with [edit by mod; end your ad hominem attacks] and find out what it is you are bashing.
Now you have no excuse.

Authority of the First Popes - Fr. Dwight Longenecker

The Early Church and the Development of the Papacy The Trail of Blood Some time ago an acquaintance from my days as a fundamentalist sent me an email.

www.patheos.com

You didn't read it because you are afraid of it.

Peter is actually called Cephas which means a stone.

I should point out that Jesus did not named Peter then after saying that about Jesus being the Christ.

Jesus had named him thus at their first meeting.

Luke 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
So the RCC making Peter the rock and straining at the gnat for a mistranslation to name Peter meaning rock, is why you should be doubting everything the RCC had taught you.

I acknowledge that Jesus builds His church, the body of believers, as He is the chief cornerstone for why the gates of hell did not prevail against because Jesus overcome hell and death having the keys thereof.

Revelation 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: 18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Are you afraid that after all that time, service, and penance out of love for Him in that church, that you do not want to see that it was all for nothing? Well, it was. If you think about it, if you were going to be known by your works in Heaven, that is your glory; not His glory.

1 Corinthians 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. 30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

 

[Illuminator]

Then why is it not endorsed or confirmed in any of the epistles, even by Peter? That is what you need to look at as found wanting.

Peter's authority is confirmed by Jesus in the Gospels. We read the epistles in the light of the Gospels. You have it backwards.

Peter is actually called Cephas which means a stone.

This is the source of your confusion. Cephas is an ARAMAIC word for ROCK, it's not Greek. The Greek word for small stone is "lithos" which is not used, even for Peter's name, throughout the whole NT. Paul uses "Cephas" 6 times. Why would Paul use an Aramaic word to Greek speaking communities? Why didn't Paul use the Greek word for ROCK? Why did Jesus use the Aramaic term for ROCK in John 1:42??? I don't even need Matthew 16:18. The whole Christian community knew who ROCK was. That was his name. 1st and 2nd Peter should be called 1st and 2nd ROCK.

I should point out that Jesus did not named Peter then after saying that about Jesus being the Christ.

Jesus had named him thus at their first meeting.

Luke 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
So the RCC making Peter the rock and straining at the gnat for a mistranslation to name Peter meaning rock, is why you should be doubting everything the RCC had taught you.

Did you ever bother to check Strong's concordance? The word origin is Chaldee or Aramaic. Your argument falls flat.
Strong's Greek: 4074. Πέτρος (Petros) -- "a stone" or "a boulder," Peter, one of the twelve apostles
... ) rock (larger than lithos ); as a name, Petrus, an apostle- Peter, rock. Compare Kephas . see GREEK lithos see GREEK Kephas Forms and Transliterations Πετρε Πέτρε ΠΕΤΡΟΝ Πέτρον ΠΕΤΡΟΣ Πέτρος Πετρου Πέτρου Πετρω Πέτρῳ Petre ...

Strong's Greek: 4074. Πέτρος (Petros) -- "a stone" or "a boulder," Peter, one of the twelve apostles

biblehub.com

I acknowledge that Jesus builds His church, the body of believers, as He is the chief cornerstone for why the gates of hell did not prevail against because Jesus overcome hell and death having the keys thereof.

Jesus didn't keep the keys of the kingdom for Himself, He gave them to Peter, first as an individual, later to the Apostles as a collective. A clear indication of Peter's preeminence that you unbiblically deny.

Revelation 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: 18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

"Keys" represent authority all over the place in the Bible.

Are you afraid that after all that time, service, and penance out of love for Him in that church, that you do not want to see that it was all for nothing? Well, it was. If you think about it, if you were going to be known by your works in Heaven, that is your glory; not His glory.

I have to restrain myself and not react TO THIS PERPETUAL LIE OF WORKS SALVATION. ITS AN ANTI-CATHOLIC MYTH THAT NEVER STOPS!!!

 

[Illuminator]

OFFICE OF POPE IN THE BIBLE​

Isaiah 22:19 I will thrust you from your office, (Shebna) and you will be cast down from your station

Isa. 22:19 - Shebna is described as having an "office" and a "station." An office, in order for it to be an office, has successors. In order for an earthly kingdom to last, a succession of representatives is required.

This was the case in the Old Covenant kingdom, and it is the case in the New Covenant kingdom which fulfills the Old Covenant. Jesus our King is in heaven, but He has appointed a chief steward over His household with a plan for a succession of representatives.

Isa. 20: In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah,

Isa. 22:20 - in the old Davidic kingdom, Eliakim succeeds Shebna as the chief steward of the household of God. The kingdom employs a mechanism of dynastic succession. King David was dead for centuries, but his kingdom is preserved through a succession of representatives.

Isa, 21: and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.

Isa. 22:21 - Eliakim is called “father” or “papa” of God's people. The word Pope used by Catholics to describe the chief steward of the earthly kingdom simply means papas or father in Italian. This is why Catholics call the leader of the Church "Pope." The Pope is the father of God's people, the chief steward of the earthly kingdom and Christ's representative on earth.

Isa. 22: And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Isa. 22:22 - we see that the keys of the kingdom pass from Shebna to Eliakim. Thus, the keys are used not only as a symbol of authority, but also to facilitate succession. The keys of Christ's kingdom have passed from Peter to Linus all the way to our current Pope with an unbroken lineage for almost 2,000 years.

Isa. 23: And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house.

Everyone understood what this metaphor meant, as tents were commonly used and pegs were used to keep the wind from blowing it down. Another word for throne is chair.

Rev. 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1 - Jesus' "keys" undeniably represent authority. By using the word "keys," Jesus gives Peter authority on earth over the new Davidic kingdom, and this was not seriously questioned by any one until the Protestant Revolt 1,500 years later after Peter’s investiture.

Revelation 3:7 RSV "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: `The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens. < word for word of Isaiah 22:22, it's not a coincidence.

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 16:19 - whatever Peter binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven / when the Prime Minister to the King opens, no one shuts. This "binding and loosing" authority allows the keeper of the keys to establish "halakha," or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves.

Jer. 33:17 “For thus says the Lord: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel,

Jer. 33:17 - Jeremiah prophesies that David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the earthly House of Israel. Either this is a false prophecy, or David has a successor of representatives throughout history.

Dan. 2:44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever,

Dan. 2:44 - Daniel prophesies an earthly kingdom that will never be destroyed. Either this is a false prophecy, or the earthly kingdom requires succession.

 

[Deleted member 5]

OFFICE OF POPE IN THE BIBLE​

Isaiah 22:19 I will thrust you from your office, (Shebna) and you will be cast down from your station

Isa. 22:19 - Shebna is described as having an "office" and a "station." An office, in order for it to be an office, has successors. In order for an earthly kingdom to last, a succession of representatives is required.

This was the case in the Old Covenant kingdom, and it is the case in the New Covenant kingdom which fulfills the Old Covenant. Jesus our King is in heaven, but He has appointed a chief steward over His household with a plan for a succession of representatives.

Isa. 20: In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah,

Isa. 22:20 - in the old Davidic kingdom, Eliakim succeeds Shebna as the chief steward of the household of God. The kingdom employs a mechanism of dynastic succession. King David was dead for centuries, but his kingdom is preserved through a succession of representatives.

Isa, 21: and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.

Isa. 22:21 - Eliakim is called “father” or “papa” of God's people. The word Pope used by Catholics to describe the chief steward of the earthly kingdom simply means papas or father in Italian. This is why Catholics call the leader of the Church "Pope." The Pope is the father of God's people, the chief steward of the earthly kingdom and Christ's representative on earth.

Isa. 22: And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Isa. 22:22 - we see that the keys of the kingdom pass from Shebna to Eliakim. Thus, the keys are used not only as a symbol of authority, but also to facilitate succession. The keys of Christ's kingdom have passed from Peter to Linus all the way to our current Pope with an unbroken lineage for almost 2,000 years.

Isa. 23: And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house.

Everyone understood what this metaphor meant, as tents were commonly used and pegs were used to keep the wind from blowing it down. Another word for throne is chair.

Rev. 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1 - Jesus' "keys" undeniably represent authority. By using the word "keys," Jesus gives Peter authority on earth over the new Davidic kingdom, and this was not seriously questioned by any one until the Protestant Revolt 1,500 years later after Peter’s investiture.

Revelation 3:7 RSV "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: `The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens. < word for word of Isaiah 22:22, it's not a coincidence.

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 16:19 - whatever Peter binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven / when the Prime Minister to the King opens, no one shuts. This "binding and loosing" authority allows the keeper of the keys to establish "halakha," or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves.

Jer. 33:17 “For thus says the Lord: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel,

Jer. 33:17 - Jeremiah prophesies that David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the earthly House of Israel. Either this is a false prophecy, or David has a successor of representatives throughout history.

Dan. 2:44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever,

Dan. 2:44 - Daniel prophesies an earthly kingdom that will never be destroyed. Either this is a false prophecy, or the earthly kingdom requires succession.

A kingdom that will never be destroyed isn't dependent upon a fake papal office. Your reasoning is amiss and is self-serving.

 

[Illuminator]

A kingdom that will never be destroyed isn't dependent upon a fake papal office. Your reasoning is amiss and is self-serving.

I never said the indestructability of the Church depended on the papacy. Good grief!!! Some of them of them, about 10 at most, were amoral low life scum bags, and some were power hungry control freaks pretending to be pope and excommunicating each other. The gates of hell went all out to corrupt certain popes. Why wouldn't he? The pagan Romans killed the first 37 or so. Well, that didn't destroy the papacy so satan just changed his tactics. That's what satan did with the patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church. I've seen him on videos sprinkling holy water on weapons that bomb hospitals, schools, evacuation routes, worse, the killing of hundreds of children. Pope Francis politely told him off: "Don't be Putin's altar boy." BTW, Patriarch Kirill is a billionaire former KGB thug, but who am I to judge?

Who do you think set that up? The Jesuits??? The results of a long international investigation is well known. Look it up for yourself, you wont accept anything I say.

The papacy is a doctrine, the pope is a human. I think you are unable to make the distinction so you hate them both. It's much easier that way.

Matthew 28:19 And remember, I am with you always, after I get back from my vacation 15 centuries from now.”

Do you honestly think there are 1.1 billion Catholics today because our leaders are holy and smart??? Pleeze, gimmie a break. The CC is infallible indestructible and indefectible because Jesus is infallible, indestructible and indefectible. There can be no other explanation.

I hope I am not seeing the devastating effects of Alexander Hislop's venom. That stuff causes brain damage.

 

[ChristB4us]

Peter's authority is confirmed by Jesus in the Gospels. We read the epistles in the light of the Gospels. You have it backwards.

This is the source of your confusion. Cephas is an ARAMAIC word for ROCK, it's not Greek. The Greek word for small stone is "lithos" which is not used, even for Peter's name, throughout the whole NT. Paul uses "Cephas" 6 times. Why would Paul use an Aramaic word to Greek speaking communities? Why didn't Paul use the Greek word for ROCK? Why did Jesus use the Aramaic term for ROCK in John 1:42??? I don't even need Matthew 16:18. The whole Christian community knew who ROCK was. That was his name. 1st and 2nd Peter should be called 1st and 2nd ROCK.

View attachment 87

Did you ever bother to check Strong's concordance? The word origin is Chaldee or Aramaic. Your argument falls flat.
Strong's Greek: 4074. Πέτρος (Petros) -- "a stone" or "a boulder," Peter, one of the twelve apostles
... ) rock (larger than lithos ); as a name, Petrus, an apostle- Peter, rock. Compare Kephas . see GREEK lithos see GREEK Kephas Forms and Transliterations Πετρε Πέτρε ΠΕΤΡΟΝ Πέτρον ΠΕΤΡΟΣ Πέτρος Πετρου Πέτρου Πετρω Πέτρῳ Petre ...

Strong's Greek: 4074. Πέτρος (Petros) -- "a stone" or "a boulder," Peter, one of the twelve apostles

biblehub.com

That is a funny sarcastic poster you displayed there, but it does not change the truth that scripture testifies Cephas as translated as a stone just as in that same verse the Aramaic word for Messias is interpreted as the Christ.

Luke 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. 42And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Let me ask you this; who is the chief cornerstone? Once you answer that, then you should know that rock that the Church is really built on.

Jesus didn't keep the keys of the kingdom for Himself, He gave them to Peter, first as an individual, later to the Apostles as a collective. A clear indication of Peter's preeminence that you unbiblically deny.

But that is an assumption given by the interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church for putting the importance on Peter as if he is the rock the church ( mainly the RCC ) is built on.

"Keys" represent authority all over the place in the Bible.

Well, there you go. You have knowledge and yet fail to apply that these keys are not specifically given to Peter for binding or loosing alone when there were other disciples in the room.

I have to restrain myself and not react TO THIS PERPETUAL LIE OF WORKS SALVATION. ITS AN ANTI-CATHOLIC MYTH THAT NEVER STOPS!!!

Care to explain this portion of the Catholic Catechism please?

Catechism of the Catholic Church

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart.'"321 end of quote

Anyway, if you are like some Catholics that believe they are saved regardless of what the Catholic Catechism says, I am happy for you!

But then again, I do not know why you spend so much time defending the RCC rather than your faith in Jesus Christ since He is the Good News to man, and not the RCC. From what I read in that Catholic Catechism, does not sound like Good News at all.

 

[Illuminator]

That is a funny sarcastic poster you displayed there, but it does not change the truth that scripture testifies Cephas as translated as a stone just as in that same verse the Aramaic word for Messias is interpreted as the Christ.

This is a denial of the facts. You don't accept Strong's concordance as factual and oppose a long list of Protestant reference manuals and up-to-date analysis so there is nothing I can say that will change your mind.

Luke 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. 42And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Luke 1:41-42 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, 42 and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!"

I think you mean John 1:42
Cephas, which is by interpretation, a stone, yes, but not a small stone. Cephas is not a Greek word, it's Aramaic, it does not mean "small stone". I already explained this using the commonly accepted Strongs concordance, your denial makes no sense.

Matt. 16:18 – Jesus said in Aramaic, you are “Kepha” and on this “Kepha” I will build my Church. In Aramaic, “kepha” means a massive stone, and “evna” means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is “petra”, that “Petros” actually means “a small rock”, and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus’ blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used “Kepha,” not “evna.” Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.

Let me ask you this; who is the chief cornerstone? Once you answer that, then you should know that rock that the Church is really built on.

1 Cor. 3:11 – Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church.
Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock.
These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church. Maybe that's why Protestantism has no unity.

But that is an assumption given by the interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church for putting the importance on Peter as if he is the rock the church ( mainly the RCC ) is built on.

Then dozens of Protestant scholars are wrong? See post #11 and 12 for the list that again, no one refuted.

Well, there you go. You have knowledge and yet fail to apply that these keys are not specifically given to Peter for binding or loosing alone when there were other disciples in the room.

More denials.

Care to explain this portion of the Catholic Catechism please?

Catechism of the Catholic Church

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart.'"321 end of quote

Anyway, if you are like some Catholics that believe they are saved regardless of what the Catholic Catechism says, I am happy for you!

Catholics don't read the catechism the same way Protestants read the Bible. I already tried to explain how to use the catechism correctly, you just keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

But then again, I do not know why you spend so much time defending the RCC rather than your faith in Jesus Christ since He is the Good News to man, and not the RCC. From what I read in that Catholic Catechism, does not sound like Good News at all.

Catholics don't read the catechism the same way Protestants read the Bible. I already tried to explain how to use the catechism correctly, you just keep arguing with me. How many times to I have to post Evangelium Vitae that explains the Gospel that is essentially the same as Protestants? that none dare refute or answer my questions??? Your false assumptions are insulting.