(Catholics-on-Fire) Re: Was Peter really the Rock?
Hi Sean, First, i would like you to know that im not Bro Eli. Im one of his avid viewers in his internet broadcast http://theoldpath.tv/livestream.html and im an avid reader of blog his blog, http://esoriano.wordpress.com/ . i was once a Catholic but was enlightened with God's helop thru bro Eli's preaching. What I sent was one of his blog from his website. If any manner, it was an insult, im sorry but its just how true it is. As what youve said, you have more than basic dimestone of theological background and i think you are open for BIBLICAL discussions. If you dont mind, do you a YM id so we chat sometime? you can send it to me privately or we can just have exchange of emails in this group. regards, ed On Oct 16, 9:59 am, locksle...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 10/15/2009 12:48:35 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, theoldpath_individual_...@yahoo.com writes: hi,good day to you. im not a protestant. I'm familiar with your argument. You don't care to be associated with the harlot daughters of the Whore of Babylon as I'm sure you usually refer to the Catholic Church. Well, like it or not, you're Protestant, Brother Eli. Evangelicals, Pentecostals and all other Christians not taking their teaching from one of the five patriarchal churches of the early Church are Protestants. You really ought to review your theology and the history of the Church before 1517 some time. It's odd that you put yourself up as an expert and are not aware of this very basic historical truth. We are not unhappy to join in some spirited discussion, Brother Eli. But, please, before engaging in such a conversation, you'd best start in a Christian manner, that is, without insulting us first. Most of us here have a lot more than the basic dimestore theological background of most sectarians. Blessings, Sean --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Please note that I do not send or open attachments sent to this list. You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Catholics on Fire group. To post to this group, send email to Catholics-on-Fire@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to catholics-on-fire-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Catholics-on-Fire May the blessing of Jesus and our Blessed Mother be with you -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
(Catholics-on-Fire) Re: Was Peter really the Rock?
Hi Ed - Since you did not sign your name, I had no idea you were not Brother Eli. I have no problem with a discussion by email - I have no idea what a YM is. And I wd appreciate your idea of a private chat and not involving the Catholics on Fire group. You have heard from a few of them already. Thank you for your civility and good will. Looking forward to exchanging views. Sean --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Please note that I do not send or open attachments sent to this list. You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Catholics on Fire group. To post to this group, send email to Catholics-on-Fire@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to catholics-on-fire-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Catholics-on-Fire May the blessing of Jesus and our Blessed Mother be with you -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
(Catholics-on-Fire) Re: Was Peter really the Rock?
Dear Brother I think you are in the wrong group. We are Catholics not Protestants so please cease spamming us with this Protestant nonsense as every Catholic knows that Jesus was speaking Aramaic and in Aramaic there is but one word for Rock Kephas. God bless --- On Thu, 10/15/09, THEOLDPATH theoldpath_individual_...@yahoo.com wrote: From: THEOLDPATH theoldpath_individual_...@yahoo.com Subject: (Catholics-on-Fire) Was Peter really the Rock? To: Catholics on Fire catholics-on-fire@googlegroups.com Date: Thursday, October 15, 2009, 7:20 AM This has been the topic of so many discussions in the long history of the Catholic Church. The authority of the leaders of the Catholic Church from the pope to the clergy claim that they derived their power from the Apostle Peter, allegedly the first pope and the successor of Christ in the overall administration of the Christian Church. They based their claim on what is recorded in the Gospel of Matthew. (Matthew 16:18-19) “I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” DOUAY-RHEIMS VERSION Their claim and explanation about these verses is printed hereunder from the Modern Catholic Dictionary. The claim that Peter was the first pope and the rock whereupon the church was built is erroneous and can not be substantiated, either in history or in the Bible. The word pope was first used by an alleged saint, Saint Ennodius, in the year 521, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia How can Peter be a pope when such title was first used 400 years after the death of Peter? Biblically, Peter can not be a pope! It is prohibited by Christ to the original twelve disciples to be called ‘rabbi’ or teacher because their only teacher was Jesus Christ. (Matthew 23:8) “But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.” They were also forbidden to address anybody on earth their father because (religiously speaking) they have only one Father, which is the Father in heaven. (Matthew 23:9) “And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven.” Peter will definitely not allow anybody to call him pope because that word means Father, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia cited afore. So, we can safely conclude that Peter did not ever hold the position of pope, biblically and historically, according to the Bible, and to official documents from the Catholic Church itself. But was he the rock upon which the Church was built? Peter, an Apostle, first to be called, is part of the Church. (1 Corinthians 12:28) “And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.” He is not the rock or the foundation, but were among those who were founded upon the real rock or ‘petra’, or foundation. πέτρα petra pet’-ra Feminine of the same as G4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): – rock. Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries Dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek Words taken from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance by James Strong, S.T.D., LL.D., 1890. Note that the Church was founded on a ‘petra’ — in the feminine gender, and not on a ‘petros’ ( a stone), the name ascribed to Peter. (John 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.” It was not only Peter which was called a stone, but Peter himself called the members of the first century Church as lively stones. (1 Peter 2:5) “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” Members of the first century Church were called by Peter as ‘lively stones’ or ‘lithos’ in the original Greek tongue. λίθος lithos Thayer Definition: 1) a stone 1a) of small stones 1b) of building stones 1c) metaphorically of Christ They, Peter, other Apostles, and the members, altogether formed the edifice founded on the rock or ‘petra’. (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.” The rock mentioned is ‘petra’ and not ‘petros’. (Ephesians 2:20) “And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone…” Note that the Apostles (including Peter) and prophets are built upon the foundation(they are not the foundation), the chief cornerstone, Jesus Christ our Lord. Is there anybody else qualified to be the foundation of the true Church in the Bible? (1 Corinthians 3:11) “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” Anybody
(Catholics-on-Fire) Re: Was Peter really the Rock?
hi,good day to you. im not a protestant. we have a 24 hrs internet broadcast of bible studies. kindly visit us. thanks. http://www.theoldpath.tv/ --- On Thu, 10/15/09, Following St.Faustina followingst.faust...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Following St.Faustina followingst.faust...@yahoo.com Subject: (Catholics-on-Fire) Re: Was Peter really the Rock? To: catholics-on-fire@googlegroups.com Date: Thursday, October 15, 2009, 7:33 AM Dear Brother I think you are in the wrong group. We are Catholics not Protestants so please cease spamming us with this Protestant nonsense as every Catholic knows that Jesus was speaking Aramaic and in Aramaic there is but one word for Rock Kephas. God bless --- On Thu, 10/15/09, THEOLDPATH theoldpath_individual_...@yahoo.com wrote: From: THEOLDPATH theoldpath_individual_...@yahoo.com Subject: (Catholics-on-Fire) Was Peter really the Rock? To: Catholics on Fire catholics-on-fire@googlegroups.com Date: Thursday, October 15, 2009, 7:20 AM This has been the topic of so many discussions in the long history of the Catholic Church. The authority of the leaders of the Catholic Church from the pope to the clergy claim that they derived their power from the Apostle Peter, allegedly the first pope and the successor of Christ in the overall administration of the Christian Church. They based their claim on what is recorded in the Gospel of Matthew. (Matthew 16:18-19) “I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” DOUAY-RHEIMS VERSION Their claim and explanation about these verses is printed hereunder from the Modern Catholic Dictionary. The claim that Peter was the first pope and the rock whereupon the church was built is erroneous and can not be substantiated, either in history or in the Bible. The word pope was first used by an alleged saint, Saint Ennodius, in the year 521, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia How can Peter be a pope when such title was first used 400 years after the death of Peter? Biblically, Peter can not be a pope! It is prohibited by Christ to the original twelve disciples to be called ‘rabbi’ or teacher because their only teacher was Jesus Christ. (Matthew 23:8) “But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.” They were also forbidden to address anybody on earth their father because (religiously speaking) they have only one Father, which is the Father in heaven. (Matthew 23:9) “And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven.” Peter will definitely not allow anybody to call him pope because that word means Father, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia cited afore. So, we can safely conclude that Peter did not ever hold the position of pope, biblically and historically, according to the Bible, and to official documents from the Catholic Church itself. But was he the rock upon which the Church was built? Peter, an Apostle, first to be called, is part of the Church. (1 Corinthians 12:28) “And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.” He is not the rock or the foundation, but were among those who were founded upon the real rock or ‘petra’, or foundation. πέτρα petra pet’-ra Feminine of the same as G4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): – rock. Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries Dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek Words taken from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance by James Strong, S.T.D., LL.D., 1890. Note that the Church was founded on a ‘petra’ — in the feminine gender, and not on a ‘petros’ ( a stone), the name ascribed to Peter. (John 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.” It was not only Peter which was called a stone, but Peter himself called the members of the first century Church as lively stones. (1 Peter 2:5) “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” Members of the first century Church were called by Peter as ‘lively stones’ or ‘lithos’ in the original Greek tongue. λίθος lithos Thayer Definition: 1) a stone 1a) of small stones 1b) of building stones 1c) metaphorically of Christ They, Peter, other Apostles, and the members, altogether formed the edifice founded on the rock or ‘petra’. (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.” The rock mentioned is ‘petra’ and not ‘petros’. (Ephesians 2:20) “And are built upon the
(Catholics-on-Fire) Re: Was Peter really the Rock?
In a message dated 10/15/2009 12:20:47 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, theoldpath_individual_...@yahoo.com writes: (John 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.” Um, Brother Eli ... what translation are you using? The New World Jehovah's Witnesses version? Aramaic has one word for bedrock or boulder and that is kepha - transliterated into Greek - Cephas. In the Gospel of John there is no article ho before the word cephas so adding the indefinite a is a fabricated mistranslation. You go on a great deal about the title pope and you ought to know that all bishops were called pope until the Bishop or Rome decided it wd be his title alone, sometime in the 900s. Pardon me for not being exact. The title is not the problem with you, as well you know. It is the power and authority that troubles you, the concept that a man can be like God, or take the place of God, isn't that the way you read the title vicar of Christ? If you will allow me to point you to Isaiah 22:20-25 you will find a neat little parallel to the famous declaration by Jesus to Simon bar Jona in Matt 16:17-19. Just as Eliakim was not made king but acted as his first minister, according to Isaiah, so Peter is not God, but acts as God's regent or, better, viceroy. I hope you know the word viceroy. It is an official who is made a minister plenipotentiary by a monarch, that is, the official is given the authority by a sovereign to act for him in a colony or among subjects residing in a foreign territory. The parallel is exact. Peter took charge of the early Church only after the Ascension of Jesus, and remained the leader in Jerusalem until about AD 42 when he became an escaped felon miraculously freed by an angel after being condemned by King Herod Agrippa I. He left, as Luke says in Acts 12:17 with great delicacy, for another place. From Paul's letter to the Galatians, we know that place was Antioch. If you look at the patriarchal churches, they all have some relation to Peter. Rome was always accorded the primacy of honor. After Rome, Alexandria held pride of place, since Peter had sent Mark the Evangelist there to found the Church. Antioch was the third patriarchal see in precedence because Peter had lead the Church there before going to Rome where he died. By the 300s Jerusalem was raised to the rank of a patriarchal see. It might have been done earlier except that Jerusalem was defeated by Titus in AD 70 and, more decisively, by the Emperor Ælus Hadrian in AD 135 after which all Jews were forbidden to reside there. The name of the city was changed to Ælia Capitolina by which it was known for several centuries. Constantinople or New Rome as the residents enjoyed calling the city, did not become a patriarchal see until the late 400s when they claimed that Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, had evangelized the area. Brother Eli, may I suggest in future that you choose an argument about the Catholic Church with which you are more familiar and then be sure you have the facts straight? Blessings, Sean --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Please note that I do not send or open attachments sent to this list. You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Catholics on Fire group. To post to this group, send email to Catholics-on-Fire@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to catholics-on-fire-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Catholics-on-Fire May the blessing of Jesus and our Blessed Mother be with you -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
(Catholics-on-Fire) Re: Was Peter really the Rock?
In a message dated 10/15/2009 2:05:42 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, followingst.faust...@yahoo.com writes: you cannot consider yourself Catholic as you cannot say you believe all she holds to be true as true. Brother Eli knows that he can't be a Catholic, Following. He hates the Catholic Church. His pastor told him he had to because we are the spawn of Satan. Not that he knows why he's supposed to hate us, mind you, just hates us cuz the minister he respects advocates hating us. Pardon, Eli love us, but he hates the Church etc. If he continues, watch how the argument progresses ... sectarians never have any imagination about their hate and laughable objections to Catholic teaching. I've been in the Beliefs Christian chats and they never veer from the same tried and true statements: Catholics put a man between themselves and God: Catholics worship Mary, statues, and the pope, somehow thinking that they can take the place of God for us. Oh, among all those people and items we make into God, we also worship a wafer God. There aer a lot more lies going around. You can find a lot of the nitwittery at JackChick.com. Jack is an antiCatholic's antiCatholic. Although real Catholic history can be found in any impartial encyclopedia - Britannica, Americana, World Book etc. - the belligerent sectarians prefer to use the pretend history put out by Ellen Gould White, Dave Hunt and the redoubtable Alexander Hislop. Oh, and don't miss the hilarity of Trail of Blood, the history of the Catholic Church invented by James Carroll, former Grand Dragon of the KKK. Written in the late 1800s, Carroll tells mostly Baptists that the Catholic Church killed true Christians from the very beginning. And don't get them started on the Inquisition (they never know there was the Roman Inquisition, the Spanish Inquisition and individual bishop's inquisitions, so that is the first muddle they don't know about). Do you know Catholics killed over 50,000,000 in Europe? Yep. That's the good ole bloodthirsty Catholic Church. Jack Chick, in fact, claimed that the last time we burned someone at the stake was in St Peter's Square in - get this - 1958. It is never explained if this auto da fey was among the last acts of Pius XII or the first acts of John XXIII. Hope you get a copy of this, too, Brother Eli! Just to let you know a lot of us are wise to you and your hatemongering. Blessings, Sean --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Please note that I do not send or open attachments sent to this list. You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Catholics on Fire group. To post to this group, send email to Catholics-on-Fire@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to catholics-on-fire-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Catholics-on-Fire May the blessing of Jesus and our Blessed Mother be with you -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
