Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think I did know what you meant. The point I was making is that I don't presume to know what language Jesus spoke in. My comment is solely about the gospel account, which is in Greek, and which identifies that Simon was called 'Petros'. However, the salient point is that, whether he was named in Aramaic (Kepha) or Greek (Petros), the result is the same - his name meant 'rock'.
We agree once again. When people don't like the logical conclusion of the evidence they read, they generally ignore it.
As I said, when people don't like the logical conclusion of the evidence they read, they generally ignore it.
Akin's argument provides sensible reasoning on the subject, apart from:
A ghastly attempt to make people believe whatever men in mitres tell them, and stop them from thinking for themselves!
Your belief structure is like the old Midas Muffler commercial. "If it doesn't fit, we'll make it fit!"
Good for you. You do have an imagination. But so be it. You are one of many.
I'm not angry. I have nothing to be angry about. It's just that when you say I 'know nothing', 'make no sense', am 'deluded', am 'going the wrong way' and am 'ignorantly defending a lie', I am inclined to turn your own expressed sentiments back on you.
You must have made up your own Bible. There is nothing in the gospels referring to the weight of the cross, nor Simon 'helping' Jesus bear it, not Jesus 'buckling' under it.
Read these words from the gospels and then tell me who carried the cross as they were going out:
'So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. Carrying his own cross, he went out to the Place of the Skull' (John 19:16-17) 'As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross. They came to a place called Golgotha (which means the Place of the Skull)' (Matthew 27:32-33)
I would love to trust you, but how can people trust you when you add bits into the gospel story which weren't there?
Incidentally, who is this 'Highest Authority' of yours and where exactly does he state this?
We will tell you who this Highest Authority of ours is, if you will also answer us...Who raised Lazarus of Bethany from the dead: Jesus Christ of Nazareth, or Simon son of Jonah ? ......there can be only one. The Blessings of The Eternal One bring you His Truth...
I would probably get excommunicated if not stoned (thank goodness it's an N/A) for even suggesting these within the patriarchal based culture, here goes...
Through Peter's matrilineal descent Petra...will the church be built...
This is interesting, and the first time I have read anything which suggests a similar methodology of gospel interpretation to Fromings' book The Judas Secret. The Judas Secret gives reams of evidence to support each of its conclusions. Do you know of any other evidence that reconciles to this interpretation of 'petra'? I can certainly think of at least one (that ties up with information revealed in chapter 5 of the aforementioned book), but the analysis is too complicated to go into on this discussion thread.
You might be onto something!
Sorry to crash the rabbinical protestant scripture debating society but man does not interpret the Holy Scriptures; it is interpreted by the Holy Spirit.
30,000 protestant denominations and 30,000 mini-popes all with their own spin on the Good Book. This is why Jesus gave authority to Peter.
There is only one passage in the New Testament where Jesus clearly gives authority to another: Matt 16:13-19. In this passage, Jesus asks who the disciples think he is, and they all give different answers. He then asks Peter, who says,
Quote:
“You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” Jesus replies,
"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 Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 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."
God revealed to Peter alone a truth of the faith, the true identity of Christ, when the others were confused and divided. That is the seed of Papal infallibility in scripture.
Why do Protestants continue to defy Jesus and try to interpret the scripture a million different ways. This is not Jesus' intention to have a schismatic Church with thousands of sects all believing different things. It time to heal the rift of the reformation and return to the Church founded by Jesus.
The Faith of the Catholic Church today is the faith of the early Church, is the faith of Jesus, is the faith of the bible - explained and interpreted correctly. The mass, too, is the mass of the early Church.
God did not only act in distant history, and leave us only a book to follow, with only fallible men to try to figure out what the book really means – and so fail at what the book asks us to do, because we can’t agree on the meaning. Infallibility is the lynchpin of authority and interpretation, and of unity, without which the former would be meaningless and the latter would fall apart. All are a work of the Holy Spirit, all are God working directly in His Church to infallibly teach us, guide us, and keep us united as one. He’s been doing it all along in the Catholic Church.
This is interesting, and the first time I have read anything which suggests a similar methodology of gospel interpretation to Fromings' book The Judas Secret.
Thank you Tony for at least having an open mind. My seemingly abstract OP comes from deligent study of the scripture with prayers that God's Holy Spirit guides me to his truth.
Quote:
The Judas Secret
Quote:
gives reams of evidence to support each of its conclusions. Do you know of any other evidence that reconciles to this interpretation of 'petra'?
To be honest with you...my only support (when I took a close look at "on this rock..." passage) was the dictionary which listed the woman's family line as one of the definitions of the word "rock"...aside from the tugging within.
Quote:
I can certainly think of at least one (that ties up with information revealed in chapter 5 of the aforementioned book), but the analysis is too complicated to go into on this discussion thread.
You might be onto something!
I have only heard of "The Judas Secret" through one of the posters here...but have not investigated it's contents. It is difficult enough to skim through the "much altered" 66 books of our present canon bible without having to go through the same insurmountable task of separating the wheat from the tares. I have read other books that are not part of the canon bible, but the OT and the 5 gospels/Revelation in the NT were always my compass.
We will tell you who this Highest Authority of ours is, if you will also answer us...Who raised Lazarus of Bethany from the dead: Jesus Christ of Nazareth, or Simon son of Jonah ? ......there can be only one
I thought it was God, but never mind. I just wondered what the source of your information is when you say 'we have it on the Highest Authority that Jesus Christ of Nazareth, and Simon of Cyrene are not the same person', that's all.
Sorry to crash the rabbinical protestant scripture debating society but man does not interpret the Holy Scriptures; it is interpreted by the Holy Spirit.
If a 'man' in a mitre can interpret the Holy Scriptures, then so can I.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samyn on the green
God revealed to Peter alone a truth of the faith, the true identity of Christ, when the others were confused and divided. That is the seed of Papal infallibility in scripture.
Yes, 'God revealed to Peter/Jesus alone a truth of the faith'. The gospel says nothing about him revealing a truth of the faith to Pope Benedict as well, two thousand years on.
If a 'man' in a mitre can interpret the Holy Scriptures, then so can I.
You just recited the protestant mantra. Keep saying it to your self.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toni Sherente
Yes, 'God revealed to Peter/Jesus alone a truth of the faith'. The gospel says nothing about him revealing a truth of the faith to Pope Benedict as well, two thousand years on.
We finally get to your (not so) hidden agenda.
But's lets recap. Because Jesus gave Peter (two obviously separate entities) the keys (authority) of the kingdom of heaven and with that the power to bind (forbid) and loose (permit), Peter, along with the help of the other Apostles, set up a method of succession. And why would Peter do this? Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church He built on Peter. Peter knew that God had spoken through the prophets for thousands of years culminating in the coming of the Messiah. So after Jesus built His Church on Peter and commanded him to be it's leader, Peter wasn't going to let Jesus's Church die in just a few decades. And so, the purpose and a method of succession of authority made perfect sense. And here we are today, almost 2000 years later, with Pope Benedict XVI, still with the authority of Peter running Jesus's Church. Isn't it beautiful?
Protestantism = every man for himself = 33,000+ denominations = division = chaos = not so beautiful.
Oh, and this all happened WAY (300+ years) before the Bible was canonized by those pesky Catholics. This is somewhat a case of which came first, the chicken or the egg, but in this case the Catholic Church came first, way first. There's plenty of passages in the Bible discussing the importance of holding to traditions whether written or spoken. You might try reading those. And if you read the last paragraph of John, you would understand even more.
To be honest with you...my only support (when I took a close look at "on this rock..." passage) was the dictionary which listed the woman's family line as one of the definitions of the word "rock"...aside from the tugging within.I have only heard of "The Judas Secret" through one of the posters here...but have not investigated it's contents. It is difficult enough to skim through the "much altered" 66 books of our present canon bible without having to go through the same insurmountable task of separating the wheat from the tares. I have read other books that are not part of the canon bible, but the OT and the 5 gospels/Revelation in the NT were always my compass.
To understand the vital references to 'Petros', try reading the book, if only chapters 5 & 6. Or for support, the beginning of Matthew's gospel is probably a good place to start.
You just recited the protestant mantra. Keep saying it to your self.
I don't recite mantras or keep repeating creeds to myself. I thought that was a Catholic thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by juj
Because Jesus gave Peter (two obviously separate entities) the keys (authority) of the kingdom of heaven and with that the power to bind (forbid) and loose (permit), Peter, along with the help of the other Apostles, set up a method of succession. And why would Peter do this? Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church He built on Peter. Peter knew that God had spoken through the prophets for thousands of years culminating in the coming of the Messiah. So after Jesus built His Church on Peter and commanded him to be it's leader, Peter wasn't going to let Jesus's Church die in just a few decades. And so, the purpose and a method of succession of authority made perfect sense. And here we are today, almost 2000 years later, with Pope Benedict XVI, still with the authority of Peter running Jesus's Church. Isn't it beautiful?
better.
Even better and more beautiful is the fact that Peter/Jesus retains authority over his movement, and over the keys to heaven, and over what is forbidden and permitted on earth and in heaven. Christians believe that Jesus is still around and in charge, regardless of what any Pope decrees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by juj
Oh, and this all happened WAY (300+ years) before the Bible was canonized by those pesky Catholics. This is somewhat a case of which came first, the chicken or the egg, but in this case the Catholic Church came first, way first.
The Catholic Church is but a brand, a phantom. Jesus/Peter came first, the gospels next, Pope Benedict last.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Truth
I have nothing to be angry about. It's just that when you say I 'know nothing', 'make no sense', am 'deluded', am 'going the wrong way' and am 'ignorantly defending a lie', I am inclined to turn your own expressed sentiments back on you.
...
...there can be only one. The Blessings of The Eternal One bring you His Truth...
) for even suggesting these within the patriarchal based culture, here goes...
