Why does the Roman Catholic Church believe that the Bishop of Rome is the exclusive and rightful successor to Peter? (Deuteronomy, Moses)
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.
Augustine said, " However, which of these two opinions is more probable, let the reader choose." So you take it to mean "which of the two mutually contradictory opinions is most supportive of your arguments at any one time is the one you should choose" rather than "figure out which of the two is really true."
Wow.
Curious, isn't it? If Augustine was so sure on the matter, why did he leave it up to the reader to choose rather than declaring one position right and the other wrong?
Sometimes the scriptures refer to Jesus as the Rock. Sometimes they refer to Peter as the Rock.
Sometimes the scriptures refer to Jesus as the Rock.
Sometime they refer to Peter as the Rock.
No "wow" about that.
Peter also referred to us as all as being living stones. Peter himself would never refer to himself as being any form of rock other than the rock we are all hewn out of.
Peter also referred to us as all as being living stones. Peter himself would never refer to himself as being any form of rock other than the rock we are all hewn out of.
Curious, isn't it? If Augustine was so sure on the matter, why did he leave it up to the reader to choose rather than declaring one position right and the other wrong?
Sometimes the scriptures refer to Jesus as the Rock. Sometimes they refer to Peter as the Rock.
No "wow" about that.
We are not talking about different "scriptures," we are talking about ONE scripture and whether there are two "rocks" involved or one. The two conclusions are mutually exclusive. Regardless of how Augustine put it, YOU have a choice to make to find truth, you can't have your cake and eat it.
Sometimes the scriptures refer to Jesus as the Rock.
Sometime they refer to Peter as the Rock.
No "wow" about that.
Funny here's who Peter, Himself called 'The Stone,' and The Rock"
1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
1Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
ETA:No one except God/Christ was called specifically "rock," and it's never used as a proper name except for Them.
Last edited by mshipmate; 04-19-2014 at 11:06 AM..
The feminine "petra" occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:
Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."
Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."
1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."
We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular; "petras" in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular) we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8). Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn't we?
If Matthew had wanted to refer to Peter as a small stone or pebble, he could have called him "Lithos" instead of "Petros". Petros is simply the masculine form of petras.
As it is, scripture records Simon's new name as Cephas - a derivative of the Aramaic, kepha.
THAT is what Jesus would have said instead of speaking Greek.
A correct translation distinguishes the differences:
You are Ke'pha, but on this SHU'A, I will build MY Church."
You are Petros, but on this PETRA, I will build MY Church."
However, you can follow your own consciousness without the mind of Christ.
It is not saying: Ke'pha/ke'pha or Perto/petro.
Neither, is it saying: "You are Peter, and on this Peter..."
"Make an attempt to put some Petra in that Pope mobile, before it peters-out."
A correct translation distinguishes the differences: You are Ke'pha, but on this SHU'A, I will build MY Church."
You are Petros, but on this PETRA, I will build MY Church." However, you can follow your own consciousness without the mind of Christ. It is not saying: Ke'pha/ke'pha or Perto/petro.
Neither, is it saying: "You are Peter, and on this Peter..." "Make an attempt to put some Petra in that Pope mobile, before it peters-out."
We are not talking about different "scriptures," we are talking about ONE scripture and whether there are two "rocks" involved or one. The two conclusions are mutually exclusive. Regardless of how Augustine put it, YOU have a choice to make to find truth, you can't have your cake and eat it.
Then I go with the infallible Church which our Lord promised to lead into all truth.
Sorry, Gus.
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.