Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: Darthvoy
Jesus was a Jew
/Thread
Race, yes. Religion, no.
Oh, I dunno. He never denounced Judaism. As I said before, if you ignore Paul, Jesus merely looked as if he were trying to reform Judaism.
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: Darthvoy
Jesus was a Jew
/Thread
Race, yes. Religion, no.
Oh, I dunno. He never denounced Judaism. As I said before, if you ignore Paul, Jesus merely looked as if he were trying to reform Judaism.
Denounced it? He only totally threw away the huge list of man-made rules drummed up by the Jews, fulfilled the Old Testament law, and re-created the faith. Maybe not in those words, but I'd say he denounced it. Read the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5) and compare Jesus's words to Judaism. They're very very different.
Originally posted by: Krk3561
The ignorance in this thread is astounding, it has caused me lose hope in society.
The Catholic Church was established by Jesus. Read the bible.
Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church."
I'm fvcking Jewish and even I know this.
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Even if that is true, it doesnt change the fact that Jesus established the Roman Catholic Church.Originally posted by: AMDZen
The entire teachings of Christ go against everything the Catholic Church believes in.
In other words, the Catholic Church stands for everything that Christ preached against.
He didn't want a heirechy, he didn't want brick and mortar buildings, he didn't want the very concept of the church as we know it. Especially that of the Catholic Church. He even preached against it, the entire bible is littered with it, he knew that if the church was built on the structure that the Catholic Church is built on, that it would become what it became in the middle ages. The church had WAYYY too much power, and it still does if you ask me. Jesus made it an explicit point to preach against such power and such structure because he knew what would happen, and also made it a specific poitn that all who worshiped him should do it in nature and without walls.
That being said, I could care less because I don't consider myself Christian.
Originally posted by: AMDZen
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Even if that is true, it doesnt change the fact that Jesus established the Roman Catholic Church.Originally posted by: AMDZen
The entire teachings of Christ go against everything the Catholic Church believes in.
In other words, the Catholic Church stands for everything that Christ preached against.
He didn't want a heirechy, he didn't want brick and mortar buildings, he didn't want the very concept of the church as we know it. Especially that of the Catholic Church. He even preached against it, the entire bible is littered with it, he knew that if the church was built on the structure that the Catholic Church is built on, that it would become what it became in the middle ages. The church had WAYYY too much power, and it still does if you ask me. Jesus made it an explicit point to preach against such power and such structure because he knew what would happen, and also made it a specific poitn that all who worshiped him should do it in nature and without walls.
That being said, I could care less because I don't consider myself Christian.
I don't think you even read my post. First off, as others have pointed out - the very concept of a church as we know it wasn't even a term that Christ used, at least directly. Second, the things he did say regarding a place of worship were the things I explained in my first post. He preached against making "a place of worship" aka a Church, into the things that the Roman's made it when they established the Catholic Church. Even if you place it upon one person who started it, that person was not Christ.
All the others things Christ might be or not be, he was a wise man. He did understand that making a place to worship him and god should be a place free of necessity. And free of the things that the Catholic Church live by. For one, he said that the worship should never be done behind closed walls. Thats more of a direct phrase, but what he meant was that it shouldn't happen in a building that needs to be payed for. He didn't want money to enter into the scheme of things because he knew (even if he didn't fully comprehend it) what that would lead to. People of god (priests, pastors, etc) shouldn't have power, and he said that specifically. Basically he was against all organized religion as we know it, and even further against the things the Catholic Church stands for. People of god having power, and the worshipers themselves having to pay for that privelage are merely two examples of the things Christ DIDN'T WANT.
So your naive enough to think that this man, who proclaimed himself the son of god - and laid out a few basic rules on what his followers should do to worship this god - also started a Church that stood for the very things he stood against in his teachings? Like I said, your either naive, or you simply didn't read my original post. And as for the OP, he/she is either naive as well - or simply understands nothing along the history of Christianity, much less Christ himself.
Originally posted by: AMDZen
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Even if that is true, it doesnt change the fact that Jesus established the Roman Catholic Church.Originally posted by: AMDZen
The entire teachings of Christ go against everything the Catholic Church believes in.
In other words, the Catholic Church stands for everything that Christ preached against.
He didn't want a heirechy, he didn't want brick and mortar buildings, he didn't want the very concept of the church as we know it. Especially that of the Catholic Church. He even preached against it, the entire bible is littered with it, he knew that if the church was built on the structure that the Catholic Church is built on, that it would become what it became in the middle ages. The church had WAYYY too much power, and it still does if you ask me. Jesus made it an explicit point to preach against such power and such structure because he knew what would happen, and also made it a specific poitn that all who worshiped him should do it in nature and without walls.
That being said, I could care less because I don't consider myself Christian.
I don't think you even read my post. First off, as others have pointed out - the very concept of a church as we know it wasn't even a term that Christ used, at least directly. Second, the things he did say regarding a place of worship were the things I explained in my first post. He preached against making "a place of worship" aka a Church, into the things that the Roman's made it when they established the Catholic Church. Even if you place it upon one person who started it, that person was not Christ.
All the others things Christ might be or not be, he was a wise man. He did understand that making a place to worship him and god should be a place free of necessity. And free of the things that the Catholic Church live by. For one, he said that the worship should never be done behind closed walls. Thats more of a direct phrase, but what he meant was that it shouldn't happen in a building that needs to be payed for. He didn't want money to enter into the scheme of things because he knew (even if he didn't fully comprehend it) what that would lead to. People of god (priests, pastors, etc) shouldn't have power, and he said that specifically. Basically he was against all organized religion as we know it, and even further against the things the Catholic Church stands for. People of god having power, and the worshipers themselves having to pay for that privelage are merely two examples of the things Christ DIDN'T WANT.
So your naive enough to think that this man, who proclaimed himself the son of god - and laid out a few basic rules on what his followers should do to worship this god - also started a Church that stood for the very things he stood against in his teachings? Like I said, your either naive, or you simply didn't read my original post. And as for the OP, he/she is either naive as well - or simply understands nothing along the history of Christianity, much less Christ himself.
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: AMDZen
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Even if that is true, it doesnt change the fact that Jesus established the Roman Catholic Church.Originally posted by: AMDZen
The entire teachings of Christ go against everything the Catholic Church believes in.
In other words, the Catholic Church stands for everything that Christ preached against.
He didn't want a heirechy, he didn't want brick and mortar buildings, he didn't want the very concept of the church as we know it. Especially that of the Catholic Church. He even preached against it, the entire bible is littered with it, he knew that if the church was built on the structure that the Catholic Church is built on, that it would become what it became in the middle ages. The church had WAYYY too much power, and it still does if you ask me. Jesus made it an explicit point to preach against such power and such structure because he knew what would happen, and also made it a specific poitn that all who worshiped him should do it in nature and without walls.
That being said, I could care less because I don't consider myself Christian.
I don't think you even read my post. First off, as others have pointed out - the very concept of a church as we know it wasn't even a term that Christ used, at least directly. Second, the things he did say regarding a place of worship were the things I explained in my first post. He preached against making "a place of worship" aka a Church, into the things that the Roman's made it when they established the Catholic Church. Even if you place it upon one person who started it, that person was not Christ.
All the others things Christ might be or not be, he was a wise man. He did understand that making a place to worship him and god should be a place free of necessity. And free of the things that the Catholic Church live by. For one, he said that the worship should never be done behind closed walls. Thats more of a direct phrase, but what he meant was that it shouldn't happen in a building that needs to be payed for. He didn't want money to enter into the scheme of things because he knew (even if he didn't fully comprehend it) what that would lead to. People of god (priests, pastors, etc) shouldn't have power, and he said that specifically. Basically he was against all organized religion as we know it, and even further against the things the Catholic Church stands for. People of god having power, and the worshipers themselves having to pay for that privelage are merely two examples of the things Christ DIDN'T WANT.
So your naive enough to think that this man, who proclaimed himself the son of god - and laid out a few basic rules on what his followers should do to worship this god - also started a Church that stood for the very things he stood against in his teachings? Like I said, your either naive, or you simply didn't read my original post. And as for the OP, he/she is either naive as well - or simply understands nothing along the history of Christianity, much less Christ himself.
:thumbsup:
Originally posted by: Platinum321
I would have to agree with Nik and Amdzen, they seem to have a good idea of what Christ stood for. The Catholic church and all its rituals/rules is certainly not what Christ preached.
Exactly, because nothing the RCC does is derived from scriptures....Originally posted by: Platinum321
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: AMDZen
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Even if that is true, it doesnt change the fact that Jesus established the Roman Catholic Church.Originally posted by: AMDZen
The entire teachings of Christ go against everything the Catholic Church believes in.
In other words, the Catholic Church stands for everything that Christ preached against.
He didn't want a heirechy, he didn't want brick and mortar buildings, he didn't want the very concept of the church as we know it. Especially that of the Catholic Church. He even preached against it, the entire bible is littered with it, he knew that if the church was built on the structure that the Catholic Church is built on, that it would become what it became in the middle ages. The church had WAYYY too much power, and it still does if you ask me. Jesus made it an explicit point to preach against such power and such structure because he knew what would happen, and also made it a specific poitn that all who worshiped him should do it in nature and without walls.
That being said, I could care less because I don't consider myself Christian.
I don't think you even read my post. First off, as others have pointed out - the very concept of a church as we know it wasn't even a term that Christ used, at least directly. Second, the things he did say regarding a place of worship were the things I explained in my first post. He preached against making "a place of worship" aka a Church, into the things that the Roman's made it when they established the Catholic Church. Even if you place it upon one person who started it, that person was not Christ.
All the others things Christ might be or not be, he was a wise man. He did understand that making a place to worship him and god should be a place free of necessity. And free of the things that the Catholic Church live by. For one, he said that the worship should never be done behind closed walls. Thats more of a direct phrase, but what he meant was that it shouldn't happen in a building that needs to be payed for. He didn't want money to enter into the scheme of things because he knew (even if he didn't fully comprehend it) what that would lead to. People of god (priests, pastors, etc) shouldn't have power, and he said that specifically. Basically he was against all organized religion as we know it, and even further against the things the Catholic Church stands for. People of god having power, and the worshipers themselves having to pay for that privelage are merely two examples of the things Christ DIDN'T WANT.
So your naive enough to think that this man, who proclaimed himself the son of god - and laid out a few basic rules on what his followers should do to worship this god - also started a Church that stood for the very things he stood against in his teachings? Like I said, your either naive, or you simply didn't read my original post. And as for the OP, he/she is either naive as well - or simply understands nothing along the history of Christianity, much less Christ himself.
:thumbsup:
I would have to agree with Nik and Amdzen, they seem to have a good idea of what Christ stood for. The Catholic church and all its rituals/rules is certainly not what Christ preached.
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: Platinum321
I would have to agree with Nik and Amdzen, they seem to have a good idea of what Christ stood for. The Catholic church and all its rituals/rules is certainly not what Christ preached.
That's just the thing, though. He taught against hypocrits and false teachers who push that salvation is attained through any sort of ritualistic, legalistic set of rules. How can you say that you follow the teachings of Christ when you require your fellow "church" members to follow rituals/rules that go against His teachings?
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: Platinum321
I would have to agree with Nik and Amdzen, they seem to have a good idea of what Christ stood for. The Catholic church and all its rituals/rules is certainly not what Christ preached.
That's just the thing, though. He taught against hypocrits and false teachers who push that salvation is attained through any sort of ritualistic, legalistic set of rules. How can you say that you follow the teachings of Christ when you require your fellow "church" members to follow rituals/rules that go against His teachings?
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Exactly, because nothing the RCC does is derived from scriptures....Originally posted by: Platinum321
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: AMDZen
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Even if that is true, it doesnt change the fact that Jesus established the Roman Catholic Church.Originally posted by: AMDZen
The entire teachings of Christ go against everything the Catholic Church believes in.
In other words, the Catholic Church stands for everything that Christ preached against.
He didn't want a heirechy, he didn't want brick and mortar buildings, he didn't want the very concept of the church as we know it. Especially that of the Catholic Church. He even preached against it, the entire bible is littered with it, he knew that if the church was built on the structure that the Catholic Church is built on, that it would become what it became in the middle ages. The church had WAYYY too much power, and it still does if you ask me. Jesus made it an explicit point to preach against such power and such structure because he knew what would happen, and also made it a specific poitn that all who worshiped him should do it in nature and without walls.
That being said, I could care less because I don't consider myself Christian.
I don't think you even read my post. First off, as others have pointed out - the very concept of a church as we know it wasn't even a term that Christ used, at least directly. Second, the things he did say regarding a place of worship were the things I explained in my first post. He preached against making "a place of worship" aka a Church, into the things that the Roman's made it when they established the Catholic Church. Even if you place it upon one person who started it, that person was not Christ.
All the others things Christ might be or not be, he was a wise man. He did understand that making a place to worship him and god should be a place free of necessity. And free of the things that the Catholic Church live by. For one, he said that the worship should never be done behind closed walls. Thats more of a direct phrase, but what he meant was that it shouldn't happen in a building that needs to be payed for. He didn't want money to enter into the scheme of things because he knew (even if he didn't fully comprehend it) what that would lead to. People of god (priests, pastors, etc) shouldn't have power, and he said that specifically. Basically he was against all organized religion as we know it, and even further against the things the Catholic Church stands for. People of god having power, and the worshipers themselves having to pay for that privelage are merely two examples of the things Christ DIDN'T WANT.
So your naive enough to think that this man, who proclaimed himself the son of god - and laid out a few basic rules on what his followers should do to worship this god - also started a Church that stood for the very things he stood against in his teachings? Like I said, your either naive, or you simply didn't read my original post. And as for the OP, he/she is either naive as well - or simply understands nothing along the history of Christianity, much less Christ himself.
:thumbsup:
I would have to agree with Nik and Amdzen, they seem to have a good idea of what Christ stood for. The Catholic church and all its rituals/rules is certainly not what Christ preached.
:roll:
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: Platinum321
I would have to agree with Nik and Amdzen, they seem to have a good idea of what Christ stood for. The Catholic church and all its rituals/rules is certainly not what Christ preached.
That's just the thing, though. He taught against hypocrits and false teachers who push that salvation is attained through any sort of ritualistic, legalistic set of rules. How can you say that you follow the teachings of Christ when you require your fellow "church" members to follow rituals/rules that go against His teachings?
I think you have a biased, misconceived view of the RCC. Can you provide an example of rituals that go against his teachings?
Are you referring to this?Originally posted by: Attrox
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: Platinum321
I would have to agree with Nik and Amdzen, they seem to have a good idea of what Christ stood for. The Catholic church and all its rituals/rules is certainly not what Christ preached.
That's just the thing, though. He taught against hypocrits and false teachers who push that salvation is attained through any sort of ritualistic, legalistic set of rules. How can you say that you follow the teachings of Christ when you require your fellow "church" members to follow rituals/rules that go against His teachings?
I think you have a biased, misconceived view of the RCC. Can you provide an example of rituals that go against his teachings?
See Kinev's last post in the "Catholocism = Christianity?" thread
EDIT: forgot to quote
EDIT2: Currently, it's the last post in that thread (page 9)
Have you read the thread? If not, here it is:
Catholicism=salvation through faith and works
Christianity=salvation through faith alone
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: Platinum321
I would have to agree with Nik and Amdzen, they seem to have a good idea of what Christ stood for. The Catholic church and all its rituals/rules is certainly not what Christ preached.
That's just the thing, though. He taught against hypocrits and false teachers who push that salvation is attained through any sort of ritualistic, legalistic set of rules. How can you say that you follow the teachings of Christ when you require your fellow "church" members to follow rituals/rules that go against His teachings?
that really isn't the topic of the thread tho.
OTOH, if you really want to talk about following the teachings of Christ, John 3:5-8
5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born anew.' 8 The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit."
yet all churches want to somehow be the arbiter and judge of who is or is not a "church member".
this whole idea of membership is contrary to christ.
also, Christ many times asked the "church" to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, help the widows etc and yet protestants in general can't seem to get out of their own navels.
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Exactly, because nothing the RCC does is derived from scriptures....Originally posted by: Platinum321
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: AMDZen
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Even if that is true, it doesnt change the fact that Jesus established the Roman Catholic Church.Originally posted by: AMDZen
The entire teachings of Christ go against everything the Catholic Church believes in.
In other words, the Catholic Church stands for everything that Christ preached against.
He didn't want a heirechy, he didn't want brick and mortar buildings, he didn't want the very concept of the church as we know it. Especially that of the Catholic Church. He even preached against it, the entire bible is littered with it, he knew that if the church was built on the structure that the Catholic Church is built on, that it would become what it became in the middle ages. The church had WAYYY too much power, and it still does if you ask me. Jesus made it an explicit point to preach against such power and such structure because he knew what would happen, and also made it a specific poitn that all who worshiped him should do it in nature and without walls.
That being said, I could care less because I don't consider myself Christian.
I don't think you even read my post. First off, as others have pointed out - the very concept of a church as we know it wasn't even a term that Christ used, at least directly. Second, the things he did say regarding a place of worship were the things I explained in my first post. He preached against making "a place of worship" aka a Church, into the things that the Roman's made it when they established the Catholic Church. Even if you place it upon one person who started it, that person was not Christ.
All the others things Christ might be or not be, he was a wise man. He did understand that making a place to worship him and god should be a place free of necessity. And free of the things that the Catholic Church live by. For one, he said that the worship should never be done behind closed walls. Thats more of a direct phrase, but what he meant was that it shouldn't happen in a building that needs to be payed for. He didn't want money to enter into the scheme of things because he knew (even if he didn't fully comprehend it) what that would lead to. People of god (priests, pastors, etc) shouldn't have power, and he said that specifically. Basically he was against all organized religion as we know it, and even further against the things the Catholic Church stands for. People of god having power, and the worshipers themselves having to pay for that privelage are merely two examples of the things Christ DIDN'T WANT.
So your naive enough to think that this man, who proclaimed himself the son of god - and laid out a few basic rules on what his followers should do to worship this god - also started a Church that stood for the very things he stood against in his teachings? Like I said, your either naive, or you simply didn't read my original post. And as for the OP, he/she is either naive as well - or simply understands nothing along the history of Christianity, much less Christ himself.
:thumbsup:
I would have to agree with Nik and Amdzen, they seem to have a good idea of what Christ stood for. The Catholic church and all its rituals/rules is certainly not what Christ preached.
:roll:
with all of your sarcasm you haven't answered me yet.
fact is, there is no historical basis for saying that Jesus founded the "Catholic" church.
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Matthew 16:16-19.
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, 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 shall not overpower it. 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (NASB).
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Matthew 16:16-19.
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, 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 shall not overpower it. 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (NASB).
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Matthew 16:16-19.
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, 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 shall not overpower it. 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (NASB).
so?
as has been pointed out numerous times.
1. by rock Christ was referring to the "confession" or "faith" of Peter, not peter himself, even the grammar indicates that. as christ said, "This rock" not upon "Peter the rock".
Some of the verses I had encountered before. I wasn?t entirely illiterate with respect to the Bible, but many verses were new to me. Whether familiar or not, the verses elicited no response from me, because I didn?t know enough about the Bible to respond effectively.
Finally the missionary got to Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church."
"Hold it right there!" I said. "I know that verse. That?s where Jesus appointed Simon the earthly head of the Church. That?s where he appointed him the first pope." I paused and smiled broadly, knowing what the missionary would say in response.
I knew he usually didn?t get any defense of the Catholic position at all as he went door to door, but sometimes a Catholic would speak up as I had. He had a reply, and I knew what it would be, and I was ready for it.
"I understand your thinking," he said, "but you Catholics misunderstand this verse because you don?t know any Greek. That?s the trouble with your Church and with your scholars. You people don?t know the language in which the New Testament was written. To understand Matthew 16:18, we have to get behind the English to the Greek."
"Is that so?" I said, leading him on. I pretended to be ignorant of the trap being laid for me.
"Yes," he said. "In Greek, the word for rock is petra, which means a large, massive stone. The word used for Simon?s new name is different; it?s Petros, which means a little stone, a pebble."
In reality, what the missionary was telling me at this point was false. As Greek scholars?even non-Catholic ones?admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant "small stone" and "large rock" in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew?s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek?an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant "rock." If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. The missionary?s argument didn?t work and showed a faulty knowledge of Greek. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar?s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor?s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).
"You Catholics," the missionary continued, "because you don?t know Greek, imagine that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock. Actually, of course, it was just the opposite. He was contrasting them. On the one side, the rock on which the Church would be built, Jesus himself; on the other, this mere pebble. Jesus was really saying that he himself would be the foundation, and he was emphasizing that Simon wasn?t remotely qualified to be it."
"Case closed," he thought.
It was the missionary?s turn to pause and smile broadly. He had followed the training he had been given. He had been told that a rare Catholic might have heard of Matthew 16:18 and might argue that it proved the establishment of the papacy. He knew what he was supposed to say to prove otherwise, and he had said it.
"Well," I replied, beginning to use that nugget of information I had come across, "I agree with you that we must get behind the English to the Greek." He smiled some more and nodded. "But I?m sure you?ll agree with me that we must get behind the Greek to the Aramaic."
"The what?" he asked.
"The Aramaic," I said. "As you know, Aramaic was the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke. It was the common language of the place."
"I thought Greek was."
"No," I answered. "Many, if not most of them, knew Greek, of course, because Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world. It was the language of culture and commerce; and most of the books of the New Testament were written in it, because they were written not just for Christians in Palestine but also for Christians in places such as Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, places where Aramaic wasn?t the spoken language.
"I say most of the New Testament was written in Greek, but not all. Many hold that Matthew was written in Aramaic?we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea?but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek."
I stopped for a moment and looked at the missionary. He seemed a bit uncomfortable, perhaps doubting that I was a Catholic because I seemed to know what I was talking about. I continued.
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: Platinum321
I would have to agree with Nik and Amdzen, they seem to have a good idea of what Christ stood for. The Catholic church and all its rituals/rules is certainly not what Christ preached.
That's just the thing, though. He taught against hypocrits and false teachers who push that salvation is attained through any sort of ritualistic, legalistic set of rules. How can you say that you follow the teachings of Christ when you require your fellow "church" members to follow rituals/rules that go against His teachings?
I think you have a biased, misconceived view of the RCC. Can you provide an example of rituals that go against his teachings?
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Matthew 16:16-19.
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, 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 shall not overpower it. 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (NASB).
so?
as has been pointed out numerous times.
1. by rock Christ was referring to the "confession" or "faith" of Peter, not peter himself, even the grammar indicates that. as christ said, "This rock" not upon "Peter the rock".
http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp
Some of the verses I had encountered before. I wasn?t entirely illiterate with respect to the Bible, but many verses were new to me. Whether familiar or not, the verses elicited no response from me, because I didn?t know enough about the Bible to respond effectively.
Finally the missionary got to Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church."
"Hold it right there!" I said. "I know that verse. That?s where Jesus appointed Simon the earthly head of the Church. That?s where he appointed him the first pope." I paused and smiled broadly, knowing what the missionary would say in response.
I knew he usually didn?t get any defense of the Catholic position at all as he went door to door, but sometimes a Catholic would speak up as I had. He had a reply, and I knew what it would be, and I was ready for it.
"I understand your thinking," he said, "but you Catholics misunderstand this verse because you don?t know any Greek. That?s the trouble with your Church and with your scholars. You people don?t know the language in which the New Testament was written. To understand Matthew 16:18, we have to get behind the English to the Greek."
"Is that so?" I said, leading him on. I pretended to be ignorant of the trap being laid for me.
"Yes," he said. "In Greek, the word for rock is petra, which means a large, massive stone. The word used for Simon?s new name is different; it?s Petros, which means a little stone, a pebble."
In reality, what the missionary was telling me at this point was false. As Greek scholars?even non-Catholic ones?admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant "small stone" and "large rock" in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew?s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek?an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant "rock." If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. The missionary?s argument didn?t work and showed a faulty knowledge of Greek. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar?s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor?s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).
"You Catholics," the missionary continued, "because you don?t know Greek, imagine that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock. Actually, of course, it was just the opposite. He was contrasting them. On the one side, the rock on which the Church would be built, Jesus himself; on the other, this mere pebble. Jesus was really saying that he himself would be the foundation, and he was emphasizing that Simon wasn?t remotely qualified to be it."
"Case closed," he thought.
It was the missionary?s turn to pause and smile broadly. He had followed the training he had been given. He had been told that a rare Catholic might have heard of Matthew 16:18 and might argue that it proved the establishment of the papacy. He knew what he was supposed to say to prove otherwise, and he had said it.
"Well," I replied, beginning to use that nugget of information I had come across, "I agree with you that we must get behind the English to the Greek." He smiled some more and nodded. "But I?m sure you?ll agree with me that we must get behind the Greek to the Aramaic."
"The what?" he asked.
"The Aramaic," I said. "As you know, Aramaic was the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke. It was the common language of the place."
"I thought Greek was."
"No," I answered. "Many, if not most of them, knew Greek, of course, because Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world. It was the language of culture and commerce; and most of the books of the New Testament were written in it, because they were written not just for Christians in Palestine but also for Christians in places such as Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, places where Aramaic wasn?t the spoken language.
"I say most of the New Testament was written in Greek, but not all. Many hold that Matthew was written in Aramaic?we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea?but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek."
I stopped for a moment and looked at the missionary. He seemed a bit uncomfortable, perhaps doubting that I was a Catholic because I seemed to know what I was talking about. I continued.
Originally posted by: AMDZen
Another issue with the RCC is their stance on Women Priestess'. I won't delve into this one too far, I just want to say that I completely disagree with their stance on it. And I for one, would definetely think that women are equal in the eyes of god. And can intrepret, or do whatever else these Priests, Bishops or even the Pope himself can do, and do it equally well.
Originally posted by: Nik
I refuse to read an explanation of "Peter the rock" from catholic.com. Find a NON-BIAS explanation of why you believe the way you do. Namely, directly from the Bible. Stop copying and pasting from other websites. Speak from your intelligence. Speak from your wisdom. Speak from the heart. Speak from the Bible!
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Originally posted by: AMDZen
Another issue with the RCC is their stance on Women Priestess'. I won't delve into this one too far, I just want to say that I completely disagree with their stance on it. And I for one, would definetely think that women are equal in the eyes of god. And can intrepret, or do whatever else these Priests, Bishops or even the Pope himself can do, and do it equally well.
"For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to Catholicism." 2 Timothy 4:3-4