The Protestant Reformation

[David1701]

32 minutes ago, Nobody said:

You couldn't care less about Luther, but you subscribe to his theology and follow his example? Ok then, good luck!

As I said, I know a trouble-maker, when I come across one.  Your posts are displaying classic symptoms.

I don't subscribe to all of Luther's theology and I don't follow all of his example.  Where his doctrine and example agree with what the Bible says, I agree with it and attempt to follow it, respectively.

[David1701]

16 hours ago, Nobody said:

Good on ya mate, that IS Luther's doctrine in a nutshell. Although in practice you, Luther and all Protestants insert three words: "..agree with MY interpretation of what the Bible says". Which makes it YOUR doctrine, not the Church's doctrine and not the Bible's doctrine.

The Assembly is made up of people, each one of whom is personally responsible to believe what the Bible says and act accordingly.  You won't be able to stand before the Lord, on Judgment Day and say, "But, Lord, it's not my fault, I was only accepting what the Magisterium said!".  It's a bit like the defence used by many Nazi soldiers, in WWII, "I was only following orders.".  It won't wash.

[David1701]

1 hour ago, Nobody said:

I have a different picture in my mind of judgement day. To some He will say: "You unfaithful and disobedient stranger. Did I not tell you that I will build my Church upon Cephas? (Matthew 16:18) Did I not give Cephas the keys of the kingdom and the authority to bind and loose upon earth? (Matthew 16:19) Did I not instruct the Apostles to go and teach all nations? (Matthew 28:19) Did I not assure them that whoever hears them hears Me, and that whoever rejects them rejects Me as well as My Father? (Luke 10:16) Sine YOU read My Bible YOU knew all this but still YOU rejected my Apostles, YOU rejected My Church, therefore YOU rejected Me and My Father. Get out of My sight, I do not know YOU!" What a frightening thing to look forward to!

Are you one of those who believes that there is no salvation outside of Roman Catholicism, because it sounds very like it?

[JohnDB]

5 hours ago, David1701 said:

Are you one of those who believes that there is no salvation outside of Roman Catholicism, because it sounds very like it?

Besides, 

If I'm remembering correctly the "you" in "I will give you the keys..." Is a plural and not singular "you". 

Or it may have been implicated and not needed in that spot. (I'm forgetting the grammar rules) 

[David1701]

10 hours ago, JohnDB said:

Besides, 

If I'm remembering correctly the "you" in "I will give you the keys..." Is a plural and not singular "you". 

Or it may have been implicated and not needed in that spot. (I'm forgetting the grammar rules) 

I've just checked and it is, "...I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven..." - singular; but Peter was not the only one who could declare the gospel and pronounce what God had already bound or loosed (i.e. declared as forbidden or allowed).  This particular declaration was in response to the Father having revealed to Peter that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, which is one of the main keys to the kingdom of heaven.

[Alive]

9 minutes ago, David1701 said:

I've just checked and it is, "...I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven..." - singular; but Peter was not the only one who could declare the gospel and pronounce what God had already bound or loosed (i.e. declared as forbidden or allowed).  This particular declaration was in response to the Father having revealed to Peter that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, which is one of the main keys to the kingdom of heaven.

I think there were a lot of things going on that day and in that place--but its my opinion that the key to it all was what the Father revealed to Peter, but that Peter was not the focus--the declaration and what it meant to all the realms and the created beings in them--was the focus. Many ears were listening in on that conversation.

[David1701]

48 minutes ago, Alive said:

I think there were a lot of things going on that day and in that place--but its my opinion that the key to it all was what the Father revealed to Peter, but that Peter was not the focus--the declaration and what it meant to all the realms and the created beings in them--was the focus. Many ears were listening in on that conversation.

Yes, I agree.

[David1701]

15 hours ago, Nobody said:

Jesus said to Peter: you are Rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church. To say that Jesus was speaking to Peter in the first half of the sentence and to someone else is in the second half is the most pathetic attempt at nullifying the Word of God I have ever heard.

Also, Jesus said to Peter: "whatever YOU shall bind..loose.. shall be considered bound and loosed in heaven". The meaning of the plain words is so childishly simple. To twist this into "YOU shall declare bound or loosed whatever I shall bind or loose" is yet another pathetic attempt at nullifying the Word of God.

O, the wonders of Protestantism never cease!

 

Jesus said to Peter, "You are a stone (or boulder); and on this massive bedrock I will build my Assembly.".  The Greek words used are different in meaning and cannot both apply to Peter.

Re. binding and loosing; I've already explained to you what the future perfect tense is; but you don't want to hear it.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

[JohnDB]

40 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Jesus said to Peter, "You are a stone (or boulder); and on this massive bedrock I will build my Assembly.".  The Greek words used are different in meaning and cannot both apply to Peter.

Re. binding and loosing; I've already explained to you what the future perfect tense is; but you don't want to hear it.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

 

Well,

Just a notion I've been kicking around in my head...

We, as a group of believers, all understand certain aspects of theology a bit differently. 

If we are receptive to listening to others and understanding what they are trying to express then possibly our personal understanding can grow stronger and better than before. (Care taken that we aren't following a "wind of doctrine")

And truly you seem to be just such an individual who is studying history and culture and various things to improve your understanding of how God has worked miracles over the millenia. 

And if it weren't for others teaching you were "blind" to the truths that you now hold. 

But if someone showed you something different first, the subsequent "truths" would be impossible to install into your line of reasoning. 

 

And that's ONE of the reasons for the fracturing of the Catholic Church into so many of the various denominations. Each one with a different take on the subject of God and his Character. 

(Eyes to see and ears to hear)

All of this may not exactly be the ideal...but it's the goal of God to make the best vessel possible out of the clay He has to work with. ALL have a purpose and use otherwise God wouldn't have made us to begin with. (Lesson of the Potter)

So part of the reason people can't "see" or "hear" is that God has ordained them to a particular position and station...

Going against God's decree doesn't work. Like beating your head against a brick wall doesn't work. 

 

In America Catholics are very different than the rest of the world's Catholics. In some places you would swear that they are almost Methodist or Lutheran. 

[David1701]

1 hour ago, Nobody said:

That sounds really great.. if you don't know Koine Greek, and Aramaic, and a lot of other things. The Koine Greek word for rock is petra, there is no such word as petros. But some languages, and Greek is one of those, change the ending of the word to fit the gender of the person they refer to. So petros is simply the masculine form or the feminine word petra.

In order to deceive the unsuspecting dupes, some Protestant websites use a capital for Petra and a lower case for petros, but that's just another sign of their dishonesty. You see, the surviving manuscripts were written in all capitals, also called uncials, so there would have been no distinction between the first letter of petros and the first letter of petra.

And then there's an additional problem, as Jesus did not speak in Greek, He spoke in Aramaic. And in Aramaic the word that Jesus used in both parts of his sentence was cephas, which means ... you guessed it, a massive rock!

Matt. 16:18 (KJV) 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.

Thayer's Lexicon

- Original: Πέτρος
- Transliteration: Petros
- Phonetic: pet'-ros
- Definition:  Peter = "a rock or a stone"  
1.  one of the twelve disciples of Jesus  

Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionary

G4074 Πέτρος Petros (pet'-ros) n/p.
1. a (piece of) rock
2. as a name, Petrus, an apostle

Matt. 16:18 (KJV) 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.

Thayer's Lexicon

- Original: πέτρα
- Transliteration: Petra
- Phonetic: pet'-ra
- Definition:   
1.  a rock, cliff or ledge   
--a.  a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground  
--b.  a rock, a large stone  
--c.  metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul  

Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionary

G4073 πέτρα petra (pet'-ra) n.
1. a (mass of) rock
{literally or figuratively}

You are a piece of rock and on this cliff I will build my Assembly.  The piece of rock (note that I did not say little rock) is Peter and the cliff or massive bedrock is Christ himself.

As we can see, the Greek words are not merely masculine and feminine; but their meanings are somewhat different as well.

Whether or not Jesus spoke in Aramaic is not the issue.  The Bible is inspired by God and the NT is in Greek, which differentiates between the meanings of Petros and Petra.

Edited August 20, 2020 by David1701