Human Ears Evolved from Ancient Fish Gills

[travis2]

Nice job, smeagol...

[Phenomanul]

If you want to have a private discussion about religion and doctrine, I have no problem.

My view is that by having it in the public forum, other more knowledgeable posters than myself (and there are many) can chime in. As long as we do it in a civilized manner.

Your call. If you want to do it private that's fine, but so is public. Let me know

We can keep it public as long as we accord not to get too personal and that the conversation stay civilized...

Also, realize that since the subject is 'religious,' people not privy to the rest of the conversation will in fact get personal... If they do... we can't allow ourselves to get sucked into an aggresive defense of our faith..

I loved the way this paragraph was phrased in the Got Doctrine foreword....

"Ministries as any credit for good must be attributed to GOD. We believe any preacher or teacher that denies that they too are possibly likewise guilty of error at times does not understand that they are fallible and apt to offend by nature. Mature Christians must strive against allowing themselves to be easily overcome by personal pride which causes them to become unduly offended. We love all of our Roman Catholic, Charismatic, and Pentecostal brothers and sisters. We admonish all to be familiar with their denomination's writings. Our differences and disagreements are not of a personal nature but concern articles of Faith, creeds, doctrinal statements, and the like. We must assume all who claim to believe in Jesus Christ are true members of the body of Christ. Of course, we know that there are "tares", but only God knows who these "false brethren" are. We do not critique any specific person's sincerity, spiritual standing, or worth, and would not dare do so because we believe this is judging one's brother."

Anyway, some background on myself...

I was a professed 'Catholic' till about the age of 10. I've been a 'born-again' Christian since and have strived to learn more and more about GOD's purpose for my life.

I attend a Southern Baptist Church.... but the denomination is not without its faults... for one, and in general, they are too uptight when it comes to worship.... My father is the pastor of my particular church however, and he is constantly studying to edify his understanding of the Word. Though we try to understand Biblical doctrines, we always try to do it with the guidance of the HOLY SPIRIT. It is in this manner that my father always teaches, beginning with a prayer that the LORD sanctify his lips. For the most part we try to focus on our contributions to society rather than focusing on the differences in doctrine.

[Phenomanul]

Every one of those twists, mistranslations, misconceptions, and otherwise incorrect interpretations has been dealt with at one time or another in this forum.

I am not bashing you personally, but merely dredging up old arguments that have been refuted isn't debate.

I don't believe I was around when these passages were addressed.... but most are very clear. Mary was a sinner, needed redemption, was not Divine and should not be adored, revered, venerated or worshiped.

Things that are refuted by passages in the Catholic Catechism or the Council of Trent Accord... I personally can't allow to carry more weight than GOD's Holy Word itself. Again this is my opinion.

[travis2]

I don't believe I was around when these passages were addressed.... but most are very clear. Mary was a sinner, needed redemption, was not Divine and should not be adored, revered, venerated or worshiped.

Things that are refuted by passages in the Catholic Catechism or the Council of Trent Accord... I personally can't allow to carry more weight than GOD's Holy Word itself. Again this is my opinion.

I disagree with your first statement...especially given the fact of thousands of Protestant sects proclaiming themselves as the true faith.

Second...your statement about Mary is true insofar as the Church does not teach she is divine. As such, she is not to be worshipped. The other words you use, however, are incorrect. And (not meaning to sound harsh, but...) I will not allow you to redefine words to suit you. Adoration, veneration, and reverence are not the same as worship and never will be. That's a fact and it's not going to change.

Finally, most of the Biblical references you give are themselves refuted by Biblical passages...not merely Church doctrine.

However...for the efficacy of using tradition to help shape doctrine...see 1 Corinthians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Peter, and 2 Timothy (among others). Further, you cannot produce any Biblical reference to relying solely on the Bible without engaging in circular logic and your own appeal to tradition.

[Phenomanul]

I disagree with your first statement...especially given the fact of thousands of Protestant sects proclaiming themselves as the true faith.

I have not, nor will I ever, profess to hold the "true faith"... And yet that is something the Catholic Church has already professed to own.

From the Roman Catholic Catechism...

The one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Roman church which is the one church of Christ and teaches the one completely true religion revealed by God for the solace and salvation of all mankind (p.81). The Catholic church, and she only, has all the truths of religion (p.82). The church which is the one ark of salvation.The Catholic church is the necessary means of salvation for all (p.340). Outside the church, no salvation (p.447).

I know it is the work of the HOLY SPIRIT to teach me Truth... If I genuinely seek it...

The Bible says that every true saint is guided by the HOLY SPIRIT into all truth, that the common saint has the unction and that "ye need not that any man teach you":

[John 14:26] But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

[John16:13] Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

[1 John 2:20] But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

[26] These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.

[27] But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

In short, the Truth of GOD is revealed to those who seek it.

Second...your statement about Mary is true insofar as the Church does not teach she is divine. As such, she is not to be worshipped. The other words you use, however, are incorrect. And (not meaning to sound harsh, but...) I will not allow you to redefine words to suit you. Adoration, veneration, and reverence are not the same as worship and never will be. That's a fact and it's not going to change.

ahem... you venerate and adore her at your own risk then... My faith and loyalty, however, belong to GOD alone... for His Glory.

But this is what the Catechism says concerning Mary:

Special homage-supreme dignity as mother of God-holier and nobler than any angel or saint. It implies a loving reverence-and a confidence in her power and benevolence (p.241).

(She is) mediatress of all graces. Dispenser of the graces bestowed on human kind. Having co-operated in the Incarnation and the Redemption-our lady merits to co-operate as channel for the graces flowing therefrom (the cross).

Burying place of the Blessed Virgin Mary, where her body lay for three days before her assumption into heaven (p.496).

Her physical heart is venerated. The devotion is analogous (comparable) to that to the sacred heart of Jesus (p.225).

She remained for her whole life absolutely sinless (p.310).

"So according to "sacred tradition" of the Roman church, Mary was sinless, resurrected from the dead after three days, and is our intercessor before God (2 Cor.11:3-4, Gal.1:6-9)." (from website I linked)

I've already posted some Biblical passages that state that this ideology can't be true... direct and clear... and no, no other place in the Bible refutes Mary's standing as a HUMAN, herself in need of Christ's redemption.


As far as veneration goes, here again is what the Catechism says...

Veneration (is) that worship given to the saints either directly or through images or relics (p.512).

Finally, most of the Biblical references you give are themselves refuted by Biblical passages...not merely Church doctrine.

The Bible would not refute itself.... think about it. Interpretation of the Bible therefore should not create conflicting concepts... When this occurs something is clearly wrong.

However...for the efficacy of using tradition to help shape doctrine...see 1 Corinthians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Peter, and 2 Timothy (among others). Further, you cannot produce any Biblical reference to relying solely on the Bible without engaging in circular logic and your own appeal to tradition.

That's just it... the Bible is GOD's Holy Word... but we are to rely on God.... on His daily sustenance, counsel, wisdom, and guidance. Beware if you rely on the interpretation of men... and that interpretation is in conflict with stated Biblical truths.

As far as 'Tradition' goes.... here's what JESUS had to say:

""Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition."

-- Mark 7:5-9

No 'Tradition' can supercede GOD's own word. Period.

[Swishy McJackass]

Soooooo... human ears evolved from fish gills.

Kick ass.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

hegamboa: very interesting about catholics using trickery to get more converts. It seems very plausible and wasn't aware it was so widespread.


2centsworth: its not a big gamble believing in evolution. There are aspects which are virtually solid (selection, inheritence) and aspects which are a bit shady (how it all started) but the theory as a whole is still the best we got. Funny how its mostly religious types that see it as a bad theory.



Pretty interesting discussion i guess. What I don't like (because I don't understand it) is how you can use bible verses as proof in a debate, which are easily refuted by more bible verses from the same bible.
Also I think it pays to remember that no matter what Christ himself said or promised, his followers (including the writers of each letter of the bible) were human and still had free will and therefore were not infallible. Thus the contradictions.

I also got a good laugh from reading this because it reminded me about all those protestant christian religions. Absolutely hilarious.

[smeagol]

I briefly went through the site and it's full of inaccuracies. We can discuss them if you like.

Hector, the site is openly Anti-Catholic. I went through some of its links, such as “Catholic Church forbids the Bible”.

The owner of the website starts by stating: “The Catholic Church has a long and storied history of forbidding the translation of the bible into the common tongue.” This is untrue. The Catholic Church, who let’s not forget, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, put together the Bible more than 1000 years before Protestantism ever saw the light of day, had translated the Bible to English, German, Italian, Spanish and all other regional European tongues way before the invention of the print.

The next paragraph, the owner of the site says: “The Romish (sic) Church burned people at the stake for translating the Bible. They burned people to death for teaching that salvation is a free gift. They tortured and killed many thousands of people for trusting in God for salvation instead of trying to earn this gift that God freely gives to everybody that would ask. If that is not demonic I don't know what is. To ignore this is a slap in the face to thousands of martyrs that the Church of Rome tortured and killed.”

Romish? This is Anti-Catholicism at its best.

Another link is led: “Is Catholic Biblical?” were you find an essay by John McArthur where he states: “To put it simply, because the Roman Catholic Church has refused to submit itself to the authority of God’s Word and to embrace the gospel of justification taught in Scripture, it has set itself apart from the true body of Christ. It is a false and deceptive form of Christianity.”

The last example (and there are plenty more) is a link led “Catholic grid with Mormons a JWs”. Here, the author concludes Roman Catholicism is closer to being a cult and it should not be considered part of Christianity.

I just hope this website is not your main source of knowledge about Catholic doctrines.

[travis2]

I couldn't get there from here. Now I won't bother when I get home.

[Phenomanul]

Hector, the site is openly Anti-Catholic. I went through some of its links, such as “Catholic Church forbids the Bible”.

The owner of the website starts by stating: “The Catholic Church has a long and storied history of forbidding the translation of the bible into the common tongue.” This is untrue. The Catholic Church, who let’s not forget, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, put together the Bible more than 1000 years before Protestantism ever saw the light of day, had translated the Bible to English, German, Italian, Spanish and all other regional European tongues way before the invention of the print.

The next paragraph, the owner of the site says: “The Romish (sic) Church burned people at the stake for translating the Bible. They burned people to death for teaching that salvation is a free gift. They tortured and killed many thousands of people for trusting in God for salvation instead of trying to earn this gift that God freely gives to everybody that would ask. If that is not demonic I don't know what is. To ignore this is a slap in the face to thousands of martyrs that the Church of Rome tortured and killed.”

Romish? This is Anti-Catholicism at its best.

Another link is led: “Is Catholic Biblical?” were you find an essay by John McArthur where he states: “To put it simply, because the Roman Catholic Church has refused to submit itself to the authority of God’s Word and to embrace the gospel of justification taught in Scripture, it has set itself apart from the true body of Christ. It is a false and deceptive form of Christianity.”

The last example (and there are plenty more) is a link led “Catholic grid with Mormons a JWs”. Here, the author concludes Roman Catholicism is closer to being a cult and it should not be considered part of Christianity.

I just hope this website is not your main source of knowledge about Catholic doctrines.

Though I may read the above site... I'm not easily duped... I draw my own conclusions based on the Bible.

Besides the first link I wanted you to read was far less instigative and that is where I've been drawing most of my discussion. Which seemed to be ignored.

Also I wouldn't necessarily toss out historical references as jibberish... some are well do ented in other sites.... The Catholic Inquisition set out to claim that it alone held the key to GOD's revelation... those who did not submit to this thinking were punished and killed. I don't find that justifiable by any means of interpretation.

[smeagol]

Peter was not the '1st Pope', read:
1) Matthew 8:14 --- he was already married
2) Galatians 2:14 --- he was not infallible
3) 1 Corinthians 3:11 --- Christ is the foundation
4) Ephesians 2:20 --- Other foundations
5) Acts 2:42 --- Not Peter's doctrine
6) Matthew 18:18 --- Other's have keys
7) Acts 15:13-21 --- James in lead
8) Galatians 2:9 --- Pillars, not just one
9) 1 Peter 1:1 --- Christ is our Rock
10) 1 Peter 1:1 --- Peter's an apostle
11) 1 Peter 5:1 --- Peter's an Elder.

1) Paul encourages people to remain virgin. Furthermore, not only Peter but a number of Popes and early Christians were married. This does not aid you in negating the Papacy and the fact that Christ elected Peter as the head of the Apostles, not to mention he (Peter) is the rock where Jesus would build his Church.

Side note: I’m repeating myself with regards to the rock comment, something I never clarified.

On another post you say “Christ is the rock in which the Church is built”, and although I don’t disagree with you statement, in Mt 16:18:
“And I tell you that you are Peter (Cephas), and on this rock (Cephas) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”
Peter, or Petro in Latin, means rock. But in its original language, Aramaic, the Evangelist used the word Cephas both for Peter’s name and when he described the rock.

2) The Pope is only infallible when pronouncing Doctrine, together with the Bishops. The Pope cannot tell you next week’s lotto numbers. The passage you quote, Peter is not pronouncing Doctrine, he is simply making a human mistake, as all Popes do. Again, this does not refute the Papacy.

3) 1 Corinthians 3:11 says: “For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ”. This verse by itself means nothing if you do not put it in context. This is something Fundamentalists do often.

In this case simply look at the verse right before it (1 Cor 3:10): “By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds.”

In 1 Cor 3:11 it reads that no one can lay a foundation other than Christ but in the preceding verse, Paul says that he himself, by the Grace of God, has laid foundations. Furthermore, the Pope only lays foundations, which are not really foundations but clarifications of Doctrines that in all cases were held by Catholics since the first Centuries of Christianity, guided by the Holy Spirit, just like Paul is aided by the Grace of God when he lays foundations in 1 Cor 3:10.

I could go on and on refuting one by one your points, but this post would end up being to long.

[Phenomanul]

1) Paul encourages people to remain virgin. Furthermore, not only Peter but a number of Popes and early Christians were married. This does not aid you in negating the Papacy and the fact that Christ elected Peter as the head of the Apostles, not to mention he (Peter) is the rock where Jesus would build his Church.

Side note: I’m repeating myself with regards to the rock comment, something I never clarified.

On another post you say “Christ is the rock in which the Church is built”, and although I don’t disagree with you statement, in Mt 16:18:
“And I tell you that you are Peter (Cephas), and on this rock (Cephas) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”
Peter, or Petro in Latin, means rock. But in its original language, Aramaic, the Evangelist used the word Cephas both for Peter’s name and when he described the rock.

2) The Pope is only infallible when pronouncing Doctrine, together with the Bishops. The Pope cannot tell you next week’s lotto numbers. The passage you quote, Peter is not pronouncing Doctrine, he is simply making a human mistake, as all Popes do. Again, this does not refute the Papacy.

3) 1 Corinthians 3:11 says: “For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ”. This verse by itself means nothing if you do not put it in context. This is something Fundamentalists do often.

In this case simply look at the verse right before it (1 Cor 3:10): “By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds.”

In 1 Cor 3:11 it reads that no one can lay a foundation other than Christ but in the preceding verse, Paul says that he himself, by the Grace of God, has laid foundations. Furthermore, the Pope only lays foundations, which are not really foundations but clarifications of Doctrines that in all cases were held by Catholics since the first Centuries of Christianity, guided by the Holy Spirit, just like Paul is aided by the Grace of God when he lays foundations in 1 Cor 3:10.

I could go on and on refuting one by one your points, but this post would end up being to long.

There is a sanctified bond in Marriage... If by your own admission other Popes were married why would the Church now prohibit them from doing so... It should be a personal choice... wouldn't you think?? Again the Church establishes tradition where the Bible makes no definite stand.... Staying sexually pure before marriage is a principle theme that would of course be endorsed by Paul. Some people have the "gift" of being able to remain single most... don't. Again the choice is personal and never dictated as law by GOD.

As for Peter.... hmmm let’s examine the scriptures carefully on this point. Matthew 16:18 particularly.

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Roman interpretation of this scripture is that Jesus would build his Church upon Peter. Baptist rendering follows the text more carefully to understand the contrast between “Petros”, a proper noun of masculine gender, and “this rock”, a demonstrative pronoun of feminine gender. The truth (a feminine noun) that Peter stated in his response to Jesus' question is clearly the rock (petra, a feminine noun) which Christ would build upon. In Greek the pronoun must always agree in gender with it’s object. “This”, the demonstrative pronoun used here, could have been in the masculine and with some obscure use could have been used to point to Peter, i.e. This(m) Petros(m), will be the rock(m) to build my ecclesia(f). But that would not be the words of Christ. His words reflect a contrast between the name Petros (m) and the truth(f) that he stated. This truth(f) which Christ labeled this(f) rock (petra)(f) was what he would build his Church upon. Christ’s Church is built upon the truth of who he is, which is what Baptist's believe in. It is not built on a human or upon a succession of humans, as in Roman Catholic Doctrine.


The keys of the kingdom of heaven are also misrepresented in Roman Catholic thinking. I believe they clearly represent the gospel of Jesus Christ, more decisively the preaching of that gospel. Peter was first to use those keys in Acts chapter 2. At that 1st preaching of the gospel there were thousands loosed from bondage of sin. Christ’s Church is built by the preaching of the gospel to every creature and his marvelous work of salvation, i.e. the regeneration of believers. That follows Baptist Doctrine. Christ’s Church is not built by Peter handing down the keys to a human papacy made infallible, now with authority to lock or unlock the kingdom at it’s will and whim.

[smeagol]

Though I may read the above site... I'm not easily duped... I draw my own conclusions based on the Bible.

Besides the first link I wanted you to read was far less instigative and that is where I've been drawing most of my discussion. Which seemed to be ignored.

Why do you say your discussion was ignored. You have raised many issues and it’s very difficult to address them all. I believe when you posted the link to the other site you were talking about baptism and the Real Presence, both issues which I have tried to address in other posts.

Also I wouldn't necessarily toss out historical references as jibberish...

Actually I don’t. I place a lot of stock in history. All those Doctrines which Fundamentalists claim are fabricated, non-Biblical or borrowed from paganism (the Real Presence, the Marian beliefs, infant baptism, the Sacraments, the Comunion of the Saints, the Pope, etc) are in fact Biblical and have been practiced by Catholics since the 1st Century. And all of them are historically do ented.

The Catholic Inquisition set out to claim that it alone held the key to GOD's revelation... those who did not submit to this thinking were punished and killed. I don't find that justifiable by any means of interpretation.

As I said on an earlier post, the Spanish Inquisition had it’s share of abuses. Our Church is a Church of sinners, just like any other Church on Earth.

[smeagol]

BTW neither the word 'transubstantiation' or 'catholic' or 'purgatory' appear anywhere in the Bible...

By the way, neither the word Trinity, nor Southern Baptist, nor the prohibition to drink alcohol, white weddings and changing wedding rings are words or traditions rooted in the Bible. Nevertheless, you probably adhere to them.

Transubstantiation is simply the word theologians came up in the XI Century to describe what Catholics believed since New Testament times: the Real Presence. I have tried to convince you (without any success) that John 6 must be read literally *sigh*.

Catholic means universal. The phrase Catholic Church can be found in St. Ignatius letter to the Smyrnaeans, written about 110 AD. As I said before, Ignatius was St John’s apostle.

There are references to purgatory (without mentioning the word) in the Bible. When Christ died, he went to preach to a place which was neither Heaven nor . And again, early Christins writers (Tertullian, St Cyprian, St Cyril, Gregory of Nyssa and St Agustine) address this point at length.

[Phenomanul]

Why do you say your discussion was ignored. You have raised many issues and it’s very difficult to address them all. I believe when you posted the link to the other site you were talking about baptism and the Real Presence, both issues which I have tried to address in other posts.

Fair enough... it's a lot of content.... I know....

Actually I don’t. I place a lot of stock in history. All those Doctrines which Fundamentalists claim are fabricated, non-Biblical or borrowed from paganism (the Real Presence, the Marian beliefs, infant baptism, the Sacraments, the Comunion of the Saints, the Pope, etc) are in fact Biblical and have been practiced by Catholics since the 1st Century. And all of them are historically do ented.

Show me where the Bible endorses the adoration or veneration of Mary... she is not my mediator... I can't pray to her (praying to the dead is biblically condemned act)... only Christ alone can lead me to the Father.

"I Am the Way, the Truth and the Life... no man cometh to the Father except by me" John 14:6

Your example of Paul baptizing households as a way to say the bible directly implied the baptism of children is inconclusive... for me anyway.

Your statement that the "Bible did not say not to baptize children" is also not really definite... why?? because what the Bible does show is examples of grown individauls being baptized.... Jesus himself was already an adult when he was baptized. That is the model I would choose to follow myself.

As I said on an earlier post, the Spanish Inquisition had it’s share of abuses. Our Church is a Church of sinners, just like any other Church on Earth.

That is why I can't believe the Catholic Church proclaims itself to be infallible.... The Inquisitions were sanctioned by Catholic doctrine. And if they pretended "not to know" what was going on that's even worse. Christ made it very clear that the choice is ours. Using violence to eradicate conflicting ideology is not something Christ would ever endorse.

[smeagol]

hegamboa: Please be patient and read what I have extracted from www.catholic.com. This is obviously the Church’s interpretation of Mt 16:18. Take a close look at “Look at the Aramaic” which specifically refutes your point.

Peter and the Papacy


There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).


Peter the Rock


Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was that—aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2—in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.


Look at the scene


Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi" (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).

The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was meant to emphasize the importance of what was being done. None complained of Simon being singled out for this honor; and in the rest of the New Testament he is called by his new name, while James and John remain just James and John, not Boanerges.


Promises to Peter


When he first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)’" (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).

Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.

Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).

Finally, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me more than these?" (John 21:15), the word "these" referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.

Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled.


Who is the rock?


Now take a closer look at the key verse: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18). Disputes about this passage have always been related to the meaning of the term "rock." To whom, or to what, does it refer? Since Simon’s new name of Peter itself means rock, the sentence could be rewritten as: "You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church." The play on words seems obvious, but commentators wishing to avoid what follows from this—namely the establishment of the papacy—have suggested that the word rock could not refer to Peter but must refer to his profession of faith or to Christ.

From the grammatical point of view, the phrase "this rock" must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God") is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.

As an analogy, consider this artificial sentence: "I have a car and a truck, and it is blue." Which is blue? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun "it." This is all the more clear if the reference to the car is two sentences earlier, as the reference to Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the term rock.


Another alternative


The previous argument also settles the question of whether the word refers to Christ himself, since he is mentioned within the profession of faith. The fact that he is elsewhere, by a different metaphor, called the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4-8) does not disprove that here Peter is the foundation. Christ is naturally the principal and, since he will be returning to heaven, the invisible foundation of the Church that he will establish; but Peter is named by him as the secondary and, because he and his successors will remain on earth, the visible foundation. Peter can be a foundation only because Christ is the cornerstone.

In fact, the New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5-6, Rev. 21:14). One cannot take a single metaphor from a single passage and use it to twist the plain meaning of other passages. Rather, one must respect and harmonize the different passages, for the Church can be described as having different foundations since the word foundation can be used in different senses.


Look at the Aramaic


Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while "rock" is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?

Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, "You will be called Cephas"). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church."

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of "small stone" and "large rock" in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).
Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church."

Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, "and the Rock was Christ" though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from "Rock . . . rock."

If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew’s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.

The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy.

[Phenomanul]

By the way, neither the word Trinity, nor Southern Baptist, nor the prohibition to drink alcohol, white weddings and changing wedding rings are words or traditions rooted in the Bible. Nevertheless, you probably adhere to them.

Transubstantiation is simply the word theologians came up in the XI Century to describe what Catholics believed since New Testament times: the Real Presence. I have tried to convince you (without any success) that John 6 must be read literally *sigh*.

Exactly... but my church would never profess to claim such words as biblically endorsed ideologies... or put my salvation at risk because I failed to believe in them.

"Trinity" is simply an adjective... The ideology is nevertheless true... "Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" and <--- that is referenced on numerous occasions.

As for weddings and stuff... yes I would say I would probably adhere to 'traditions' but there are social ramifications if I don't provide proof of marriage to society... As far as marriage before GOD is concerned, however, I could simply obtain approval from my bride's parents, my own parents and say a prayer for GOD to sanctify the union. Read on how Isaac 'married' Rebecca. When I first read it I said... .hmm no ceremony how odd....

Nowadays, weddings exist so that there is a platform for the families of both parties to meet and rejoice among friends.... so many other things have been added for fun... like the garter throw... the bouquet throw... wedding presents... etc...

Adhereing to these "traditions" has no bearing on my salvation however.

Catholic means universal. The phrase Catholic Church can be found in St. Ignatius letter to the Smyrnaeans, written about 110 AD. As I said before, Ignatius was St John’s apostle.

Simply an adjective....

There are references to purgatory (without mentioning the word) in the Bible. When Christ died, he went to preach to a place which was neither Heaven nor . And again, early Christins writers (Tertullian, St Cyprian, St Cyril, Gregory of Nyssa and St Agustine) address this point at length.

Read the context of his visit... Christ was the bridge between a Pact with the People of Israel and GOD and a new Covenant available to all... It is believed he made it possible for "gentiles from times past" to either accept or reject his offer of salvation.

[smeagol]

That is why I can't believe the Catholic Church proclaims itself to be infallible.... The Inquisitions were sanctioned by Catholic doctrine. And if they pretended "not to know" what was going on that's even worse. Christ made it very clear that the choice is ours. Using violence to eradicate conflicting ideology is not something Christ would ever endorse.

Hector, Infallibility has nothing to do with being always right. The Inquisition was a specific event in the Church’s history, one that included abuses, the same as other events in other Church’s lives which included abuses and death.

Let me ask you a question. How do you justify Sola Scriptura if it’s not in the Bible? Actually, the Bible says that its writtings do not include all the doings of Christ. That is why Tradition and what the early Christians did is so important. They were privileged enough to know Christ or know people who knew and hear what Christ taught. And we are lucky to have many of those early Christian’s writings.

If the early Christians baptized infants, it is safe to say this is something Christ or the Disciples did but is not specifically detailed in the Bible. Same applies to the reverence of Mary and other points which are sticky to Fundamentalists.

I'm out for a while.

Good talking to you.

God bless you.

[Mr. Peabody]

Yep ... fish gills. Can you believe it?

[Phenomanul]

hegamboa: Please be patient and read what I have extracted from www.catholic.com. This is obviously the Church’s interpretation of Mt 16:18. Take a close look at “Look at the Aramaic” which specifically refutes your point.

Peter and the Papacy


There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. ......................................

It is clear to me that the difference in interpretation is how we chose to translate the phrase... If Peter in fact were to have the key to my personal salvation however... that would imply that there would be something additional that Peter would have to provide me with that Christ did not or could not.... That would then imply that Christ's atonement of my sin needs additional 'help' to get me into heaven... I believe then that this would cheapen Christ's sacrifice as if His "finished" work were somehow incomplete...

Again, was Jesus lying when he stated, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life... no man cometh to the Father except by me"....????? He didn't say, I and my earthly representative are the way to the father... he simply said "I".

[Phenomanul]

Hector, Infallibility has nothing to do with being always right. The Inquisition was a specific event in the Church’s history, one that included abuses, the same as other events in other Church’s lives which included abuses and death.

Let me ask you a question. How do you justify Sola Scriptura if it’s not in the Bible? Actually, the Bible says that its record do not include all the doings of The Christ. That is why Tradition and what the early Christians did is so important. They were privileged enough to know Christ or know people who knew and hear what Christ taught. And we are lucky to have many of those early Christian’s writings.

If the early Christians baptized infants, it is safe to say this is something Christ or the Disciples did but is not specifically detailed in the Bible. Same applies to the reverence of Mary and other points which are sticky to Fundamentalists.

I'm out for a while.

Good talking to you.

God bless you.

Till mañana pues....

The subjects are sticky because they have profound theological ramifications on other biblical concepts.

Why would "Those early Christian writings" not be included into the Biblical Canon then???

The Catechism was writen centuries later after all of JESUS's contemporaries had passed.... they in no way reference other 'writings'. AND it starts off by implying salvation can only be attained through the Roman Catholic Church.... Far as I know, salvation can only be attained through JESUS.

Alright now I'm out.

Peace.

[smeagol]

Nice job, smeagol...

Thanks.

Quite a compliment coming from you

[Guru of Nothing]

It is clear to me that the difference in interpretation is how we chose to translate the phrase... If Peter in fact were to have the key to my personal salvation however... that would imply that there would be something additional that Peter would have to provide me with that Christ did not or could not.... That would then imply that Christ's atonement of my sin needs additional 'help' to get me into heaven... I believe then that this would cheapen Christ's sacrifice as if His "finished" work were somehow incomplete...

Again, was Jesus lying when he stated, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life... no man cometh to the Father except by me"....????? He didn't say, I and my earthly representative are the way to the father... he simply said "I".

And herein lies the difference (I call it irony); nothing comes between you and God, 'cept for Jesus, AND a collection of anonymous dudes that composed the Bible.

Happy gambling!

[travis2]

First of all, praying to the dead IS in the Bible. The most relevant reference merely happens to be in a portion of the Bible that your human heroes of yesteryear decided to remove because it was too uncomfortable for them (2 Maccabees). How can you expect to fully understand the Bible if you don't have a complete one?

Secondly, praying to the saints is merely asking them to pray for us. Period. If it's wrong, then every time you ask someone to pray for you you're committing sin. Period. It's that simple. If we are alive in Christ when we die, then we are alive in Christ. Alive being the operative word.

Now nobody is forced to pray to Mary or to any of the saints. Doing so is not a matter of our salvation. However, for you or anyone else to claim it is forbidden or somehow an impediment to our salvation is way out of bounds.

Finally, no one...let me repeat that, no one has ever EVER EVER said that Peter holds the keys to my salvation. That is frankly insulting. I can't help the fact that Jesus in the Bible gave the keys to the Church on Earth to Peter (and thereby to his successors)...you'll have to take it up with Him. And Peter's presence in Rome for more than a visit is historical, sorry.

[travis2]

Oh, and by the way...I'm calling your Catechism source a liar.

If you actually knew anything about the Catechism, you would know that it is referenced by paragraph/section numbers...not pages. So...I invite you to find those things you posted as supposedly being from the Catechism. There are several online versions...they're not hard to find.