| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Kingofkings |
Posted - 04/24/2012 : 10:07:09
1 Timothy 3:15
"If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."
''Most Protestants believe that the Bible is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and no knowledge outside of the Bible is necessary for our salvation. But then why does Saint Paul write that the Church, and not the Bible, is the pillar and foundation of the truth? This is a powerful text that refutes the Protestant theory of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) which erroneously holds that the Bible is the sole source of Christian truth (a theory which cannot be found anywhere in the Scriptures). Instead, Saint Paul says the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.''
''This means that all the truth Jesus left us concerning faith, morality and our salvation flows from a living Church which, as we have learned, is built by Christ upon the rock of Peter and his successors. As the Catholic Church teaches, God has given us His truth in the form of the living word (written Scriptures and oral tradition) and the living teaching authority of the Church, endowed with the gift of binding and loosing. In fact, it is because the Church is the foundation of truth that we believe in the Bible. This is because the Catholic Church put the Bible together by determining which books were inspired and which books were not. The Church completed its selection of the "canon of Scripture" at the end of the fourth century. If the Catholic Church were not the pinnacle and bulwark of the truth, our belief in the Bible would be without foundation.''
''The Church's compilation of the Bible illuminates the error of sola Scriptura. As alluded to above, Protestants generally believe that God has revealed everything that is necessary for our salvation through the Bible alone. Consequently, they also believe that no knowledge found outside of the Bible regarding the Christian faith is necessary for our salvation. However, the knowledge of which Scriptures belong in the Bible and which Scriptures do not is necessary for our salvation because if we didn't know this we could be led into error. Further, this knowledge could only come from God because human beings cannot necessarily discern divine inspiration.''
''The problem, therefore, with sola Scriptura, is that the knowledge of which Scriptures are inspired and which ones are not is not contained in the Bible. The Bible does not have an "inspired table of contents." Instead, this knowledge of the canon of Scripture is a revelation from God that is necessary for our salvation, and yet came to us from outside the Bible . This revelation was given to the Holy Catholic Church, and this historical and theological fact destroys the doctrine of sola Scriptura (interestingly, while Protestants reject the authority of the Catholic Church on most matters, they accept her authority in determining the New Testament canon of Scripture; we pejoratively call such picking and choosing which doctrines to believe and which doctrines to reject "Cafeteria Catholicism").''
''If I were a Protestant trying to prove sola Scriptura, and there was a verse that said "the Bible is the pillar and bulwark of the truth," I would be proclaiming that verse from the roof tops. At the same time, if I were a Protestant, I would have to ignore 1 Timothy 3:15 to continue my protest of the Catholic faith.''
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/my_top_ten.html |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Kamati |
Posted - 08/23/2012 : 04:49:09
quote:
Originally posted by jdubya
A note to everyone who reads this forum:
Forum Member God4Me claims to be a Greek expert and possess a doctorate degree.
Yet he is obstinate without apology in proclaiming that "Thou art Peter" or "You are petros" is plural. Is there anyone else on this planet who would claim such a thing, let alone a greek scholar and doctor? Maybe it is the 's' in petros that makes him claim this as in "you are rocks" and thus forming bad grammar with the singularly parsed "you" and "are".
Next, he claims the noun petros is 2nd person. While the address "you are Peter" is indeed 2nd person, anyone claiming that a noun or pronoun in this case, carries person doesn't know the fundamentals of what conveys person, namely who is speaking to whom. This is inexcusable for anyone, let alone a greek scholar and doctor.
It might be that God4me is a doctor just like Alberto Rivera, the "former Jesuit priest" who could not speak Latin. Just imagine a Catholic priest who does not know Latin, yet Protestants still have him as their hero.
Rivera also claimed to have several doctorate degrees, but investigators could not trace his name at any institution of high learning on earth. And the BIG LIE must continue even after he died of cancer. We are told that all the physicians are wrong; Rev. Prof. Dr. Rivera did not die of cancer, no! The Bible-believing Man of God was poisoned by Catholics (for convenience's sake, we are asked to forget part of Mark 16:18. When anti-Catholics want to accuse Catholics even Mark 16:18 has to be pushed out of their way).
For your information: I have a relative who grew up in a rural village in Namibia; who did not attend school beyond grade 3, but who is now a Pentecostal church pastor after completing three weeks of Bible studies. He is now going around the villages accusing Lutheran and Anglican pastors as well as Catholic priests (who spent over seven years at Seminary) of not knowing their Bible.
Strange but true! |
| Kamati |
Posted - 08/23/2012 : 04:07:42
Correcttion of my previous post: "lack of huminility is the symptom of "true Christianity" (meaning, God4me's kind of Christianity, said to be true but actually fake). |
| Kamati |
Posted - 08/23/2012 : 04:00:55
I was looking at something God4me posted here in April and wondering how a talkative man can be so ignorant.
He said:
[Q] What does the TRUE Church teach?
[A] The Bible.
Without the Bible, There is no Church.
Either he does not properly define Bible or he has no clue what the Chur is.
We see the church already from Pentecost Day of the year 33 AD, but the Bible appeared only 300 years later.
If God4me defines Bible as a collection of 66 inspired books, then he has to admit that the Church was there even before the first book of the New Testament was written. In other words the Church was there before the Bible. The argument that without the Bible there is no church is as absurd as it can get.
Now, that being the case, God4me stands exposed as an ignorant preacher. A friend of mine likes to say that the problem with ignorant preachers is that they do not know they are ignorant and that is what makes them arrogant ... arrogance is essentially the main symptom of ignorance just as lack of humility is the main symptom of true Christian faith.
And just to exhibit his ignorance beyond any doubt, God4me said:
Greek was the spoken language of that day, So Jesus used the word, "Petra", A solid rock, Whereas "Petros" is a stone.
If he had any credibility left it was destroyed by that absurd statement ... |
| Faith_at_Large |
Posted - 04/30/2012 : 18:39:03
I remember when you could cut out a coupon in the back of those comic books you could buy for 25 cents, and send that in to become a minister. But online is much faster. |
| acumenCry |
Posted - 04/30/2012 : 14:53:54
I agree.
If he has been ordained, it was by filling out one of those free forms online. All you have to do is enter your name and address, click to verify that you are over 13 years old, click enter and voila - you are a minister. |
| jdubya |
Posted - 04/30/2012 : 10:59:17
A note to everyone who reads this forum:
Forum Member God4Me claims to be a Greek expert and possess a doctorate degree.
Yet he is obstinate without apology in proclaiming that "Thou art Peter" or "You are petros" is plural. Is there anyone else on this planet who would claim such a thing, let alone a greek scholar and doctor? Maybe it is the 's' in petros that makes him claim this as in "you are rocks" and thus forming bad grammar with the singularly parsed "you" and "are".
Next, he claims the noun petros is 2nd person. While the address "you are Peter" is indeed 2nd person, anyone claiming that a noun or pronoun in this case, carries person doesn't know the fundamentals of what conveys person, namely who is speaking to whom. This is inexcusable for anyone, let alone a greek scholar and doctor.
Thirdly, he claims that the indirect address "and upon this same rock" or "upon this very rock" is third person, when indirect address isn't parsed in terms of person. Another fundamental flaw in English or Greek.
The point is: If God4ME can't change his mind on the most fundamental points of language, especially when he claims to have advanced learning, how will we ever be able to discuss anything more meaningful in a rational manner.
There are several issues here:
His claims to advanced learning.
The clear misunderstanding of language fundamentals.
The obstinance in never retracting or clarifying even these most basic errors, let alone anything else.
The personal attacks that follow attempted corrections (or just about any response), and the attacks that are sure to follow this post.
Nearly 3600 posts and still can't get past early grammar school language.
Something is very wrong with this picture. |
| Kingofkings |
Posted - 04/30/2012 : 09:46:10
"You are KE'PHA' (a movable stone) and upon this SHU`A' (a large massive rock) I will build my church."
Context doesn't make sense, sorry honey. When he refers to Upon. He is talking about something that he just said. Also is Jesus ever refered to as a massive rock? No. Only one word exists for rock and that's kepha. But ignore that part (people are brainwashed and don't know what kepha means) for a second.
"You are KE'PHA' and UPON this SHU`A' I will build my church."
The context upon is used it must correlate with the word kepha.
You are kepha, and UPON this kepha (you can't change the word into something different. You are kepha, and Upon this (context he is referring to what he just said) kepha I will build my church.
That's like saying this. You are hill, and upon this comet I will build my church. Doesn't even make sense they must link. If used in the same sentence like above.
I don't even care anymore. This argument on what kepha means and what Jesus said. I've gone over and over. It's your salvation you like putting at stake not mine. If you don't listen that's up to you.
"You are KE'PHA' (a movable stone) and upon this SHU`A' (a large massive rock) I will build my church." one last punch to this nonesense. If he used shua why isn't it translated you are Peter and upon this massive rock I will build my church? Cause shua isn't what he said. Jesus said rock. What is Armaic for all rocks universal Kepha.
I'll say it one more time. I'm Chaldean and I can speak Aramaic decently. I have used the word kepha it does mean rock. Believe what you will I tried my best. I'll pray for you. |
| baby3 |
Posted - 04/30/2012 : 03:27:02
quote:
Originally posted by Kingofkings
1 Timothy 3:15
"If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."
''Most Protestants believe that the Bible is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and no knowledge outside of the Bible is necessary for our salvation. But then why does Saint Paul write that the Church, and not the Bible, is the pillar and foundation of the truth? This is a powerful text that refutes the Protestant theory of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) which erroneously holds that the Bible is the sole source of Christian truth (a theory which cannot be found anywhere in the Scriptures). Instead, Saint Paul says the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.''
''This means that all the truth Jesus left us concerning faith, morality and our salvation flows from a living Church which, as we have learned, is built by Christ upon the rock of Peter and his successors. As the Catholic Church teaches, God has given us His truth in the form of the living word (written Scriptures and oral tradition) and the living teaching authority of the Church, endowed with the gift of binding and loosing. In fact, it is because the Church is the foundation of truth that we believe in the Bible. This is because the Catholic Church put the Bible together by determining which books were inspired and which books were not. The Church completed its selection of the "canon of Scripture" at the end of the fourth century. If the Catholic Church were not the pinnacle and bulwark of the truth, our belief in the Bible would be without foundation.''
''The Church's compilation of the Bible illuminates the error of sola Scriptura. As alluded to above, Protestants generally believe that God has revealed everything that is necessary for our salvation through the Bible alone. Consequently, they also believe that no knowledge found outside of the Bible regarding the Christian faith is necessary for our salvation. However, the knowledge of which Scriptures belong in the Bible and which Scriptures do not is necessary for our salvation because if we didn't know this we could be led into error. Further, this knowledge could only come from God because human beings cannot necessarily discern divine inspiration.''
''The problem, therefore, with sola Scriptura, is that the knowledge of which Scriptures are inspired and which ones are not is not contained in the Bible. The Bible does not have an "inspired table of contents." Instead, this knowledge of the canon of Scripture is a revelation from God that is necessary for our salvation, and yet came to us from outside the Bible . This revelation was given to the Holy Catholic Church, and this historical and theological fact destroys the doctrine of sola Scriptura (interestingly, while Protestants reject the authority of the Catholic Church on most matters, they accept her authority in determining the New Testament canon of Scripture; we pejoratively call such picking and choosing which doctrines to believe and which doctrines to reject "Cafeteria Catholicism").''
''If I were a Protestant trying to prove sola Scriptura, and there was a verse that said "the Bible is the pillar and bulwark of the truth," I would be proclaiming that verse from the roof tops. At the same time, if I were a Protestant, I would have to ignore 1 Timothy 3:15 to continue my protest of the Catholic faith.''
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/my_top_ten.html
And the Rock was Christ
One of the most important things ever said, was: “And the rock was Christ”.
These words appear in a letter sent to people, living in the port of Corinth. It was sent by the Apostle Paul to the early Christian church; this group of believers, had been founded by the Risen Jesus Christ, through the ministry of the Apostle Paul, around about 51-53 AD. Paul spent 18 months there, while he lived with, and worked as a tentmaker, alongside 2 Jews, Priscilla and Aquila (see Acts 18:1-18).
“And the rock was Christ”: The words are most important, because of what they means now, and what they refer back to. They hark back to the rock, which, strangely supplied Israel, God’s people, with water, during their years in the wilderness (about 1250 BC; or 1400 BC according to traditional scholars).
This is part of Paul’s letter:
I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ. Nevertheless with most of them God was not pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness. (1Corinthians 10:1-5).
What is this? They drank from the supernatural Rock, which followed them? How does a rock follow a group of people? (Exegetes must deal with the text).
One passage worth reading to get the background is Numbers 20:2-13
Now there was no water for the congregation; and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron. And the people contended with Moses, and said, “Would that we had died when our brethren died before the LORD! Why have you brought the assembly of the LORD into this wilderness, that we should die here, both we and our cattle? And why have you made us come up out of Egypt, to bring us to this evil place? It is no place for grain, or figs, or vines, or pomegranates; and there is no water to drink.” Then Moses and Aaron went from the presence of the assembly to the door of the tent of meeting, and fell on their faces. And the glory of the LORD appeared to them, and the LORD said to Moses, “Take the rod, and assemble the congregation, you and Aaron your brother, and tell the rock before their eyes to yield its water; so you shall bring water out of the rock for them; so you shall give drink to the congregation and their cattle.” And Moses took the rod from before the LORD, as he commanded him. And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said to them, “Hear now, you rebels; shall we bring forth water for you out of this rock?” And Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock with his rod twice; and water came forth abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their cattle. And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not believe in me, to sanctify me in the eyes of the people of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.” These are the waters of Meribah, where the people of Israel contended with the LORD, and he showed himself holy among them.
“And the rock was Christ”? Numerous other references can be found in the Old Testament, which show that traditionally, God was referred to as The Rock.
“The Rock, his work is perfect; for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and right is he (Deuteronomy 32:4).
“But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked; you waxed fat, you grew thick, you became sleek; then he forsook God who made him, and scoffed at the Rock of his salvation (Deuteronomy 32:15)
He said, “The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer, my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold and my refuge, my savior; thou savest me from violence (2Samuel 22:2-3).
“For who is God, but the LORD? And who is a rock, except our God? (2Samuel 22:32).
“The LORD lives; and blessed be my rock, and exalted be my God, the rock of my salvation (2Samuel 22:47),…
Putting it together:
“And the rock was Christ”? Paul is equating this rock, with Jesus, the Christ. He is not saying that a man was with them, back there. But he is saying, that this One, this Christ, was present throughout the Old Testament
B3 |
| baby3 |
Posted - 04/30/2012 : 03:06:11
quote:
Originally posted by Kingofkings
Okay what is Petra translated into Aramaic? Because Jesus didn't speak Greek well preaching did he? Petra translated into Aramaic from Greek is KEPHA. You say it isn't that's cool give me the proper link saying otherwise. What is Petra in Aramaic. Will I ever get this answer from you? I HIGHLY DOUBT this. You will probably go off into some insane rant again. About what Petros means in Greek (or what you think it means)
What is Petra translated into Aramaic? the language Jesus spoke. The language the bible was translated from.
Jesus was discribing in as much as Peter was a pebble he was the Rock Jesus is the Rock of my salvation.
The Church of Rome says that because the Aramaic/Syriac original of Matthew 16:18, underlying the existing Greek text, uses the word KE'PHA' both as the proper name given to Simon bar Jonas and as the word for the Rock upon which Christ promised to build His Church, that therefore Peter (Aramaic, Ke'pha') is the rock and the foundation of the Church. Rome bases many of its claims of papal supremacy on this identification of the Apostle Peter with the Rock mentioned by Christ in this passage of Matthew's Gospel. If the defenders of Rome are wrong at this point then their argument that Peter is the Rock fails.
1. The Greek text is the inspired original of the New Testament. No Aramaic underlying text is extant. Though there are Syriac/Aramaic translations of these original Greek texts they cannot be relied upon to accurately represent any supposed original Aramaic usage. They are merely uninspired translations of the original Greek text and may or may not represent any Aramaic/Syriac original.
2. The Greek text of Matthew 16:18 uses two separate (different) Greek words in the passage.
Petros, the name given to the Apostle
Petra, the word used for rock
Rome says that "Peter" (PETROS) is merely the masculine form of the feminine noun PETRA, and therefore means the same thing. But...
3. Classic Greek authors (before the New Testament was written) treat the words PETROS and PETRA as two different words.
According to Liddell and Scott:
Petros, ...(distinct from petra)...
Hom. IL. 16.734; 7:270; 20.288
E. Heracl.1002, "panta kinesai petron" ..."Leave no stone unturned"
cf. Pl. Lg. 843a
X. HG 3.5.20 "Petrous epekulindoun" "They rolled down stones."
S. Ph 296 to produce fire "en petroisi petron ektribon"
Id. OC 1595 of a boulder forming a landmark
[the usual prose word is lithos]"
from: A Greek - English Lexicon, complied by Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, pg. 1397- 8, Pub. by Oxford, at the Clarendon Press.)
NOTE: Petros, a stone, a smaller movable stone (Heracletes uses it in the phrase "leave no stone unturned.") So, a "PETROS" is a stone which can by turned over, hence, a movable stone.
Petra, a large massive rock, a large boulder, a foundation stone.
The word "Petros" is only used in the Greek New Testament as a proper name for Simon bar Jona.
Petros is not merely a masculine form of the word petra, but is a different word with a different meaning, though both words are derived from a common root.
4. The wording of Matt. 16:18 uses two different Greek words. If Jesus was referring the second word to Simon Peter he could have said "epi tauto to petro" (using the masculine gender in the dative case) the same word as "Petros." But what he said was "Epi taute te petra" using Petra, a different Greek word.
5. The usage of two different words in the inspired Greek original, if representing an Aramaic original (which is in no case certain) would seem to point to the usage of two separate Aramaic words in this passage.
6. The Pe****ta Syriac translation of the New Testament in Matthew 16:18 uses kepha' for both Greek words petros and petra. Is this accurate, or could it be a mistranslation of the original Greek Text?
7. The proper translation of Petros is Ke'pha'. On this we have the authority of the Word of God itself in the Greek original of the New Testament, where the name "Ke'pha" (in the English Bible "Cephas") is six times given as the Aramaic equivalent to Petros for the name of Simon bar Jonas. (John 1:42; 1Corinthians1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Galatians 2:9) So, we can say, based upon the authority of the original Greek of the New Testament that Petros, the name given to Simon bar Jona by the Lord Jesus (John 1:42) is the correct translation of the Aramaic/Syriac word Ke'pha'. Greek: Petros = Aramaic: Ke'pha' ("Cephas")
But what of the Greek word Petra? Is it correctly translated as Ke'pha'?
There is nowhere in the Greek New Testament where the word Ke'pha' is given as the correct translation of the Greek word Petra. In order to determine the Syriac/Aramaic word which best translates the Greek word Petra we will have to look at the translations of the Greek New Testament which were made in the first five centuries of the Christian Church to determine how the Greek word Petra was understood.
Greek: Petra = Aramaic: ?
8. In the Pe****ta Syriac New Testament the Greek word "PETRA" is translated by the Aramaic word SHU`A' as in Matthew 7:24-25 meaning a massive rock or a boulder.
PETRA is used 16 times in the Greek New Testament:
Of those times it is translated in the Pe****ta Syriac
9 times by the word SHU`A' ,
6 times by the word KE'PHA' and
1 time by the Hebrew root word 'ABENA'
Of the ten times PETRA is used in the Gospels it is translated:
7 times by the word SHU`A'
(Mt.7:24, 25; Mk.15:46; Lk 6:48[2x];8:6, 13)
3 times by the word KE'PHA'
(Mt.16:18; 27:51; 27:60)
Of the three times KE'PHA' is used to translate PETRA in the Gospels:
[1] in Mt. 27:60 the parallel passage in Mark's gospel (Mark 15:46) more correctly uses SHU`A' to translate PETRA.
[2] in Mt. 27:51 the word KE'PHA' is used to describe the rocks (plural) which were broken at the earthquake when Christ died (and hence, these rocks became movable)
[3] the other passage is Mt. 16:18 where KE'PHA' is used to translate both PETROS and PETRA.
In all other places in the Gospels the Greek word PETRA is translated by the Syriac word SHU`A', meaning "a massive rock."
KE'PHA' is used in the Syriac N.T. as the translation of both the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS.
The Greek word LITHOS, which means "a stone" (generally of a size which could be picked up or moved) is ALWAYS translated by the Syriac word KE'PHA'.
As LITHOS in classical Greek is the common prose word for "a stone" (see the quote from Liddle and Scott's Lexicon, above) and PETROS is more common in poetry, this shows that the definition of KE'PHA' as "a stone" is correct. The Syriac KE'PHA' is equivalent to the Greek LITHOS, a movable stone.
KE'PHA' IS ALWAYS USED TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD LITHOS.
SHU'A IS THE MORE USUAL AND CORRECT SYRIAC WORD TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD PETRA.
KE'PHA IS A MOVABLE STONE = LITHOS / PETROS.
SHU'A IS A MASSIVE ROCK = PETRA.
The Syriac word SHU`A' is NEVER used to translate the Greek word LITHOS.
Because a LITHOS is NOT a large massive rock, but a SHU`A' is.
The Syriac KE'PHA' is correctly used to translate the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS because these are movable stones.
9. The fact that the Greek text of the New Testament uses two separate Greek words in the passage [Matthew 16:18] indicates that any underlying Aramaic/Syriac original (if there was one, AND THIS IS FAR FROM PROVEN) also must have used two separate words.
Conclusion
a. A reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac of the passage would properly be:
"You are KE'PHA' (a movable stone) and upon this SHU`A' (a large massive rock) I will build my church."
This is in exact correspondence to the original inspired Greek text:
"You are PETROS (a movable stone) and upon this PETRA (a large massive rock) I will build my church."
b. The Pe****ta Syriac New Testament text, at leaast in its extant MSS, mistranslated the passage in Matthew 16:18, incorrectly using the Syriac word KE'PHA' for both Greek words PETROS and PETRA.
c. The Church of Rome bases its doctrine of Peter being the Rock upon which the Church is built on this mistranslation and/or a falsely reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac original, ignoring the distinctions in the Aramaic language.
d. The Greek text does not teach that Peter is the rock. The rock is either Peter's confession of Christ, or Christ Himself, in Peter's answer to Jesus' earlier question "Who do men say that I the Son of man am?"
B3
|
| God4me |
Posted - 04/30/2012 : 00:55:05
quote:
Originally posted by Kingofkings
Okay what is Petra translated into Aramaic? Because Jesus didn't speak Greek well preaching did he? Petra translated into Aramaic from Greek is KEPHA. You say it isn't that's cool give me the proper link saying otherwise. What is Petra in Aramaic. Will I ever get this answer from you? I HIGHLY DOUBT this. You will probably go off into some insane rant again. About what Petros means in Greek (or what you think it means)
What is Petra translated into Aramaic? the language Jesus spoke. The language the bible was translated from.
Greek was the spoken language of that day, So Jesus used the word, "Petra", A solid rock, Whereas "Petros" is a stone. |
| Kingofkings |
Posted - 04/29/2012 : 11:44:33
Okay what is Petra translated into Aramaic? Because Jesus didn't speak Greek well preaching did he? Petra translated into Aramaic from Greek is KEPHA. You say it isn't that's cool give me the proper link saying otherwise. What is Petra in Aramaic. Will I ever get this answer from you? I HIGHLY DOUBT this. You will probably go off into some insane rant again. About what Petros means in Greek (or what you think it means)
What is Petra translated into Aramaic? the language Jesus spoke. The language the bible was translated from. |
| acumenCry |
Posted - 04/29/2012 : 11:01:35
You still can't prove your claims about the Catholic Church, huh? Why do you even waste your time on this forum, making a fool out of yourself? Is it because you thirst? |
| God4me |
Posted - 04/29/2012 : 10:19:44
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
Petros is not a Koine Greek word. It is not plural in number. It is the masculine form of Petra.
And according to the BIBLE, the Pillar and Ground of Truth is the Church. If you cannot even accept what the Bible says, then how can you claim it has authority?
[1]Petros is the original Greek texts meaning for, Peter.STOP TELLING LIES, YOU NAUGHTY LADY.
Petra and Petros are two different Greek words with two different meanings.
Petros Means, 2nd person plural in number, A stone that is easily moved.
Petra means, 3rd person singular in number, A solid foundation.
So how can Petros be the masculine form of Petra.
Why do catholic have to tell lies and twist the Bible and the Greek??.
Even if Jesus did build His Church on Peter,[Which He didn't] What has that got to do with the catholic church???.
They weren't around at that time, So you can forget the pope's porkies about him being a succesor to Peter.
[2]The pillar and ground of truth is the TRUE Church, The one that teaches the truth, [The Bible]
It is imposible for the pillar and ground of truth to be the catholic church, AS they weren't formed untill 300--6000 years after Paul wrote that.
So you catholics, forget about you being the thrue Church, You are a man made devil inspired false religion. |
| Faith_at_Large |
Posted - 04/29/2012 : 08:22:48
Petros is not a Koine Greek word. It is not plural in number. It is the masculine form of Petra.
And according to the BIBLE, the Pillar and Ground of Truth is the Church. If you cannot even accept what the Bible says, then how can you claim it has authority? |
| God4me |
Posted - 04/28/2012 : 22:27:43
quote:
Originally posted by Kingofkings
Tip: (he wasn't talking about himself when he said kepha the second time and kepha means rock. The funny thing is it doesn't even matter what kepha means have a nice day)
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
That is what Jesus said in Aramaic only one word exists for rock it's kepha. If that's not what he said in Aramaic please link what he did say in Aramaic.
Read this,
[Part one]
"You are Peter, [Petros, 2nd person plural in number, A stone that is easily moved or shaken".
Do you honestly believe God would build His Church on a foundation that is easily moved or shaken???...WAKE UP.
[Part two]
"And upon THIS OTHER Rock,[Petra, 3rd person, Singular in number,A solid foundation, I will build My Church"
NOTE, How Part one and Part two don't agree??
So how could Jesus have built His Church on Peter??. |
|
|
Subscribe by Email
RSS