Two possibilities...

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Then there is the third option which is the truth. The Hebrew god Yahweh is a stolen name from the Canaanite polytheism from which the Hebrews splintered from.

There's a ton of god characters in the Bible but they were all just men.  That's why they have so much dialogue and long conversations.

[Minimalist]

Poor drippy.  He has this whole fantasy of who wrote his fucking bullshit bible while scholars, including xtian scholars, cheerfully admit that this crap was just anonymous second century scribblings.  Poor drippy.  He's all alone against people who know what the fuck they are talking about.  Sucks to be him.

[Angrboda]

Does that mean this is not the history of the christian religion? No. The difference being Christianity is defined by Christ. the christian Religion is defined by man. Being a member of the religion does not in no way make you a Christian by the standard of Christ. How can one say that? Because again, Unlike the no true scots man fallacy their are rules that define a Christian by the standards of Christ in the bible. If one does not follow said rules we are told Christ will not acknoweledge them as 'Christian.'

Citation needed.

[Crossless2.0]

Does that mean this is not the history of the christian religion? No. The difference being Christianity is defined by Christ. the christian Religion is defined by man. Being a member of the religion does not in no way make you a Christian by the standard of Christ. How can one say that? Because again, Unlike the no true scots man fallacy their are rules that define a Christian by the standards of Christ in the bible. If one does not follow said rules we are told Christ will not acknoweledge them as 'Christian.'

Citation needed.

Allow me to help:

The Gospel According to Drich (4:20): And Jesus said, "Whosoever reads the Word of God and comes to a different conclusion as to its meaning than my beloved disciple, Drich, the slob on whom I will found my mob, is neither a follower of me nor yet a Scotsman, but will be chewed up and spit out on the dung heap, as he is truly worthy of damnation."

[Drich]

I gave you the kudos for the effort, even though most of it was uncited and flat out wrong-o

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.

Almost Correct! while Aramaic was the spoken dialect, it was not the written form. See we assume that all languages have both a formally written and verbal component. This was not the case of Hebrew or Aramaic at the time. Matter of fact only the book of Daniel and Ezra were written in Aramaic, even the OT was translated into the greek because Hebrew a Formal language was all but dead at that time. Aramaic was a bastardized language that took from several different languages and did not have a formal agreed upon written structure. (A written word could me one thing in one region and something totally different in another.) So it was not a ideal way to communicate in a written form. Think creole, or ebonics in modern terms.

Have you ever watched Star wars and wonder why Chewie and R2 could communicate with all the other characters and at the same time not speak (English?) In the Movie 'english' is what is known as a Galactic Base. It was the base language that spread over the entire Galactic Empire. Lucas got this idea from what happened when Alexander the Great conquered the known world. While the conquered people were allowed to retain their native languages and customs, if the wanted to make money in the empire they would have to be able to fully communicate in greek.

So a few hundred years after Alexander the Great His legacy of 'Greek' or Koine greek was the primary written language still used in the 'frontier terrtories' like Israel.

That is why the Jews even the Pharaisees and Saducees all spoke and could read Koine greek. That is why their Hebrew bibles or (septuigent) were in greek and not in Hebrew, and why ALL Of the NT was written in the Greek. and not translated into greek as you suppose.

Now that said, their are some who believe Mat was a hold out/Old school Jew who refused to speak or write in the language of the over lords and he may have written his original letter/gospel in the Hebrew or Aramaic. Even so, their isn't actually any of his original work left to verify.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_languages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Galactic_Basic_Standard

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."

But again, Peter was not the apostle who started the church at rome nor did his ministry even focus on non jews.. Paul was the man who started the non Jewish base church. So if Christ was talking about an indivisual and not a principle (Peter's confession of faith that the church is indeed based on) then he would be mistaken. However it is far more likely that you are mistaken on the orgins of the Church than Christ is.

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]).

But, that's just it.. It's a commentary and not any type of source material.

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.

This whole discourse can be dismissed because it all presupposes the existence of Aramaic as being the original text. This is an unfounded assertion. (In truth it all reeks of desperation to try and salvage a belief of the authority of peter, by calling into question the origins of the original writings/text.)
The problem? To whom was Matthew writing to? Who at that time could read what was written besides maybe a literal hand full of people?!?! If I remember correctly in that time in that region (After the destruction of the temple people who could read and write aramaic would all but be dead) their was a 4% literacy rate, of that 4% 99% could read and write koine greek along with MAYBE one other language if they held a high political office that demanded it.

So again... If Matthew was written in Aramaic, who was Matthew writing to? Also remember Aramaic was not a uniformed written language, so an "A" could infact be a "D" so to speak. That meant He had to be writing to someone who read and could write his specific dialect of Aramaic. So again the question is why if the Koine Greek could reach more people.
Why would ALL the other letters written to the various Churches be written in the Koine Greek save this one instance? the truth? The only benfit to having/believing Matthews gospel was written in the Aramaic is to conjoure up support for the above argument, which again does not hold water for the mere fact that Peter did not establish the church as we know it or even as it was known when the catholic church was established.
Peter originally wanted to convert everyone to Judaism, and told people they could not be saved until they became a jew first, then a Christian. Peter later in his ministry wanted nothing to do with gentiles as they were. This became a point of contention between Peter and Paul. all that is really left is passing mentionings in some of Paul works dispelling peter's.. legalistic approach to Christian worship. If you are not aware, we do not follow Peter's model of the church, we follow Paul's.

All petra and petros B/S aside, the mere fact that Paul's model is the one that is followed and not Peter's means that Jesus was not speaking about indivisuals being the rock the church is founded on, because we are all flawed (as was the direction Peter was taking the church till he was rebuked and corrected by Paul.) So no, Jesus was not Speaking of the Rock being a person (for even Paul was deeply flawed) Jesus was Speaking of the ROCK solid confession of Faith Peter made in Mat 16.

the imagery being from out of loose gravel (remember all of peter's failures, sinking in the water when he lost faith, his up coming denial of Christ, his attack on the temple gaurds, and the list can go on..) comes a rock solid truth that Jesus will found his church on that the gates of Hell will never touch. Again it's not about the man, but about the truth that Jesus was God, which was the first time that phrase had ever been uttered. That truth still stands as the foundation, while most of the other works while important to the church, are not considered foundational as Jesus said that confession of faith would be.
https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/c...ct-Antioch It's a commentary but it points to passages in the bible that out lines the whole conflict between Peter and Paul, and Peter's failings as a church leader.
Which again is why our church model does not follow the model of the Church Peter would have established if left unchecked, it is a colobration between what Peter established in his early ministry and what Paul added later on.

Peter did not start the Church. Jesus did, and He promised to build His Church (singular, not plural) upon Peter, the rock. Dozens of Protestant and Orthodox scholars have acknowledged that Peter IS the rock.

Ah, no. Peter's church would have left all gentiles either converted Jews/Judizers or segerated from Jewish converts.

But yes, Peter was in Rome.

1 Peter 5:13:
She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark.

“Babylon” was an early Christian reference for “Rome,” so Sts. Peter and Mark are sending their greetings from Rome.

Second, this is also the testimony of the Church Fathers, who testify that Mark is Peter's disciple and interpreter in Rome. St. Irenaeus, writing c. 180 A.D., says:


Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.


Eusebius says the same thing, as does St. Jerome:


Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter wrote a short gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome embodying what he had heard Peter tell. When Peter had heard this, he approved it and published it to the churches to be read by his authority as Clemens in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, record. Peter also mentions this Mark in his first epistle, figuratively indicating Rome under the name of Babylon "She who is in Babylon elect together with you salutes you and so does Mark my son." So, taking the gospel which he himself composed, he went to Egypt and first preaching Christ at Alexandria he formed a church so admirable in doctrine and continence of living that he constrained all followers of Christ to his example.

I never said Peter did not go to Rome I said Peter did not establish the church in rome. Paul did. If you take time to read the bible in the first chapter of Romans Paul greets about a dozen people by name. these people are to whom he is writing, these people are also deciples/seed starters of the church in rome under Paul's teaching, hence the letter.

If you read the Letter to the Romans, you will discover that Paul is writing to a well-established Church...a Church which he has never visited...though he longs to do so on his way to Spain (cf. Rm 15:24). This is why Paul mentions so many people by name...he is establishing his own credentials as an apostle to a church probably founded by believers who were in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost and were led by Apollos or possibly Aquila and Priscilla (cf. Rom 16) and saying, "Look, I know many of the same people you do."

Ah, no.. Paul was not writing to a well established church. How can I say that? the content of his letter. Paul himself to the galatians (A well established church) Rebukes them for getting stuck on and second guessing the gospel and their salvation. He tells them to move on from the 'milk of the word' to the Meat of the work. Milk being the basic fundamentals that every young and growing Christian needs to become strong and healthy.. so what is 'milk' Essentially the fundementals of the gospel.
what is 'meat'? The works and spiritual fruit/gift and their application into the community eventually leading to more missionaries and mission trips.

So what is romans about? Romans is an entire book of MILK!!! It breaks down all the most basic and fundamental principles of the gospel and explains everything!

So, again if Paul rebukes the galatians ("You foolish galatians who has be witched you?!") for getting hung up on the fundementals of Christianity. then why would Paul then proceed to 'hang up the romans' on the very same issue He rebuked the Galatians for falling back on and begin to question??? Answer: He wouldn't! He would only preach the Gospel and the fundamentals to a NEW CHURCH! Not to a well established one.

Many people deny that the modern Catholic Church is the one Church Jesus promised to build (cf. Mt. 16:18-19) claiming that the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is not found in the Bible. Is this argument valid?

Let’s begin by examining the evidence contained in scripture as well as the non-scriptural writings of the earliest Christians for evidence of Apostolic Succession. The Bible contains clear indications that the Apostle Paul taught Apostolic Succession to his disciples and fellow workers, Timothy, Titus and Clement. Here are the relevant passages:

2 Timothy 2:1-2
You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

There are four generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1. Paul himself, 2. Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 3. Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 4. Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach. Paul commanded Timothy to hand on the gospel to reliable men and further to ensure that those men would also hand on the gospel reliably.

Titus 1:5
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

In the passage above, we see that Paul was concerned with the appointing of capable leaders in the Cretan church. So in addition to his concern for the content of the message, he is concerned with the succession of the leadership, as well.

Paul also outlined the beginnings of Church hierarchy (as well as the qualification for Church office) in his first letter to Timothy.

“Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer (bishop) must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.

“Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.” (1 Timothy 3:1-10)

These verses illustrate that by the time this letter was written in the late first century, the Church had already established several positions of leadership: Apostles (Peter being the foremost among them), Overseers (or Bishops) and Deacons.

Philippians 4:3
Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

In the passage from Philippians, Paul mentions one of his fellow workers, Clement, who was ordained by the Apostle Peter and later became the fourth Bishop of Rome (after Peter, Linus, and Anacletus). Like Paul, who addressed to epistles to the Church of Corinth, Clement wrote his own letter to the Corinthians around 80 AD. In that letter, he stated:

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

“We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. (ibid.)

From these two passages, we can see that Clement had witnessed his mentors, the Apostles Peter and Paul, naming men to the office of Bishop and had received instructions from them that other men should succeed those Bishops appointed by the Apostles in the event that these first Bishops should die. Thus, history records that both the Apostles and their disciples such as Clement, Timothy and Titus understood and followed the practice of appointing successors to the Apostles in the Church.

While many seem to believe that anyone with a Bible may become a “pastor” by simply gathering around himself a group of fellow believers to form a church, the Bible itself teaches that true leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ must be ordained by those who were ordained before them. This process, known as Apostolic Succession, maintains an unbroken chain of continuity from Jesus, Peter and the Apostles to the leaders of the early Church.

Nice shuck and jive, but no. Where does this argument fail? Paul was not setting up POPES, cardinals, bishops and all the rest as his line of sucessors, and At no point did Paul 'pass on his powers and authority' to those who he left in charge of a given region or church. Paul set up teachers, decons (those who served the church) and church elders. (Those who governed the church and made decisions for the church) that was the upper limit to his church political structure he authorized. when the elders needed help or redirection He himself would issue a letter giving direction, but this was not an on going thing. No one took Paul's role once he was gone. that is what I meant by shuck and jive. You intentionally use a word that by all basic definition applied to basic senerio, then use that same word to describe a whole other doctrine that the first senerio in no way shape or form covers.

[Drich]

Does that mean this is not the history of the christian religion? No. The difference being Christianity is defined by Christ. the christian Religion is defined by man. Being a member of the religion does not in no way make you a Christian by the standard of Christ. How can one say that? Because again, Unlike the no true scots man fallacy their are rules that define a Christian by the standards of Christ in the bible. If one does not follow said rules we are told Christ will not acknoweledge them as 'Christian.'

Citation needed.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ESV
soitenly!

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

The bold shows us that men of great 'christian' works 'Prophesy=preaching/teaching in the name of Jesus, Casting out Demons.. it apostle/Tv evangelist level works.. Which means All these men see themselves as elite among 'Christians.' And what was Christ's response? 'Depart from me I never knew you.' Meaning they were never Christian even though clearly they claimed to be.. Right to Jesus' face on the day of Judgement.

So again, I names and titles mean nothing. Jesus decides who is and who is not Christian. I know some of you and some church goers will be shock by who is and is not 'Christian.' both for different reasons.

And the underlined bit shows that their are rules and conditions.

I may have butchered it, but it's all there.

[Drich]

Sorry Randy did not know you were a brother.

Next time if you take issue with anything I say, then take it to me first/Pm me. (or not I have no issue hashing it out in public, I just think it is better to try and follow what the bible says about Christian conflict rather than brother against brother in the heathen arena) (for you stims)

That said, just because I don't believe Peter was the first pope, nor do I believe the current one has the same apostolic authority or power Peter did, makes you any more or less saved than you are.
Why? Because as the above post points out, I believe 'we' (NONE OF US NOT EVEN PETER) gets to say who is and who is not a member of the church. I believe Jesus is not a respector of the boundries we put on our religions. I also believe that brother "A" can live a perfect Christian life, and brother "B" can live an identical one and brother 'A' goes to Heaven while brother 'b' goes to Hell. Why? Because it is not about what we do persay. It's about why we do it. Meaning our religions don't save any of us. our relationship with Jesus Christ does. Remember He told us NO Man comes unto the Father but by Him.. Not 'no man comes unto the father but by this religion or that one..' That mean it is Jesus who will decide who is and is not in the church and not us or our father's empty traditions.

[KUSA]

Sorry Randy did not know you were a brother.

Next time if you take issue with anything I say, then take it to me first/Pm me. (or not I have no issue hashing it out in public, I just think it is better to try and follow what the bible says about Christian conflict rather than brother against brother in the heathen arena) (for you stims)

What you can't recognize a fellow christard?

The fact is, no two christards believe the same thing. Jesus tells different lies to everyone.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Sorry Randy did not know you were a brother.

What does the colour of his skin have to do with it? 


  

Couldn't resist, sorry.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Sorry Randy did not know you were a brother.

Next time if you take issue with anything I say, then take it to me first/Pm me. (or not I have no issue hashing it out in public, I just think it is better to try and follow what the bible says about Christian conflict rather than brother against brother in the heathen arena) (for you stims)

What you can't recognize a fellow christard?

The fact is, no two christards believe the same thing. Jesus tells different lies to everyone.

No need to insult them, KUSA, not in this case. But I did "prophesy" this exact "dust-up", just a page back.

I'm more concerned with the fact that the cultists can't see that they don't ever ever again get to tell us that we have to treat them with respect, when they are now admittedly under orders not to even let us see that they don't have a united front on doctrine.

New doctrine: "Lie to atheists. It's okay. God hates them."

Brother against brother. Psh.

Wow, Drich. Way to spell out why all the Catholics are frauds. Rather than answering your nonsense (like completely missing my point about picking and choosing focus  doctrine, re: divorce v. gayness), I'll just let the Catholics here tear you up on that one.