₦airaland Forum

gst101: see if frosbel agrees

Frosbel only agrees with himself. He knows more than any other Christian. He even knows more than St. Peter, I'm sure.

gst101: chukwudi have you read or listened to benedict XVI's messages i mentioned above. What do you think of the man and the message? Any one who has listened or read them should also comment

I have read some of Pope Benedict XVI's writings including some the ones you talked about. Are you surprised that the Vicar of Christ, the Shepherd of God's people on earth should have such theological insight and wisdom?

What do I think of Ubenedictus and Chukwudi44? - Faithful sheep of the flock, defenders of the faith. We all speak with one voice - that of truth.

k2039: As far as am concerned the bolded phrase will be her only justification for being a saint and not that she is the mother of Jesus,because a lot of catholics that I know lay emphasis on "she is the mother of Jesus".

Do the "Catholics" you know really tell you that 'Mary is a saint because she's Jesus' mother' or are you deliberately lying to win the arguement?

k2039: Joagbaje,some folks need to here this "If Mary mother of Jesus is a saint as claimed by certain people then she is not more of a saint than any spirit filled christian"
So may they reduce all the hype on Mary.

So you are saying that you and Joagbaje are on the same level as the mother of God abi? May God help you. I think you should take your issues up with Angel Gabriel for 'hyping' her.

k2039: For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified 1 Corinthians 2:2.

Does that mean that we should know nothing else? No Holy Spirit, no Bible, no pastor, nothing! Just Jesus?

Think!

k2039: How did you know?.

God says so through his Church.

k2039: Besides on what basis did she get into heaven?,on the basis that she was the mother of Jesus,just asking.

She co-operated with God's grace and will.

Now how did you know that she is possibly in hell and on what basis could she be in hell? That she was the mother of Jesus? Just asking.

@Area_boy, wh...

*why am I even trying to respond to an area boy?*

So what have you said that Catholics don't know?...that they should learn from?

What can Catholics possibly learn from that fraud?

@OP, we know that the mother of God is in heaven. If you think she's in hell, good for you.

You have not been observing Catholics. We kneel at mass, we purify ourselves with holy water and the sign of the cross, and we fall on our face (though not compulsorily) before the Blessed Sacrament.

More importantly: we are taught to worship in truth and in spirit. Which means we must do what God wants: to love him and our fellow man. We are not taught to worship God and then kill our fellow man to please God.

akthedream: The arguement should be,is that their real PICTURES??

You want Jesus' real picture? You want Jesus himself? You will find him in the Eucharist. "This is my body", He said.

Action speaks louder than words.

When I watch the news after Ramadan, what will hear and see?

After Ramadan, will I be able to go to mass on Sunday morning?

Your guess is as good as mine.

gst101: my friends want me to become catholic. I have been following them to their church recently and to be honest i like their style of worship. I have been studying their devotional 'the word among us' and its really insightful. Pope benedict xvi is another one i admire. His ability to handle pressure and his intellectual capacity has made me want to make him my role model. I attend winners at present and my people are anti catholic. So what do you think?

What makes me most happy is not that you find the Pope a worthy role-model or that you like our style of worship. What makes me most happy is that you have kept your mind and heart open. Pope Benedict has come and will go; 'The Word Among us' (an amazing devotional) has come and will go but the truth that the Church possesses, professes & preaches will never fade. It is that Truth that attracts you (perhaps without your knowing it). It is that Truth that the Pope, 'The Word Among Us' and the Catholic Church as a whole proclaim, that why its so beautiful...not with the beauty that seems to shine today and fades tomorrow, but the beauty that always was, is, and will ever be.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]It's been quite some time I've been away @Italo and @Ubenedictus I simply can't go through all your replies so I'll just tackle the last one




Now I think we have veered off a bit. The original challenge to you both was to provide me with a written document at the time of the early church that promotes Mary's immaculate conception. I am sorry but I simply can't accept unverifiable oral tradition as doctrine.[/quote]Wrong! YOUR original challenge was:

"@Ubenedictus

From what I can decipher, the contention is between whether Jesus was the only one immaculately conceived and whether Mary was also immaculately conceived.

We agree that the bible is the final authority.

The bible clearly states that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin hence without sin. (Matthew 1:23, Isaiah 7:14)

Please show us where the bible says that Mary Jesus' mother was born without sin.

Once you do that, this case will be settled. If you cannot do that then it is not true. This should be fair enough don't you agree?"

And OUR original challenges were:

Chukwudi: "Show me where in the scriptures it was stated that the [/b]BIBLE [b] is the final authourity.Sola bible is a creation of martin luther and not the scriptures"

Me: "Who agrees with you that the Bible is the final authority? Is that in the Bible?

1st Tim 3:15 in my Bible says: "...the Church (not the Bible) is the pillar and bulwark of truth." What does it say in your Bible?

You really think it's fair enough? You are implying that if something is not stated in the Bible, it is false. You are in effect, saying that St. John lied when he said that many things were not recorded. Nothing was actually left unrecorded - according to you. I take you as a reasonable man; but I have also found that people who oppose the Catholic faith tend to be criminally unreasonable. Please prove me wrong on the latter."

God2man: Here we go again, I have created a topic on this before, must we accept all our Pastors teachings?

How do we know the truth? Or how do we know the person saying the right thing?

For example, this brother has the holyspirit, he is well read in terms of scripture exposition, he said; tithe is forbidden or it has been stopped. Another brother, holyghost filled, very sound in Biblical teachings, he said; tithe is scriptural, it must be paid or given whatever. We now arrive at a crossroads, we do not know who to believe again. I asked the question must we accept all our pastor's teachings. The answer i got was that we should study the scripture and not interpret the scripture out of context.

Christians, where do we go from here?

Frosbel,Goshen360, what do we do?

God bless you.
God2man.

@ Frosbel and Goshen360,

I pray you guys answer this question candidly and honestly.

Everybody 'hears' from the Holy Spirit and everybody proclaims different doctrines, so how can we know who is proclaiming the true doctrine of Christ?

As a believer, morality has to do with what is good, and what is good is what God says is good. I should not necessarily pick morality over loyalty or vice-versa because, to me, morality demands that i should be loyal...to God. I should be loyal to man as long as it does not lead me to be disloyal to God.

I hope i understood your question well.

Naaaa! They'll only produce more bombers, sorry, babies.

*just kidding though*

You might want to tell us your background, belief and practices, especially about Lent.

frosbel: The catholic church is the HEAD of all FALSE CHURCHES - Fact !

Baseless allegation.

frosbel: Wrong , the catholic church does not date back to the apostles , rather it dates back to the beginning of this apostasy in the later part of the 2nd century and became more pronounced during the reign of Emperor Constantine.

Baseless allegation.

frosbel: The catholic church was formed as a compromise between state and fallen Christian leaders , it was a mixture of paganism and half-truths.

Baseless allegation

frosbel: Indeed and Luther did the right thing.

When a church start selling indulgences for the forgiveness of sins, what do you call that , of course a false church.

Baseless allegation. Besides, Christ never said his Church would do no wrong. He said, "the gates of hell will not prevail against it... No conditions attached!

frosbel: Besides the Catholic church started the crusades , contrary to scripture , and killed untold numbers of Jews and Muslims , in many cases after they had surrendered.

You might want to provide evidence of all you said.

frosbel: This Harlot church also started the inquisitions, a troubling time when so called heretics like William Tyndale , the translator of the bible into English and many others, were tortured using methods only SATAN could have invented.

Baseless allegations.

frosbel: They are daughters of the Mother Church , the Harlot par excellence. The prosperity churches learnt how to con their members from the catholic church.

Baseless allegations.

frosbel: "They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth." - 1 Timothy 4:3

...And they wed thousands of couples every week. I am a Catholic and no one has ever ordered me to abstain from any food.

Baseless allegation.

frosbel: No, the catholic church does not adhere to scripture , they follow tradition and paganism.

Sorry to be so blatant about the truth.

You are only blatant about the lies. The Catholic Church adheres to the scripture that it compiled and canonized. By the way, you only call it scripture because the Catholic Church declared it so.

By yourself, you dont know what is or isnt scripture.

And by the way, you havent told us what you term, Christ's true Church.

While I think its serious foolishness as some have called it, I don't think the Priest or Church involved has a part in the blame in this case.

That's a Catholic Church and as a Catholic, I know that no Priest or Church will generally coerce or cajole you into coming up for 'thanksgiving'. That is not a 'special thanksgiving service' as the OP has made you believe (whether he/she was being deceptful or it was an honest but misguided mistake is another matter). That is just a normal Sunday Mass with time for thanksgiving on any matter (whether chelsea victory or the birth of a baby). So if some people of God are 'foolish' enough to say 'thank you Lord for giving Chelsea victory', no Priest or Church can legitimately refuse that.

There is no question about it, God is certainly the Rock. But why did He also name Simon "rock"?

Let us start by looking at the word rock in the Old Testament. The Hebrew word for rock is "Tsur". It is also interesting that the word "tsur" also means God. Some versions of the Bible translate the Hebrew word "Tsur" as "rock" and some translate it as "God". For example, the King James Version of the Bible translates tsur as follows:

"As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the Lord is tried. He is a buckler to all those that trust in him. For who is God save the Lord, or who is a rock (Tsur) save our God?" (Psalm 18).

The Catholic Douay-Rheims version of the Bible translates the same passage as follows:
"As for my God, his way is undefiled: the words of the Lord are fire tried: he is the protector of all that trust in Him. For who is God but the Lord? or who is God (Tsur) but our God?" (Psalm 18:31-32).

We can see that the name "Rock" belongs properly to God, for He is truly our unmovable rock: "The Lord is my rock (tsur) and my fortress" (Psalm 18:2); "Unto thee will I cry, O Lord, my rock (tsur) (ibid. 28:1); I will say unto God, my rock (tsur) (ibid. 42:9); Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from Him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock (tsur) and my salvation...My soul, wait thou only upon God ... my rock (tsur) and my salvation... He is my rock(tsur) ..." (ibid 62:2,6,7); "and they remembered that God was their rock (tsur)" (ibid. 78:35).

So we can see that what Protestants say is correct. God is the rock. And not only is He called Rock, but the Hebrew word for rock (tsur), also means God.

But there is another person in the Old Testament who is called by this name rock (tsur). Abraham, the father of the Jewish race is referred to as a “rock” in the Old Testament: "Look unto the rock (tsur) whence you are hewn ... look unto Abraham your Father" (Isaias 51:1-2). Why does the Bible call Abraham "rock"?

The Symbolism of Father Abraham: As we know, the Old Testament has many "types" and "images" of New Testament realities. The Paschal Lamb, for example, that was sacrificed by the Jews during Passover, foreshadowed Our Lord who was sacrificed for us on Mt. Calvary during Passover. The Old Testament Lamb could not take away sins, but rather pointed to the One who would. That is why, when John the Baptist saw our Lord, he declared "behold the Lamb of God, the one who taketh away the sins of the world". There are countless other examples of the Old Testament foreshadowing the New Testament. We will look at one other…

In the Old Testament, God is often referred to as "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob". I believe this threefold name is an Old Testament "image" of the Blessed Trinity. This image becomes clear when we consider that Father Abraham (who represents God the Father) led his son Isaac up Mt. Moria to be sacrificed to God. Isaac, his son (who represents Jesus) carried the wood up the Mountain, just as Our Lord carried the wood of the cross up Mt. Calvary. Mt. Moria was later re-named Calvary, and is the same mountain upon which Our Lord was crucified. Jacob, the third person, represents the Holy Ghost who is the third person of the Blessed Trinity. This explains why the New Testament Church - whose members have become "a temple of the Holy Ghost" (1 Cor. 6:16) - is called in Scripture "the house of Jacob" (Luke 1), for Jacob represents the Holy Ghost who dwells within the Church. So we can see that "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" was an image of the Blessed Trinity, which explains why God was called by that triune name.

The name Rock, which properly belongs to God, was also attributed to Abraham as one who prefigured God the Father. I believe that is why Abraham is referred to as Rock (tsur) in the Old Testament.

Now, if we proceed to the New Testament we will find that God (Jesus) is again called by the name Rock. "and the rock that followed them was Christ " (1 Cor. 10. Also see 1 Peter 2:6-7 and Romans 9:33). So we see that in both the Old Testament and the New, God is called "Rock".

Yet we also see that God gave this name Rock (a name which belongs to God) to another man: and this man was Simon, bar Jona. In the Old Testament, Abraham, who was the Father of the Jewish nation, was only referred to as "Rock" in passing, yet Jesus did not just refer to Simon as "rock", but went so far as to change his name to Rock! Jesus conveyed a name upon Simon which properly belonged to God! "And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou are Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter (rock) (John 1:42). Is it a mere coincidence that Jesus, who is the Rock, changed Peter's name to Rock? I think not.

What's in a name? : When God imposes a name on someone, the name conveys a meaning that describes the person. For example, since Abraham was a "type" of God the Father, and the Father of the Jewish race, God changed his name from Abram, to Abraham. The name Abraham means "father of a multitude" (Strongs #85, Hebrew). In re-naming Abram "Abraham", God designated him as the Father of the Jewish people. So likewise, when Our Lord renamed Simon Peter, which means rock, he designated him as the visible representative of Himself, the true rock, and gave Peter a participation in His own authority when he declared: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys to the kingdom of heaven" which properly belong to Me "and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Mt 16:20).

St. Basil: "Peter is made the foundation, because he says: Thou are Christ, the Son of the Living God; and hears in reply that he is a rock. But although a rock, he is not such a rock as Christ; for Christ is truly an immovable rock, but Peter, only by virtue of that rock [i.e. Christ]. For Jesus bestows His dignities on others; He is a priest, and He makes priests; a rock, and He makes a rock; what belongs to Himself, He bestows on His servants" (St. Basil, circa 345AD).

There is certainly a great significance to God naming Simon, Peter (which means rock). For "Rock" is a name that belongs properly to God Himself, and only used to refer to only one other person in the old teastament: and that person is no less a figure than Father Abraham, the father of the Jewish race. Such things are not a coincidence.

Before I proceed, I want to quote from the Catechism of the Council of Trent so that we can get an accurate understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches regarding the office of the Pope.

"The Church has but one ruler and one governor, the invisible one, Christ, whom the eternal Father 'hath made head over all the Church, which is his body' [Eph. 1:22-23], the visible one, the Pope, who, as legitimate successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, fills the Apostolic chair.

"It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church. This St. Jerome clearly perceived and clearly expressed when, in his work against Jovinian, he wrote: 'One is elected that, by the appointment of a head, all occasion of schism may be removed'. In his letter to Pope Damasus the same holy Doctor writes: 'Away with envy, let the ambition of Roman grandeur cease! I speak to the successor of the fisherman, and to the disciple of the cross. Following no chief but Christ, I am united to communion with your Holiness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that on that rock is built the Church. Whoever will eat the lamb outside this house is profane; whosoever is not in the ark of Noah [an Old Testament type of the Catholic Church] shall perish in the flood.

"The same doctrine was long before established by Saint Irenaeus, and Cyprian. ...Again, Optatus of Milevi says: 'You cannot be excused on the score of ignorance, knowing as you do that in the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was first conferred on Peter, who occupied it as head of the Apostles; in order that in that one chair the unity of the Church might be preserved by all, and that the other Apostles might not claim each a chair for himself; so that now he who erects another in opposition to this single chair is a schismatic and a prevaricator'.

" Later on St. Basil wrote: 'Peter is made the foundation, because he says: Thou are Christ, the Son of the Living God; and hears in reply that he is a rock. But although a rock, he is not such a rock as Christ; for Christ is truly an immovable rock, but Peter, only by virtue of that rock [i.e. Christ]. For Jesus bestows His dignities on others; He is a priest, and He makes priests; a rock, and He makes a rock; what belongs to Himself, He bestows on His servants'. "Lastly, St. Ambrose says: 'Because he alone of all of them professed (Christ) he was placed above all'." (The Catechism of the Council of Trent pgs. 102 - 104).

More evidence of Peter being the chief Apostle: The fact that St. Peter was the head of the Apostles is indicated in many other places of the New Testament. For example, although Peter was not the first apostle chosen by Our Lord, when the Apostles are listed, Peter's name is always first (Matt. 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13), while Judas (who betrayed Jesus) is always last. Although the other apostles are not always in the same order, the writers, who were inspired by God, were always careful to place St. Peter's name at the beginning of the list, and Judas' last.

Peter's name is also mentioned about six times more than any other Apostle, and more times that all of the other Apostles combined, which also shows a certain prominence. The Bible also calls Peter "the first" (protos) Apostle (St. Matt 10:2). The Greek word Protos is the Latin word Primus, from which we get the word "Primacy". So when the Bible says that Peter was "the first" Apostle, it could be translated to say that Peter held the Primacy over the others; or that he was the "Chief" Apostle (Strongs # 4413, Greek).

St. Jerome: "Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord" (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).


It is also interesting to notice that when the Bible speaks of the Apostles, It often refers to them as "Peter, and the others", etc. "Tell his disciples, and Peter (St. Mark 16). "Peter standing up, with the eleven" (Acts. 2). "And Simon, and they who were with him…" (St. Mark 1). This again seems to show that Peter was the leader of the others. We also know that when it came time to pay taxes, Jesus paid the taxes for both Himself and Peter, but not the other Apostles. And it was to St. Peter only that Jesus gave the command to "confirm the brethren" (Luke 22:32); and again, Jesus gave Peter alone the command to "feed My lambs, feed by sheep" (John 21:17).

Ephraim the Syrian: "[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

Now, let us again review the controversial verse from Matthew, Chapter 16. Jesus said to Simon: "Thou art Peter [rock], and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you [singular] the keys to the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you [singular] shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you [singular] shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Mt 16:20).

Now, it is often claimed by non-Catholics that the "Rock" upon which Jesus will build His Church, refers to Jesus, and not Peter; or to Peter's confession of faith, but not Peter; or anything else, just not Peter. Or that the words "Petra and Petrus have greatly different meanings, and therefore somehow change the obvious meaning of what is said. Now it is certainly true that Jesus is referred to in Scripture as rock, and indeed IS the true rock. Yet who does not see that in the very same sentence where Jesus says that he will build his Church "upon this rock", he renames Peter "rock"? Is there no significance to this? Is this a mere coincidence? And what about the very next sentence, which is no less significant. "I will give unto you" said Jesus to Peter "the keys to the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Mt 16:20).

Tertullian: "[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

It is commonly known that the conveyance of keys is a conveyance of authority. In the book of Isaias, we read a passage somewhat similar to the one quoted above from the New Testament: "And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Helcias, and I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be called a father [Pope?] to the inhabitants of Jerusalem [Rome?], and to the house of Juda [Church?]. And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder, and he shall open, and no one shall shut: and he shall shut, and no one shall open" (Ch. 22).

The "keys" properly belong to Our Lord; for it was He who merited them for us: "I am the first and the last, alive and was dead: and behold I am living for ever and ever, and have the keys of death and Hell" (Apoc. 1:17-18). And further on: "These things saith the Holy One and the True One, who hath the keys of David: He that openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth"( Apoc 3:7). Yet who will deny the obvious words of Scripture wherein Our Lord passed these keys on to St. Peter, along with the words "Whatsoever thou shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in Heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"(ibid.). Thus we see Our Lord delegating the power which is properly His, to St. Peter, at the same time that He gave Peter the name which properly belongs to himself.

The obvious meaning is that Jesus is establishing Peter as the earthly head of His Church and conveying His authority upon Peter. This was the unanimous consent of Christianity up until the 16th century.

We know that when the Jews rejected Jesus, He established a new Church. This new Church consists of both Jews and Gentiles. In the Old Testament, Moses was the first earthly head of the Church. After he died the Jewish religion was ruled by his successor, who sat in the "chair of Moses" (St. Matt 23:2). In the New Testament Church, God no longer rules from the "Chair of Moses", but from the "Chair of Peter". If we do not wish to stray from the true fold, we must follow this voice: "In the Catholic Church I adhere to the Chair of Peter. Whoever does not wish to stray from the true fold must follow this voice" (St. Augustine, Apostolic Digest pg 251, circa 410AD).

The following symbolically describes what took place when the Jews rejected Our Lord: "Jesus rose up out of the synagogue and went into Peter's house" (Luke 4:38). Now Our Lord teaches from Peter's ship (diocese): "and [Jesus] going into a ship that was Peter's… He taught the multitude out of the Ship (Luke 5:3).

"It is to Peter to whom Christ said: 'Thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.' Where Peter is, there is no death but eternal life. Where Peter is, there is the Church" (St. Ambrose - Commentary on 12 of David's Psalms, circa 360AD).

I will end this with the words of the Fathers of the Church.

St. Cyprian of Carthage 251AD: "The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you,' He says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven' (Mt 16:18-19)... 'On him (Peter) he builds his Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep' (Jn 21:17), and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair, and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was (ie. apostles), but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all (the apostles) are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he (should) desert the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (Cyprian of Carthage, 251 AD)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: "As members of the Mystical Body of the Church, it behooves us to follow our head, the Roman Pontiff, who holds in trust the deposit of the Apostolic Faith. From him we are to learn what we are bound to believe, to think, and to hold. By divine right, everyone bows down the head before him." (St. Cyril of Jerusalem - Catechetical Lectures pg. 33, circa 350AD)

St. Augustine: "These miserable retches, refusing to acknowledge the Rock as Peter, and to believe that the Church has received the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, have lost these very Keys from their own hands. (St. Augustine, Christian Combat, circa 397AD).

Tertullian: "Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called 'the rock on whom the Church would be built' [Mt 16:18] with the power of 'loosing and binding in heaven and on earth' {Mt 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 200AD)

· (Endnote) In an attempt to get around Peter being the rock upon whom Jesus said he would build His Church, many will go to the Greek text of the Scriptures to show that the word used for "Peter" is not the same word used for "this rock" upon which Jesus said He would build His Church. The following is Matthew 16:18 showing the two Greek words for rock. "Thou art Peter (Petrus) and upon this rock (Petra) I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Mt 16:18). After showing, in the Greek, that the word for Peter is not the exact same word that is used for rock, they will conclude by explaining that the word "Petrus" (which was used for Peter) means a small pebble, while the word "Petra" means a big stone; thus they draw the conclusion that Jesus did not mean He would build His Church on Peter (the small rock), but upon Himself, or possibly Peters earlier confession of faith (the big rock). This explanation is usually accepted with no further questions asked by those listening. But is it true? Lets look and see. We will start by looking up the definitions of the two Greek words Petra and Petrus using the Strong's Concordance.

petra # 4073. - "Fem. of the same as 4074: a (mass of) rock (lit. or fig.): - rock."

Petros # 4074 - "Appar. a Prim. word: a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037):

as a name, Petrus, an apostle: - Peter, rock. comp.2786"

Notice, the definition for Petros (aka Petrus) tells us that it is larger that # 3037. A quick check of the number 3037 in the same concordance takes us to the word "lithos". When looking at the definition for the word lithos we see that it is defined as:

"appar. a prim. word: a stone (lit. or fig.): - (mill -, stumbling) stone.

Notice that "lithos" (#3037) is defined as either a stumbling stone or a millstone. When we read that Petrus is larger that "lithos", it cannot be referring to a stumbling stone, because a stumbling stone does not denote size. Therefore we must understand the comparison to be referring to a millstone. What is a millstone? A millstone is a huge round stone used for crushing grain. "it would be better for him that a millstone be hung around his neck and he be drowned in the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones" (Lk 17:2). As we can see from this verse, a millstone is no small pebble, but a massive stone. According to the definition of the word Petrus (Peter), it is larger than a millstone; therefore Petrus does not mean a small pebble, as many try to claim, but rather it is a massive rock, larger than a millstone.

Why, then, does the Greek text use two different words for rock? The answer is simple. If you notice in the definition of Petra, it says that it is a Feminine word; this is expressed by the "Fem." at the beginning of the definition. The masculine form of the word Petra is the Greek word Petrus. Notice also in the definition of petra #4073, it says that it is the [u]same as #4074[u/] which is Petros. Obviously the writer could not have used a feminine word to describe Peter, therefore he translated it into the masculine form of the same word; thus we have the two words, Petra and Petrus.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=32728

2000+ years of argument, hatred, persecution...

But we keep going, "the gates of hell will not prevail against us."

@ Pastor AIO, are you Catholic? If not what's your creed?

geogeous: One thing is certain, islam is a religion of peace

Why don't you let us look around, observe and deduce for ourselves? We see...and hear...and think.

Ubenedictus: something i have learnt from talking to protestants is that many are almost incapable of truth when it comes to the catholic church.

Truth? If they loved the truth, they would be Catholic.

Thank you

fellis: What?
Why will anyone in their right senses even consider going?
I don't think attending church services is a matter of life and death, if you are likely to die in the process of attending church why not postpone it till when conditions are safe?

It's an individual thing.

If you are a Christian, you will never die, you will only move to a better home.

But again, it's an individual thing.

I do not like beating around the bush.

When God performs a miracle, it is not ALWAYS clear for all to see. YES or NO!

The Church has always had a heirarchy. YES or NO!

If your answer to both of these is "yes", then we can move forward.

But if your answer to any of these is "no", then off with you delusion which you admit you are unsure of anyway.

Why should we discuss quadratic equations when you cannot accept that 1 + 1 = 2?

@OP *boring*

Common, you can do better.

You claim you were a hardcore Christian for twenty-two years. What did the verse mean to you in those decades? Explain!

They persecute everybody that doesn't Follow their religion.

@Mr_Anony,

I am sure you will agree with me that it is futile arguing 'what truth is' with a dishonest man.

I am eager to treat all the issues we have both raised but why should I waste my time and energy when it is obvious that you are not after the truth. What you are after is clearly 'not backing down'. Perhaps you see that as a gratification.

You cannot even accept some simple truths:

That God can perform a miracle and it will not be clear for all to see. You cannot accept that God becoming man was a miracle and it wasn't clear for all to see.

You cannot accept that the Church has always had heirarchy. You say that your Church has pastors but you cannot accept that that shows it has a Heirarchy.

You cannot accept that God gave power to Peter when he gave him the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

So it is obvious that there is no point discussing this with you.

At least you were honest on one occasion though... When you admitted that EVERYTHING you have said on faith...COULD be WRONG.

Here's what you said on this thread https://www.nairaland.com/814144/justified-faith-works/2

OLAADEGBU: A Christian does not deliberately commit sin, if a Christian sins, it is against his will.  One who is born again does not habitually commit sin.  He falls rather than dives into sin, he resists rather than embraces sin.

You are saying then, that Judas was a born-again Christian and he sinned by stealing money from Jesus and betraying him, but it was not all deliberate. It was against his will. He resisted, rather than embrace the betrayal and stealing.

True or false?

BetaThings: @italo
Christians kill muslims in Kaduna!!!!

A headline such as this could be crafted by anyone.
Would that fully represent the entire situation?
Let us try to be truthful!

Of course you and I know the entire situation... That Muslims are known for mindless killings all over the world.

In Nigeria, Muslims have consistently killed Christians for NO reason from since even before the advent of Boko Haram. Let me just refresh your memory a little. When the Miss World beauty pageant was to be held in Nigeria, Muslims went on a rampage, killing Christians and destroying their properties. I remember in Abuja then I was driving towards the Central Mosque when they set out for their usual killing spree - straight from the Mosque. Luckily, I could easily make a u-turn and the Police later brought the situation under control. When Muslims in the North were demanding for Sharia Law, they also set out killing Christians in the charade they call "protests". In Egypt, Muslims consistently attack the 10% or less Christian population. In Indonesia, Churches are consistently being attacked just as you have in Nigeria.

I don't even know why I am telling you what you already know but just choose to brush under the carpet.

It is common knowledge in Nigeria that no matter how close you are to a Muslim - especially in the North, when "Jihad" comes around, he won't hesitate to kill you. In fact, you will be his best victim. A Muslim acquaintance once tried to explain it to my mum. He said: "no matter how much you love a fowl, when an important visitor comes, it is that most loved fowl of yours that you will kill for the person."

I have many "Muslim" friends though. Some I really love, as human beings, but only because they don't practise the religion to the full. Those who do... I dread...and for good and obvious reasons.

You can talk about anything else, but don't tell us that Islam is a religion of peace. If it were, you wouldn't need to say it. We can see for ourselves.