What is the infallible difference between Christianity and Catholicism

[Manc Skipper]

The scriptures clearly show that as foundation stones, all the apostles are equal....Mark 9:33-35; Luke 22:24-26...

Peter himself identified the rock-mass as being Christ Jesus at 1 Peter 2...

"4 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men+ but chosen, precious to God,+

5 you yourselves as living stones are being built up into a spiritual house+ to be a holy priesthood, in order to offer up spiritual sacrifices+ acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.+

6 For it says in Scripture: “Look! I am laying in Zion a chosen stone, a precious foundation cornerstone, and no one exercising faith in it will ever be disappointed.”*+

7 It is to you, therefore, that he is precious, because you are believers; but to those not believing, “the stone that the builders rejected,+ this has become the chief cornerstone”*+

8 and “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.”+ They are stumbling because they are disobedient to the word. To this very end they were appointed."

As did Paul...

"and all drank the same spiritual drink.+ For they used to drink from the spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock meant the Christ." 1 Corinthians 10:4

"Jesus himself is the foundation cornerstone" Ephesians 2:20

Jesus himself named Peter "Petros". (The Rock) The foundation of the church.

 

[Daisy]

How are we to know who truly speaks for Christ?

We know by what they teach...are they considering scripture in context...no cherry picking? Are they comsidering ALL scriptures on the subject to get the true meaning? Are all the scriptures in harmony when they derive at a belief? If they're not, then they're not teaching the whole truth...

 

[Daisy]

Jesus himself named Peter "Petros". (The Rock) The foundation of the church.

Petros...petra...2 separate words...

ROCK-MASS​

This translates the Greek word peʹtra (feminine gender), which designates a mass of rock (Mt 7:24, 25; 27:51, 60; Lu 6:48; 8:6, 13; Re 6:15, 16) and therefore differs from peʹtros (masculine gender and employed as a proper name, Peter), meaning “piece of rock.” This distinction makes it clear that, when saying to Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock-mass I will build my congregation,” Jesus was not using synonymous terms. (Mt 16:18) Even in the Aramaic (Syriac) version the distinction is apparent from a difference in the gender of the particle preceding the word kiʼphaʼ, used for both “Peter” and “rock.” The masculine verbal pronoun (hu) precedes “Peter,” but “rock” is preceded by the feminine demonstrative adjective (hadeʼ).

That the apostles did not understand Jesus’ statement to signify that Peter was the rock-mass is evident from the fact that they later disputed about who seemed to be the greatest among them. (Mr 9:33-35; Lu 22:24-26) There would have been no basis for such disputing had Peter been given the primacy as the rock-mass on which the congregation was to be built. The Scriptures clearly show that as foundation stones, all the apostles are equal. All of them, including Peter, rest upon Christ Jesus as the foundation cornerstone. (Eph 2:19-22; Re 21:2, 9-14) Peter himself identified the rock-mass (peʹtra) on which the congregation is built as being Christ Jesus. (1Pe 2:4-8) Similarly, the apostle Paul wrote: “For they [the Israelites] used to drink from the spiritual rock-mass that followed them, and that rock-mass meant the Christ.” (1Co 10:4) On at least two occasions and in two different locations the Israelites received a miraculous provision of water from a rock-mass. (Ex 17:5-7; Nu 20:1-11) Therefore, the rock-mass as a source of water, in effect, followed them. The rock-mass itself was evidently a pictorial, or symbolic, type of Christ Jesus, who said to the Jews: “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink.”—Joh 7:37.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003753?q=petros&p=sen

 

[Manc Skipper]

Petros...petra...2 separate words...

ROCK-MASS​

This translates the Greek word peʹtra (feminine gender), which designates a mass of rock (Mt 7:24, 25; 27:51, 60; Lu 6:48; 8:6, 13; Re 6:15, 16) and therefore differs from peʹtros (masculine gender and employed as a proper name, Peter), meaning “piece of rock.” This distinction makes it clear that, when saying to Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock-mass I will build my congregation,” Jesus was not using synonymous terms. (Mt 16:18) Even in the Aramaic (Syriac) version the distinction is apparent from a difference in the gender of the particle preceding the word kiʼphaʼ, used for both “Peter” and “rock.” The masculine verbal pronoun (hu) precedes “Peter,” but “rock” is preceded by the feminine demonstrative adjective (hadeʼ).

That the apostles did not understand Jesus’ statement to signify that Peter was the rock-mass is evident from the fact that they later disputed about who seemed to be the greatest among them. (Mr 9:33-35; Lu 22:24-26) There would have been no basis for such disputing had Peter been given the primacy as the rock-mass on which the congregation was to be built. The Scriptures clearly show that as foundation stones, all the apostles are equal. All of them, including Peter, rest upon Christ Jesus as the foundation cornerstone. (Eph 2:19-22; Re 21:2, 9-14) Peter himself identified the rock-mass (peʹtra) on which the congregation is built as being Christ Jesus. (1Pe 2:4-8) Similarly, the apostle Paul wrote: “For they [the Israelites] used to drink from the spiritual rock-mass that followed them, and that rock-mass meant the Christ.” (1Co 10:4) On at least two occasions and in two different locations the Israelites received a miraculous provision of water from a rock-mass. (Ex 17:5-7; Nu 20:1-11) Therefore, the rock-mass as a source of water, in effect, followed them. The rock-mass itself was evidently a pictorial, or symbolic, type of Christ Jesus, who said to the Jews: “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink.”—Joh 7:37.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003753?q=petros&p=sen

Quibble ye not! You deny the word of Jesus.

 

[Manc Skipper]

There's no such thing.

So there are no Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Plymouth Brethern, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Evangelicals various "Free" breakaways, the list goes on. All believing that THEIR way is the best if not only route to salvation, and the others will all die horribly...

 

[AmNat]

We know by what they teach...are they considering scripture in context...no cherry picking? Are they comsidering ALL scriptures on the subject to get the true meaning? Are all the scriptures in harmony when they derive at a belief? If they're not, then they're not teaching the whole truth...

If you already knew what should be taught, you would not need a teacher.

Jesus did not tell people to become biblical scholars to know the truth (most people throughout history were illiterate); He spoke rather of hearing the word and listening to it. If memory serves, He only once told people to read the scriptures, and that was in rebuke to those who considered their own fallible understanding superior to what He taught:

And you have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him you believe not. Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me. And you will not come to me that you may have life.

The same rebuke could be given to those who reject those to whom He entrusted the preaching of the faith (and who therefore reject Him, and the One who sent Him), because they think to have life everlasting by following their own understanding of the Bible. They should instead consider that their interpretation might be in error.

 

[Mulefoot]

It's not clear what you mean by "literalist". I've certainly never suggested that the Bible is the only source of knowledge regarding the faith, merely that it is a reliable, inerrant one.

If the Bible is unclear, we can have reference to the early Christians to know how to interpret it. Did any of them think St. Peter's authority had died with him?

Origen as early as the late second century. Cyprian and Augustine later.

The question isn't where do we find where peter's authority had died with him, but rather why do we think any authority should transfer at all. There's zero mention of this idea of transfer of authority phenomenon in the NT letters or gospels. And as a practical matter, there's zero reason we need it. We have teaching and training manuscripts written by Paul, less than one generation removed from Jesus himself. No reason to jump on some concept that was born hundreds of years after the fact.

 

[Mulefoot]

So there are no Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Plymouth Brethern, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Evangelicals various "Free" breakaways, the list goes on. All believing that THEIR way is the best if not only route to salvation, and the others will all die horribly...

Sure, groups of men and women have gathered together for centuries, believing their way was for some reason the right way, exalting themselves above other believers for things as unimportant as the shape of the cup used in communion.

Nothing except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. That event and the fallout from it is so large that everything in comparison is small ball.

 

[Daisy]

If you already knew what should be taught, you would not need a teacher.

I do know how to tell the truth from a lie by studying for myself...taking no man's word for it...

Jesus did not tell people to become biblical scholars to know the truth (most people throughout history were illiterate); He spoke rather of hearing the word and listening to it. If memory serves, He only once told people to read the scriptures, and that was in rebuke to those who considered their own fallible understanding superior to what He taught:

There's more to God's Word than what Jesus said...

"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness." 2 timothy 3:16

They should instead consider that their interpretation might be in error.

That also includes what others tell you...that's why it's vital to take no one's word for it but to study for yourself, to see whether these things are true or not...

"Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thes·sa·lo·niʹca, for they accepted the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so." Acts 17:11

 

[Manc Skipper]

Sure, groups of men and women have gathered together for centuries, believing their way was for some reason the right way, exalting themselves above other believers for things as unimportant as the shape of the cup used in communion.

Nothing except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. That event and the fallout from it is so large that everything in comparison is small ball.

They all profess to believe that, but also that only their way of professing is correct, based on fine points of doctrinal difference. Then there's the Prosperity nonsense, or the "Cowboy Church" WTF?

 

[Mulefoot]

They all profess to believe that, but also that only their way of professing is correct, based on fine points of doctrinal difference. Then there's the Prosperity nonsense, or the "Cowboy Church" WTF?

I've got a buddy that goes to a cowboy church. They read from the same Bible. Mostly just a group of folks who like that culture.

 

[devildavid]

Sure, groups of men and women have gathered together for centuries, believing their way was for some reason the right way, exalting themselves above other believers for things as unimportant as the shape of the cup used in communion.

Nothing except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. That event and the fallout from it is so large that everything in comparison is small ball.

Not really. There were many big deal differences in Christianity that really mattered and still do to this day. If the differences don’t matter, the terrible things Christians did to each other never would have happened. It only calmed down when Christianity lost any political power. It doesn’t mean the differences are just small ball, it just means that they have no power to do anything to each other.

 

[Mulefoot]

Not really. There were many big deal differences in Christianity that really mattered and still do to this day. If the differences don’t matter, the terrible things Christians did to each other never would have happened. It only calmed down when Christianity lost any political power. It doesn’t mean the differences are just small ball, it just means that they have no power to do anything to each other.

Sure, differences matter to people who believe they're worth fighting over. The problem is most differences aren't worth fighting over.

 

[devildavid]

Sure, differences matter to people who believe they're worth fighting over. The problem is most differences aren't worth fighting over.

Yet Christians are still fighting over these differences, despite your claim that it is a small ball. Obviously, there are those who still see it as a big deal. So it points to the failure of Jesus to really be a uniting figure, even among Christians. While I agree with your sentiment, it sadly is not shared by many human beings, believers and non believers alike.

 

[Northwestresident]

"God's word" has been edited redacted and interpreted by men. For centuries. How can your version be the only true one?

Please give some examples of where it has been edited or redacted.

 

[Rumpelstil]

Here two levels have been mixed up.
"Christianity" is the cover word for all members: Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox etc etc

may i repeat my statement …..

 

[AmNat]

Origen as early as the late second century. Cyprian and Augustine later.

Lol:

For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty (since the rest of the multitude derive their entire security not from acuteness of intellect, but from simplicity of faith,)— not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion.

The question isn't where do we find where peter's authority had died with him, but rather why do we think any authority should transfer at all. There's zero mention of this idea of transfer of authority phenomenon in the NT letters or gospels. And as a practical matter, there's zero reason we need it. We have teaching and training manuscripts written by Paul, less than one generation removed from Jesus himself. No reason to jump on some concept that was born hundreds of years after the fact.

The interminable disputes that have plagued Protestantism from its very beginning are an adequate practical demonstration of the need for papal authority.

 

[Revelation]

Quibble ye not! You deny the word of Jesus.

Peter is basically means little rock or pebble. Jesus is the Rock the church is built upon.

blessings.

 

[devildavid]

Peter is basically means little rock or pebble. Jesus is the Rock the church is built upon.

blessings.

That contradicts the words of Jesus.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Peter is basically means little rock or pebble. Jesus is the Rock the church is built upon.

blessings.

Curious interpretation. Which orifice did you pluck it from?

 

[Revelation]

That contradicts the words of Jesus.

no it doesn't.

but you are going deeper into theology than this forum usually treads. are you asking for us to dig into some bible commentaries and come up with answers to defend the protestant interpretation of this verse.

we believe the church is built on Jesus Christ and not some fallible person like peter.

 

[devildavid]

no it doesn't.

but you are going deeper into theology than this forum usually treads. are you asking for us to dig into some bible commentaries and come up with answers to defend the protestant interpretation of this verse.

we believe the church is built on Jesus Christ and not some fallible person like peter.


View attachment 67475109

Yes, it does.

 

[Revelation]

Curious interpretation. Which orifice did you pluck it from?

learned it years ago as a youngster paying attention in church.

our Pastor could read and understand the Greek scriptures this was originally written in.

some things you don't forget. actually calling peter the rock of the church is a classic error in interpreting greek scriptures.

(i am a fan of the majority manuscripts)

 

[Daisy]

learned it years ago as a youngster paying attention in church.

our Pastor could read and understand the Greek scriptures this was originally written in.

some things you don't forget. actually calling peter the rock of the church is a classic error in interpreting greek scriptures.

(i am a fan of the majority manuscripts)


View attachment 67475111

Yeah, I explained the Greek meanings, guess they failed to read/comprehend...

 

[Revelation]

Yeah, I explained the Greek meanings, guess they failed to read/comprehend...

well if we must...

from memory Jesus said...

thou art Peter (meaning a little rock) but upon this Rock (meaning Christ) the church will be built. this is a subject the casual reader is not going to catch, but it makes theological sense that Jesus is the founder or Rock of the church and not some man who is quite fallible.