How can protestants logically get around Matthew 16:18?

Cheers

The gospels present the apostles as constantly misunderstanding Jesus. So even if Peter is the rock of the church, it doesn't mean that the church is to be interpreted as the ultimate authority for what God intends.

I'm an atheist... but that's my take on the matter, anyway.

>Peter is the rock of the church
Actually the rock is Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ, and thus the rock is Christ, which is Paul's interpretation of this event written under inspiration of the Spirit

>8 hours

wew

I'm more interested in how they justify removing the deuterocanon.

How can a church be canonical if it systematically defends child abusers?

These child abusers are sanctioned by God.

Then why call him God?

Protestant dgaf about new testiment, desu it's still debated within the Catholic Church even

That's why protestants all have Old Testament names and Catholics have new testinent ones

>How can protestants logically get around Matthew 16:18?Peter is the rock of the church.

Last I looked, Peter is dead and none of the Popes in my lifetime have been him.

Pls respond

Well, Christians of all stripes somehow manage to believe that all the Gospels are inerrent despite disagreeing on what day Jesus was crucified on, so I suppose doublethink is no problem at this point.

>Itt: We discuss how Luther was actually just a political separatist
I've heard that the revolutionary (left-wing) thought started with Luther.
Anyone could provide sources on that?

Actually Catholicism and Orthadox are in synch on the Passion and how it played out.

Protestants do a lot of their own stuff and often change things just to be edgy.

>Actually Catholicism and Orthadox are in synch on the Passion and how it played out.

And how do they do this? Because the Synoptic Gospels are quite clear that the last supper was after the bringing of the paschal lamb. John, however, is equally clear that Jesus' crucifixion, a day later, is around the time that they bring the paschal lamb.

Remember, the Gospels are accurate in all respects.

Easy, he told them to go and disciple all the nations. Since he was speaking to all of them, in light of this, it can only mean that what he told Peter was a metaphor for what their task meant for all of them.

Because they aren't scripture.

Yes, it did start with Luther. Or rather, psychotic opposition to it started with Luther
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_the_Murderous,_Thieving_Hordes_of_Peasants

>Prods
>Logic

They literally believe the world is 5000 years old, they are not fans of logic.

Everyone knows the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are still one Pentarchy, but no one wants to be the first to admit it.

It's a lovers' spat

But why?

The world IS 5000 years old. That's what science points towards.

creation.com/
icr.org/
trueorigin.org/
answersingenesis.org/
creationwiki.org/Main_Page
evidentcreation.com/TRM-Logerr.html
davelivingston.com/tableofcontents.htm
bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology.htm
newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Might want to stick your head out of your ass, my irrational and illogical Catholicuck who hates God's Word.

Because Martin Luther was a proto-Fundamentalist and only wanted to include truly factual books.

To him books like Tobit which tell important stories aren't important because they didn't happen to the word.

REEEEEEE I love God, and I acknowledge His ability as the Demiurge, and not some inept Magician.

For one thing they are lost. They were written in Hebrew, but all we have had for nearly 2000 years are Greek translations. They have not been preserved, they cannot be scripture.

But what criteria defines certain books as factual or not? Revelations has a lot of symbolism and Psalms has a lot of poetry, not really what I would call a description of factual events. And if we accept the basic premises of Christian theology then how is something like the book of Tobit impossible? Most Christians believe in demons and other books considered canonical by Protestants have spirits interacting with the world and human affairs.

Isn't that a failure of humanity rather than God?

Luther only said that the apocrypha was non-canon. He pretty much agreed with the marking them as Deuterocanonical... important to read but not divine. Basically the same way catholic's see it now.

No. God has promised to providentially preserve His word.

>Basically the same way catholic's see it now.
The Council of Trent anathematizes anyone who denies the canonicity of those books.

>When the two main contending points of view are unquestioned scriptural inerrancy or unquestioned obedience to clerics.

Yes but Catholics see it as deuterocanonical which literally means they're "second canon" and are lower than the original OT/NT. Luther shared almost the exact same view. Hence why they are included in the Luther Bible.

Calvinists were the ones who wanted to throw them away.

>spamming links you haven't even read yourself

I have.

Absolutely nothing you said there is true. 0/10

How so?

Luther bible had the apocrypha and Luther wrote that all Christians should read it:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible

Here's a pro-catholic site that says deuterocanon means "second canon" and is not on the same level as OT/NT.

catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/5-myths-about-7-books.html

He was talking about Peter's faith, personal faith, the mustard seed within Peter, he wasn't talking about some passed down office within the church. Just a look through the lives of past Popes, one can plainly see, that many were not even Christian.

>They literally believe the world is 5000 years old, they are not fans of logic.
so did every christian before the 18th century

So did every human before the 18th century if they thought about it at all.

I have a question that can undo the bible for me: Does it talk about apotheosis?
Please, scriptures only, no catechismical fanfics.

Brutal

of who?

Of the person, something like your soul becoming divinized?

You have to read the verses prior to verse 18.

v15: He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

v16: And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

v17: And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

v18: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Grammatically speaking, the "this rock" that is mentioned in v18 is not Peter. In v17, Christ calls Peter by Simon Barjona. Then in v18, he calls him Peter. This is similar to Saul changing his name to Paul. The "this rock" in v18 is actually referring to the truth stated in v16. The rock, the truth of which the NT church will be founded on (i say will be because it was established until after Christs death, resurrection, and ascension) is that Christ is the Son of the living God. That is the purest foundation of the Christian church. If you don't believe that, then you can't call yourself a Christian.

The "this rock" is a belief of who Christ is, not Peter.

ITT: Followers of a book of errors and contradictions fighting over who is more deceitful on his false claim of following such a book.

Can you prove that it's false?

well thats just like your opinion man

Its full of contradictions and when you try to do a miracle in the name of jesus it doesn't happen, safe to assume its a lie.

I am not sure what Bible you are using (hopefully not the NIV), buy my version doesn't have contradiction. You can take two verses out of context and think they are contradictory, but when you look at them in context, it's clear they are not contradictory. God talked to, and instructed, the Jews differently then He did the apostles and the gentiles.

And Christians don't perform miracles (unless you pentecostals who think they can speak in "tongues"), God performs them. But he may do so by working through us.

I am not a fool to be convinced by an excuse made up in the spot which is evidently false, likewise excusing contradictions on imaginary context when it is not the case will not be accepted.

It is obvious you are not a Christian. So no matter what I say you are going to keep believing your delusion. I just hope that you come to the truth before it's too late.

The rock in Matthew 16:18 is not Peter himself, but the confession of faith Peter gave a few verses back. The foundation on which the Church is built is the confession of faith i.e. confessing that you believe in Jesus Christ, not Peter himself.

This isn't very difficult.

What delusion.
I just don't believe outright lies and contradictions.

How is it that in the Synoptic Gospels, the Last Supper is after the bringing of the Paschal lamb (they're eating it, after all), but in John, they're bringing the Paschal lamb around the time Jesus is being crucified, a day later.

I'm aware of no versions that don't portray the sequence of events as so, and that is certainly a contradiction.

St. Peter and later Bishops of Rome are recognised as "first among equals" by the Orthodox Church. Technically, if the Pope wasn't a heretic, he would be paid more respect than the Patriarch of Constantinople, but he still wouldn't have authority over other Patriarchs.

>hopefully not the NIV
Stop being retarded.

Jesus was referring not to Peter, but to Peter’s confession of faith in verse 16: “You are the Christ, the son of the living God.” Jesus had never explicitly taught Peter and the other disciples the fullness of His identity, and He recognized that God had sovereignly opened Peter’s eyes and revealed to him who Jesus really was. His confession of Christ as Messiah poured forth from him, a heartfelt declaration of Peter’s personal faith in Jesus. It is this personal faith in Christ which is the hallmark of the true Christian. Those who have placed their faith in Christ, as Peter did, are the church. Peter expresses this in 1 Peter 2:4 when he addressed the believers who had been dispersed around the ancient world: “Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”

At this point, Jesus declares that God had revealed this truth to Peter. The word for “Peter,” Petros, means a small stone (John 1:42). Jesus used a play on words here with petra (“on this rock”) which means a foundation boulder, as in Matthew 7:24, 25 when He described the rock upon which the wise man builds his house. Peter himself uses the same imagery in his first epistle: the church is built of numerous small petros “living stones” (1 Peter 2:5) who, like Peter, confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and those confessions of faith are the bedrock of the church.

In addition, the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that Christ is both the foundation (Acts 4:11, 12; 1 Corinthians 3:11) and the head (Ephesians 5:23) of the church. It is a mistake to think that here He is giving either of those roles to Peter. There is a sense in which the apostles played a foundational role in the building of the church (Ephesians 2:20), but the role of primacy is reserved for Christ alone, not assigned to Peter. So, Jesus’ words here are best interpreted as a simple play on words in that a boulder-like truth came from the mouth of one who was called a small stone. And Christ Himself is called the “chief cornerstone” (1 Peter 2:6, 7). The chief cornerstone of any building was that upon which the building was anchored. If Christ declared Himself to be the cornerstone, how could Peter be the rock upon which the church was built? It is more likely that the believers, of which Peter is one, are the stones which make up the church, anchored upon the Cornerstone, “and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame” (1 Peter 2:6).

The Roman Catholic Church uses the argument that Peter is the rock to which Jesus referred as evidence that it is the one true church. As we have seen, Peter's being the rock is not the only valid interpretation of this verse. Even if Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18, this is meaningless in giving the Roman Catholic Church any authority. Scripture nowhere records Peter being in Rome. Scripture nowhere describes Peter as being supreme over the other apostles. The New Testament does not describe Peter as being the “all authoritative leader” of the early Christian church. Peter was not the first pope, and Peter did not start the Roman Catholic Church. The origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Peter or any other apostle. If Peter truly was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, it would be in full agreement with what Peter taught (Acts chapter 2, 1 Peter, 2 Peter).

>googling the question and copy-pasting the answer
Fucking proddie heretics.

You do realize that the NIV is one of the most corrupted version of the Bible.

Look at Isaiah 14:12 and Revelations 22:16. Isaiah is talking about Satan and Revalations is talking about Christ. Both verses use the term morning star to describe them. Other versions use some of the morning for Satan and morning start for Christ

Didn't claim it as my own, and you haven't provided a counter argument.

Not that guy, but that's the stupidest argument I've ever seen. The Hebrew of Genesis 2:25 and 3:1 uses the same word, "Arum", to refer to both the nakedness of Adam and Eve and the cunning of Satan across the gap of one verse, and I've never seen a translation that goes

>The Serpent was the most naked of all the beasts of the field

or

>The Man and his wife were cunning/subtle/whatever, but knew it not.

Translation is like that. Sometimes you get the same term referring to different things.

>implying the number of contradictions isn't remarkably low for a multi-authored compendium assembled over the course of centuries
>implying God is a genie

What verses are you looking at?

John 13: 1-2 - 1) Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end. 2) And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him;

John 13:1 says that Jesus new that his hour would be up, and he realized this prior to the passover meal. It doesn't say that he was crucified prior to the passover meal. Look at v2. It says Judas was lead to betray Jesus as the end of the supper. This is the passover meal that the other gospels are referring to. The issue is that there is a gap in time between v1 and v2, and they didn't occur on the same day. It proves that Jesus knew the crucifixion was coming before he had the passover mean. No contradiction.

Satan isn't in the story of Adam and Eve, that's purely a Christian fabrication.

>The rock broke
>the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
at least read the verse OP cited

Then the serpent just as a weird serpent. The point is, is you have the same word in two adjacent verses with VERY different meanings in every translation I'm aware of.

>What verses are you looking at?

Well, for point A, about the time of the last supper in the Synoptics, I would point to Mark 14:12

>And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover

Matthew 26:17

>Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?

And Luke 22:7-8

>7 Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.

>8 And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.

All three have them very cognizant that this night's supper will include the Paschal lamb, necessitating that the last supper be after the bringing of said lamb.

For point B, that John doesn't see things that way, I'd look at 18:28 for starters

> Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

This would be after his arrest and trial before Ciaphas, which is of course necessarily after the Last Supper, which means that John thinks it's on a different day than Mark, Matthew, and Luke.

We have to get into Jewish traditions first.

1) The jewish day isn't form midnight to midnight the way we know of it today. It was closer to 6pm to 6pm. This is important because he ate the passover in the early part of the 15 is nissan, and died on the cross later on in the 15 of nissan.

2) The 14 of nissan is called the first day of unleavend bread.

3) The 15 of nissan is beginning of the feast of the passover, also called the feast of the unleavened bread.

4) There were certain things a jew could not do during the feast of the passover, and that was eat leavened bread, have leavened bread in his house, and enter into the house of gentile. If they did, there were considered unclean and not able to partake in the feast of the passover.

5) The feast of the passover was labeled as the passover by the jew of that time.

Now, we can get into the passage. John's description does line up with the other accounts if you understand John was talking about the feast of the passover instead of the passover dinner itself. Back in chapter 13 is the passover dinner. It takes place at the end of 14 nissan and the beginning of 15 nissan. Judas betrays Christ after the passover dinner. Christ was then arrested. V28 says they would not enter in the judgement hall. This was becuase it was gentile building where Caiaphas would often reside. If they did, then they couldn't partake in the passover, or the feast of the passover. The rest is history.

>Literally lying about the Gospels.

Wow. A new low for the Christian set. Let's look at that Mark line again, in light of what you've said.

>And the first day of unleavened bread
So, 14th of Nissan, sometime before suppertime

>When they killed the passover!

Apparently before the Passover, according to you.

>Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover

So yes, they're talking about that lamb, that they killed, when they're talking about "eating the passover".

What are the priests worried about missing out on in John 18:28? EATING THE PASSOVER.

And yet that happens much later in the narrative than it does in the Synoptics. So unless they somehow mean something different, despite using the exact same Greek "φάγωσιν τὸ πάσχα", they are in fact talking about the same event, except one is way later than the other.

biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/14-12.htm

biblehub.com/text/john/18-28.htm
Also, while not directly related

> and enter into the house of gentile.

You literally made that up. Nor, by the way, do Jews believe that breaking one of the laws of the feast of the passover would defile you and make you unable to eat that feast, it was a separate sin.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover

The Passover is the name of the 7 or 8 day celebration. Talk to any Jew, and they will confirm. The Passover dinner is one part of the Passover.

Traditionally, the Passover dinner began at dusk on the 14 of nissan, which is the beginning of the 15 of nissan. They would need to kill the lamb on the 14th so they could eat it at dusk. I highly doubt they would have eaten it raw.

The entire celebration has a lot to do with being clean, hence why they were not allowed to eat or possess leven bread (since leven was a symbol for sin). They were also not allowed to contain anything known as chametz, which were foods that they could not eat or possess during passover. And after the dinner, they had to burn all the leftovers.

They could be considered as unclean if they went into a house or building that contained any chametz or any leftover passer dinner. Since the Caiaphas wasn't a jew, it was safe to say that he contained items that would make a jew unclean (something as simple as alcohol would be considered chematz). Since the dinner and the Caiaphas happened within the same day (from a jewish standpoint) they couldn't enter into hall of judgement.

Thanks, user.

>Luther bible had the apocrypha and Luther wrote that all Christians should read it
And so did all other Protestant bibles and all other reformers. Are you aware the KJV (which was translated by Calvinists) had those books too?

No. Apotheosis is a satanic concept