/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>696322

>Christian Varg

I would like to see them fight

>>696324

varg doesnt stand a chance.

Thanks for reminding me that I need to pray for this lost soul

>>696322

> Sprinkling holy water around is just crazy hocus-pocus

> Sprinkling water over someone's head on the other hand is totally rationally explainable and saves a person permanently

I don't know anything about baptists, so please someone tell me: do baptists perform baptisms with water, and do they just see as some formality like signing a contract?

>>696396

They don’t believe baptism saves, they also believe it can only be done to adults and must be done by full immersion

>>696396

I don't think Anderson believes baptism does anything that confessing faith in Christ does already

>>696401

>>696396

we believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

water is water.

>>696432

Then why is the water baptism important?

>>696437

public profession of faith to edify other believers in the congregation.

>>696439

>public profession of faith to edify other believers in the congregation.

So one's testimony isn't enough but getting drenched in water is?

>>696322

Did your father tell you to post here?

Yup those christians who lived in the first 19 centuries of the faith were all idiots. Thank goodness we have strip mall fundamentalist man here to give us the Real Christianity™

>>696451

I highly doubt you have any evidence that the first christians were sprinkling each other and walking around in the Pope's bizarre garb.

>>696440

>So one's testimony isn't enough but getting drenched in water is?

No, baptism isn't necessary. But, Christ underwent it, and doing so isn't a bad way to emulate him. You don't have to do it, by why wouldn't you want to?

>>696468

I think he's more referring to andersons "church" doubling as his business so he can evade tax

>>696466

no you actually have to BELIEVE in Christ before you have a water baptism.

otherwise apparently the beloved physician was lying when he was writing down teh 8th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles in verse 37 saying that belief in Christ was what was stopping the eunuch from being water baptized.

>>696478

You think business are taxed less than churches?

Are you this dumb?

>>696482

Churches are tax exempt. Businesses are. Anderson runs his business from his church so he doesnt pay tax on whole or part of his earnings. The JW and Mormons do the same when they use charity to hide business dealings. It's a very very honest and Christian practice

>>696497

You are correct.

When you register as a non-profit corporation, the state includes statute 501c3 in your articles of incorporation which limits your ministry. You are not allowed to influence legislation or elections.

These people are cowards.

Anderson and Jimenez are 501c3's despite denying it.

why are they lying?

>le strip mall car salesman who wants sinners to commit suicide

😂👌

>>696401

>they don't believe baptism saves

heresy. this entire time I thought baptists held baptism seriously.

>>696468

I'm 100% convinced any serious Christian from the past 2,000 years would mock Anderson as a heretic hawking false dogma in the market-place.

>>696468

John 12:3

I don't like Pastor Anderson, but this is pretty damn funny.

t. has a mostly Catholic family

No matter how bad people claim the ordinary form of the Mass has become, at least we dont have a used car salesman making gags with toilet brushes

Lil bit too much vitamin k

>>696509

Is that because they had Baptist in their name?

>>696538

And so therefore let's build multi million dollar mansions to keep our papas nice and warm.

>>696538

It's always cute when Catholics try to cite scripture to support their practices.

>>696656

isnt it!? =D

>>696660

Nothing, I prefer the RSV-2CE though. The Douay is good if you prefer the antiquated language. Personally I find it pretentious.

>>696662

Because the oldest manuscripts we have available omit those verses, which strongly suggests they were later interpolations by scribes who wanted to make certain theological points more strongly. Rather than "taking away" from the word of God, it's representing the scriptures as accurately as possible, in the form they were penned by the actual apostles themselves rather than versions that were edited centuries later.

>>696662

Not even Christian scholars think the Comma Johanneum was actually in the original epistle so I dunno why you're upset it's a footnote in modern bibles. It's 100% certain John didn't write that. Don't you want to read what John wrote in it's most accurate form?

>>696663

if you couldnt be trusted to preserve the aord of God then, you cannot be trusted now.

you cant even be trusted around other peoples children, much less something important like the bible.

>>696666

Why do 90% of Protestants have a lower IQ than a peanut? Honestly.

>Huuuur muh KJV is the perfectly preserved word of God because it sounds all fancy and uses old words just like God does

You're not qualified to mop the floors at your local McDonalds let alone engage in discussion about the authenticity of biblical texts

>>696670

well obviously you cant either because your child molesting clergy thought it belonged in the bible in the 16th century. your theological foundation shifts like sand.

>>696672

anderson kicked that guy out for being a sabellian.

>>696672

>I love LARPing as a Christian while believing Christ condones my /pol/tarded views!

>"winnie the pooh tiggers ugh!"

>*Christ smiles and nods*

this is what you freaks actually believe

Matthew 7:21-23 is the reality.

>>696675

Thats deflection, he still officiated the marriage and had no problem with it.

>>696678

Wow I love christianity now that it aligns even more with my anti-racist, anti-nationalist and morally relativistic world view, we're all one in christ so we should race mix more.

>>696685

Nice uuid filename you got there.

But before the context denial sets it, what was kirchenkampf all about?

>>696687

>makes it painfully obvious that he’s a LARPer

>”Oh no! I’ve been called out! Y-You’re this and that!”

Brainlet. May God have mercy on your lost soul.

>>696692

What am I larping as? I dont follow jewish fairy tales.

>>696699

>i dont follow jewish fables

right, you follow roman pagan ones instead.

i dont care about german names for things whose principles can be adequately summarized in plain english.

the popes blatantly marxist agenda serves as the spiritual foundation for statist evil. without the roman catholic church, the state is just uniformed thuggery.

pete peters prophesied well concerning you.

>>696322

I still find it funny that they believe there were underground real Christians for idk 1700 years and they are now coming out. And ONLY southern baptists are the true descendants of those Reeeeeal Christians.

>t.meme denomination

>>696718

has nothing to do with southern baptists.

steven anderson is in the same league with catholics in that they support state-sanctioned violence.

>And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

1 Samuel 8:7

>And Gideon said unto them, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you: the Lord shall rule over you.

Judges 8:23

>>696718

It's almost like people can now be open about their religious beliefs without being offed by the Vatican Mafia

>>696730

Remind me, how many denominations did Jesus want to establish?

>>696724

>has nothing to do with southern baptists.

>calls himself as southern baptist

>southern baptist pastors say he is one of them

Listen. Neoprotestantism is bad. If they call themselves pelicans, you call them pelicans. If they call themselves pencils, you call them pencils.

>become gadolic

>>696718

>>696791

Anderson isn't Southern Baptist. He's independent. Southern Baptist is cucked.

t. former Southern Baptist

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/08/13/mama-aint-happy/

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/06/15/a-picture-of-southern-baptist-marriage/

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/06/04/the-swbts-board-of-trustees-wasnt-reacting-to-metoo-they-were-merely-proactively-assessing-pattersons-current-job-performance/

>>696791

>Remind me, how many denominations did Jesus want to establish?

Where did you get the idea for a political denomination? Church doesn't mean that, it means assembly, and the word "churches" appears numerous times in scripture.

Maybe you're confusing it with the one faith that has existed in and through all ages world without end. Or maybe you're just confused about what "church" means because you take its definition from non-scripture, from something that is outside of the 66 books of the Bible.

>If they call themselves pelicans, you call them pelicans. If they call themselves pencils, you call them pencils.

You're confusing people by associating things together. Anderson isn't Southern Baptist, nor are IFB's protestant. They predate that.

>>696823

>Baptists predate protestants

Nice meme, cowboy

>>696451

>those christians who lived in the first 19 centuries of the faith were all idiots

>Implying the papal beliefs is that ancient

Catholic echo-chambers, everyone.

Are all Babtist super strict on the KJV? A buddy of mine has slowly become a hardcore Babtist over the last year and I can't start a theological discussion with him anymore without it nose diving into how the root problem of all church heresy nowadays is the straying away from the KJV. I've heard him spout that morning light NIV argument 50 times in the past month.

>>696835

>you can learn a science

im a biologist

>i honestly get depressed

your feelings are your own responsibility as are your bad arguments.

i dont expect to change your mind, i only intend for you to make a spectacle of yourself as you have.

>>696836

>Are all Babtist super strict on the KJV?

Some yes, some no. KJV is the best English version, no question. Sometimes I quote from NKJV or ESV, but I always prefer to read from KJV.

Your buddy is right to an extent. Once you start changing words, meanings also change and it's a slippery slope.

>>696852

>KJV is the best English version, no question

Except that it mistranslates a shitton of verses because the handful of source texts they used were erroneous. If you like the KJV because you think ye olde english sounds more legit, more power to you, whatever. If you like the KJV because you think it's somehow more accurate than modern translations you're wrong, of all english translations the KJV probably has the highest number of errors that change the meaning of verses.

>>696846

I bet my small fortune that you cannot prove any of your statements about the history of either denomination.

Sure you can argue about certain stuff, but no proof and date pinpointing.

>>696480

verse 37 is inauthentic ;) but even if it was genuine it doesn't change the apostolic position that you need to profess faith before being baptized *as an adult*

>>696993

>>696846

Here's a challenge: Show any example of a group which is doctrinally Baptist before the 12th century (no "hurr durr john the baptist" or "jesus", it can't be in the new testament)

>>696930

KJV has no copyright and is not actively edited. The point flew over your head.

>>697122

>Preached voluntary poverty

>Had actual priests and a hierarchy

>Later on compromised their faith to join the Reformation and are nowadays more Calvinist than actual Waldensian

Yeah, I'll believe you once Anderson starts giving mass and selling his belongings.

Also funny how you couldn't give an example before the 12th century but only one from the 12th century.

>>697129

>Yeah, I'll believe you once Anderson starts giving mass and selling his belongings.

Didn't realize that Anderson was Pope of the Baptists

>>697129

I'm not an andersonite.

funny how every baptist is an andersonite.

Does that mean every catholic is a kiddy-diddler?

>>696823

>Where did you get the idea for a political denomination? Church doesn't mean that, it means assembly, and the word "churches" appears numerous times in scripture.

>the apostoles and the church fathers are the first christians

>church fathers aprove of the catholic dogmas

News alert! Catholics are the church that Jesus himself founded and Peter is the first pope!

>>697163

cringe

the bible says they were first called christians at antioch.

sorry man.

>>697135

>>697143

Ok then, so I assume that Anderson is in the minority of not having clergy nor a hierarchy, not preaching voluntary poverty or celebrating mass.

I mean if Anderson isn't an accurate depiction of baptists and the Waldensians were actually baptists in doctrine I take you guys do all these things.

>>697129

>Yeah, I'll believe you once…

Yeah see that's the whole problem. No baptist is asking you to believe them, only to use the right scripture and believe that. In a world full of corrupt and false roots, there is only one record that can be trusted, the record that God gave of his Son.

If you're truly looking for someone that's doctrinally sound, you don't need to look for other confessions of faith besides the only pure incorruptible word of God. I wouldn't put faith in any other record out there, and to even start to answer your question without saying so would be to implicitly deny that fact. The absolute fact is that all we've ever needed is the light of God's word, no further material required. Now if you want to look at the state churches, which are inherently political in nature, then that's another story entirely. They had to write things to formulate themselves over time. It's like apples to oranges.

>>697268

That's strange…

When you were asked to show an example of pre-12th century baptists you showed the Waldensians (which were 12th century tbh but whatever).

Then I proved that the Waldensians were nothing like the baptists besides putting up a middle finger to Rome and the emphasis of scripture and started generalizing baptists with Anderson.

After that you all go about how Anderson isn't the head of the baptists but when I ask then if other baptists actually celebrate mass, have clergy, a hierarchy and preach voluntary poverty you go on about "associating names with beliefs" but then why did you associate with the Waldensians?

This just shows me what I already knew; there's not a single historical proof the baptist successionism meme whatsoever.

>But muh bible is proof!

Literally every denomination can and will use the bible to proof that their denomination is the Original Authentic Christianity™ so I ask actual historical proof.

>Ohhh now you're saying the bible isn't historical proof!

No I'm not saying that, the bible is historical proof of christianity but every denomination claims theirs to be the one.

So now I repeat the question of the anon before me: show me some historical proof (anything, christian writings to describings of a sect that have your doctrines) of a group doctrinally baptist before the 12th century.

New thread theme ITT:

Luke 16:31

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

>>697295

saved, thank you.

yep.

>>697303

Not that I'm endorsing this chart; a two second overview of Montanists, for example, shows that they have no resemblance to modern day Baptists. But who was Anabaptist in the 300s?

>>697303

A lot of those were political movements which some baptists participated in. But they did so as individuals; none are to be confused with the churches themselves which they came from, which have outlived those movements along with preserving the scripture. 1 Timothy 3:15. Hope that helps.

>>697129

Didn’t you see Anderson giving mass in OP’s video?

>>697295

>Not knowing what anabaptists means

There have been groups of people the rebaptism of people since the beginning, nothing saying they're baptists.

When did I go 'no true Scotsman' on you by the way?

>>697305

Anabaptist simply means re-baptism, lots of groups claiming the other's baptisms were invalid due to creed or pedobaptism.

There have been lots of groups with this trait, yet none baptist which is a protestant denomination as we know it today.

Heck I think even the Donatists were anabaptists and as far as I know there was o rebaptism within the Waldensians.

I do see some protestants grouping them with anabaptists but I cannot find anything in their doctrine that points to this.

>>697168

>King James Bible

>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.

>Peter founds the church

>Goes to Rome and preaches

>Is killed in Rome

>Peter is the first Pope and the church he establishes there is called Catholic

>Pastors be like THE WHORE OF BABYLON

Is it that hard to understand basic history?

>>697440

your misunderstanding of those verses is easy to understand.

but the verses are easy to understand too.

even though they were called christians first at antioch (acts 2:11) you think the council of jerusalem has anything to do with rome despite the fact that PAUL went around confirming the early churches, even rebuking peter and the others for their judaizing of the gentiles.

so much for papal infallibility right?

plus that verse about the rock is Jesus. the confession of Christ is the rock upon which Christ will build his church (congregation).

reread the verses please.

is basic reading comprehension beyond your grasp?

>>697458

Christ didn’t speak english you brainlet.

Cephas = Cephas

>>697461

dang dude, you're dense.

maybe ill call you cephas.

and upon this rock will i build my aegument.

>>697462

>hurr!

>>697466

<durr!

>>697458

You're the rock. Dumb as a rock, that is.

>>697467

>no u!

Ok, sweetie.

>>697458

You should take a page from the orthobros here and learn how to debate Catholics effectively. There's a reason why they are doing well in attracting converts. You are not doing a good job of it.

>>696322

>click on an anderson video on youtube

>comments full of flat earthers and trinity deniers

protestants make me laugh

>>697458

It's not my native language yes but i understand it perfectly. Peter is the rock. Period. Jesus did built his own church, but on a rock and that rock is Peter. You don't seem to get what the Bible says. Seek help.

>>697481

How is orthodoxy even close to being as awesome as the one true church built by Christ himself?

>>697532

Matthew 18:18

Acts 15

>>697536

I don't understand why you used that verse. We catholics use it as well.

>>697539

that verse and Acts 15*

>>697512

I'm hearing a lot of people leaving/getting kicked out of his church because they're starting to develop their own theology according to their interpretation of Scripture.

Strangely enough lots of trinity deniers, flat earthers and I remember (but cannot recall) some other fringe belief.

Then again, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.

>>697591

>semantics

It's not. You incorrectly identified Peter as the object in every verse in a dishonest attempt to justify your reading of the passage.

>read verse 20

Verse 20 does not illuminate whether Peter is the rock Jesus referred to in verse 18.

> revisit my visual from

There is no reason to revisit your incorrectly labeled visual when mine is more accurate and does not make a biased assertion on the issue.

>>696509

that's actually why were called baptists.Because we don't believe it has salvation qualities. We were one of the first protestants in actuality

>>697596

dude if you actually read the bible king David writes a psalm about it and its even in 2 samuel 22:

>2 And he said, The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer;

>3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.

i am not the one being dishonest, you are.

it is theologically inconsistent to take away Christ’s glory who is the head of the church:

>18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

colossians 1:18

and give it to one of his 12 apostles.

>>697598

>wut is context?

Let me ask you this, whenever the word "rock" is used in the Bible, does it always refer to God or Jesus?

Lets take Romans 9:32-33.

(32) Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone,

(33) as it is written, “See, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make people stumble, a rock that will make them fall, and whoever believes in him[a] will not be put to shame.”

Does that mean Jesus is the rock that makes people fall?

What about Luke 8:5-7?

5 “A sower went out to sow his seed; and as he sowed, some fell on the path and was trampled on, and the birds of the air ate it up.

6 Some fell on the rock; and as it grew up, it withered for lack of moisture.

7 Some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew with it and choked it.

Does that mean some who fall on Jesus will still wither because the rock cannot nourish them?

You can't cite other verses out of context to explain this one, because it leads to an absurd result when applied consistently throughout the Bible.

>>697601

yep., and if you soften your neck you mightbe able to discern when the rock is being used to represent prophecy rather than physical characteristics of terrain and consequently not stumble over it. heres an exercise for you from daniel 2

>32 This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass,

>33 His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.

>34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.

Daniel 2

this is obviously relating to prophecy as was my reference to 2 samuel 22.

in contrast,

the parable of the sower in luke 8 was for emphasizing the physical characteristics of a variety of terrain to illustrate the figurative manner in which people respond to the word of God. the cross reference from matthew 13 ought to clear it up for you:

>5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:

>its absurd to-

>muh condescending adjectives employed as a defense mechanism because my argument got ground to powder by a rock

>>697601

>Does that mean Jesus is the rock that makes people fall?

Yeah? Did you even read that verse bedore posting it? Are you trying to look biblically illiterate?

>>697602

> if you soften your neck

>muh condescending

>my argument got ground to powder by a rock

Lol let me ask you this, what is the argument I am presenting? You're the one insulting and condescending, friend.

You still haven't justified your reading of the verse. You have admitted, however, that the word "rock" does not always refer to Jesus. Therefore, you need now justify why you think it refers to Jesus is Matthew 16:18, because from the context, it is not clear. I see no reason from the text of Matthew 16:18 to think Jesus was referring to Daniel 2, 2 Samuel 22, Colossians 1, or Luke 8. Indeed, I think they're irrelevant. You can condescendingly say "this is obviously relating to" whatever you want, but without support, there is no reason to accept that assertion.

>>697612

=D =D =D

>>697462

>>697591

>>697598

>>697607

>>697458

bump. people need to read this.

>>697660

They can find enough bad exegesis in other threads so no real need tbh.

>>697699

whats wrong with it?

>>697532

> Peter is the rock

Is Peter the LORD?

Psalms 18:2 The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.

Psalms 18:31 For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?

Psalms 18:46 The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and let the God of my salvation be exalted.

Psalms 31:2 Bow down thine ear to me; deliver me speedily: be thou my strong rock, for an house of defence to save me.

Psalms 31:3 For thou art my rock and my fortress; therefore for thy name's sake lead me, and guide me.

Psalms 40:2 He brought me up also out of an horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock, and established my goings.

Psalms 42:9 I will say unto God my rock, Why hast thou forgotten me? why go I mourning because of the oppression of the enemy?

Psalms 61:2 From the end of the earth will I cry unto thee, when my heart is overwhelmed: lead me to the rock that is higher than I.

Psalms 62:2 He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved.

Psalms 62:6 He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved.

Psalms 62:7 In God is my salvation and my glory: the rock of my strength, and my refuge, is in God.

Psalms 71:3 Be thou my strong habitation, whereunto I may continually resort: thou hast given commandment to save me; for thou art my rock and my fortress.

Psalms 78:15 He clave the rocks in the wilderness, and gave them drink as out of the great depths.

Psalms 78:16 He brought streams also out of the rock, and caused waters to run down like rivers.

Psalms 78:20 Behold, he smote the rock, that the waters gushed out, and the streams overflowed; can he give bread also? can he provide flesh for his people?

Psalms 78:35 And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer.

Psalms 81:16 He should have fed them also with the finest of the wheat: and with honey out of the rock should I have satisfied thee.

Psalms 89:26 He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.

Psalms 92:15 To shew that the LORD is upright: he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him.

Psalms 94:22 But the LORD is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge.

Psalms 95:1 O come, let us sing unto the LORD: let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation.

>>697461

>>697469

>>697481

>>697503

see >>697760

>meme denomination

>meme country

>preaching in some cinema or mall…

It's funny that prots have no grounds in tradition, basically claiming the first christians were not the real christians. The more you mock the church and the more nonsense meme denominations you create the more I like Catholicism.

>inb4 muh catholicism did wrong things

Look at what your country has now become, look at the last 50 years. Claiming your country lives up to any Christian values is a complete joke. But then again… America is a meme country so whatever.

Enjoy your nominalist nonsense and your relativism. It's a house built upon sand. You shall see

>>697791

BUTTHURT

>>697791

This

>>697795

fag

Up until 1500, ALL Christians believed Peter as the rock upon which Jesus build his church. Ain't no meme denom come after 1500 or 1800 years and say the Catholic church is wrong and the early Christians were heretics.

Follow the following logic.

Jesus creates the Church. The church will not be conquered by the gates of hell. This means the church has been active since the time when Jesus was already alive. Since the first Christians were in the Roman empire and since Catholicism was that first church, how on earth can the protestants deny that Peter is the rock? Peter goes to Rome and preaches and dies there. The same Catholic Church is built on the graveyard of Peter.

What is so hard to understand? Probably English translation is not that good. Try out different language, it totally makes sense gramatucally that Peter is the rock upon which Jesus Himself built the church.

>>697721

I already noted it that it's clearly Peter who's called the rock by Christ, this has been believed by everyone for the first 1700 years or so.

Eastern Orthodox see him as the 'first among equals' of the apostles, early protestants had a same argument but along the line that the church got corrupt and it was not meant that Peter would be a pope etc.

If you don't want to believe this meant that St. Peter was the first pope and the Catholic Church the church of Christ and the whole yadda then whatever.

But going so many loopholes that you need to go all the way back to the Psalms and say that Christ was referring to Himself while he literally changed the name of Simon to Rock and says "Thou art Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church" is lying to yourself.

>>697930

>quotes scripture out of context

>ignores the other 3 verses within the context

>repeats the question already answered

>ignores the entire conversation up to this point.

yeah you seem honest. ill answer your wuestion adter you explicitly acknowledge everything ive said

>>697591

>>697443

>>697462

here

>>697935

Just out of curiosity. What denomination are you and do all your pastors believe Jesus is the rock?

>>697935

Cute though how you seem unable to explain why Christ did something seemingly insignificant like changing the name from Simon to Rock yet coincidentally in the same sentence is referring "and on this rock I will build my church".

Oh, also cute that you seem to know grammar better than the early christians who were native Koine speakers.

This is not sober behavior; the man is drunk on his derision and feelings of power.

>>697760

>God is called the rock, so is Peter God?

So every time the word Rock is used I can infer that they're speaking about God? Well no of course not, that line of argumentation would be nonsensical. Peters name was changed to Petros, Rock because he is the rock the church was founded upon just like how Abraham's name was changed to Father of a Multitude. I'm not entirely sure how you got your line of argumentation or how just because someone compares God to a sturdy rock that all mentions of a rock are God

>>697905

You do realize in the original Greek it literally says: "I name you ROCK and upon this ROCK I will build my Church" right? Peter means rock. Jesus is 100% not referring to himself as the rock in this passage because

1. It makes zero sense in the grammar because he is clearly talking to Peter about Peter.

2. He names Simon "Peter" just before specifically to signal that Peter is the rock he is founding his Church on. It's the entire point of changing his name from Simon to Cephas which means Rock in Aramaic.

>>696658

>>696658

I've read the didache and it's heresy that contradicts the Bible.

Jesus is the only High Priest and all believers are priests.

>>702619

In greek he calls him petros and says on petra he will build the rock.

Petra = Rock = Jesus

Petros = little rock = peter

The Church is founded on Christ.

"And that rock was Christ" is what the scriptures say.

>>702626

So in your mind the fact that Jesus renamed Simon to Peter immediately prior to saying "and on this rock I will build my church" has no relevance? Why did he rename Simon to Peter and why did he do it immediately prior to talking about the rock that he was going to found his church on?

I know you're butthurt that Jesus said outright that the Catholic Church is the church he founded but this is reaching new levels of Protestant delusion

>>702630

He was calling him Peter way earlier than that. That is literally a retarded argument.

>butthurt

I know your projecting your demonic emotions because you were refuted clearly by scripture

>>702659

Jesus said you are Petros (a small stone) and on this Petra (Rock) I will build my church.

It's really that simple. Jesus said build your foundation on rock, not sand. It's clear you want your sandy foundation.

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock (petra) that followed them: and that Rock (petra) was Christ 1 Co. 10:4

Lead me to the rock that is higher than Psalm 61:2

As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Romans 9:33 KJV

I've made it clearer, but alas for the wayward catholic, the clearer the truth the hotter the flames of hell will be for their unbelieving souls.

>>702626

if Christ meant to say "You are Peter, and upon myself, I will build this Church", He would have said it.

Yet, He didn't, and you are possessed with a rebellious spirit.

>>702661

>I've made it clearer, but alas for the wayward catholic, the clearer the truth the hotter the flames of hell will be for their unbelieving souls.

are you larping or protestant?

>>702671

>the Quran was written by Satan but it is still the final testament of the bible

The Quran says that Jesus will return to abolish Christianity.

>>702670

Haha, this is a funny comic but it makes sense to me. Thanks!

>>702661

Why did Jesus refer to himself using a feminine noun?

It's impossible to post here, I do'nt know if its this site or my internet but nothing goes through it just gets stuck at 100%.

>>696439

Can you show me in the Bible where it says "Baptism is only a public expression of the faith"? Because last time I checked even your precious KJV has 1 Peter 3:21.

>The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

>>702661

Petros and Petra had become practically synonymous in Koine Greek.

Also it's a clear play on words. Without the distinction between petros and petra it would come off as awkward in Greek and the imagery also wouldn't cement as well. Petros is masculine noun since Simon Cephas bar Jonah is male, petra is feminine and it is being used only indirectly to refer to Cephas.

As said, essentially what Jesus is doing here is a play on words. Petra is indeed Peter's faith, but Peter is petros, thus in referring to his faith as petra Jesus is directly referring back to Peter as also that petra. Essentially what Jesus is saying here is, "You are Peter (the little rock), but on the larger rock of your specifically your faith, on you specifically I will build my Church."

So both interpretations are correct. This is how the Church Father's also interpreted it.

Also, assuming for a moment that Jesus said this in Aramaic is would basically just be, "You are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church."

Case closed, at least between the Catholic and Protestant debate. The next debate will be between Catholics and Orthodox on whether this means Peter just has primacy or whether he has full on supremacy. That cannot be answered here in Matthew 16:18.

its at moments like this when I realize that Anderson is just one step away from being a full blown fedora.

>>703129

because He spoke these words in Aramaic, the Greek is in translation.

why do you present a false argument?

>>703278

>The next debate will be between Catholics and Orthodox on whether this means Peter just has primacy or whether he has full on supremacy. That cannot be answered here in Matthew 16:18.

It’s answered not only in Matthew 16 but also in John 10:16 and John 21:15-17.

>>703323

the primacy of Peter is not only established, but the parameters of the papal is office is explained by Christ in John 10:16 and John 21:15-17

He is head of the Apostles, but not God among the Christians