"You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church". ??
Evidence for all of this, please.
Oh and so you know I am "Catholic", so OH BOY I AM GOING TO HELL! YIPPE!!!
So what you are saying is that the Christianity you believe in is "the right way"?
I may be Catholic, but there is no way in this modern age you can take everything the Bible says seriously...
If you can, I would love to hear how..
Curiously what "version" do you follow of the Bible? King James? Or are you "orthodox".
Ahh, yes, and now we come to the scripture passage upon which the entire Catholic system stands or falls.
Matthew 16:18
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
This passage has been the source of much controversy over the ages. More accurately, it became a source of controversy when the Catholic church yanked it out of context and built a power structure around it. Here is the passage in context:
Matthew 16:13-19
13*
Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, Who do people say that the Son of Man is? 14*And they said, Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets. 15*He said to them, But who do you say that I am? 16*Simon Peter replied, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17*And Jesus answered him, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18*And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19*I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
This is a topic that many pages could be written about, but I'll try to condense it down to the essentials. (Mainly to save my thumbs because I'm typing this on my Droid2, lol) Firstly, it is a mistake to automatically assume that the subject of "on this rock" is Peter. The disciples were just asked who Jesus was, and the subject at hand is Peter's response, not Peter himself. The rock that the church was built on was the truth that Peter uttered; "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." That truth is the rock upon which the church was built.
You are Peter.
Kind of odd that He chose those words. That wouldn't be a normal conversational way to tell someone he is the rock upon which the church will be built. He already knew his own name. Odd, unless you understand that there is an intentional play on words here in the Greek. Jesus was obviously using Peter's name (petros), which means little stone, and contrasting it with rock (petra), which means a foundation boulder for building. Jesus was simply making note of the word play that such a huge rock of truth came from one named "little stone." It would read like this in the Greek, "You are a little stone, and upon this large rock (of truth that you just uttered; [implied]) I will build my church."
There is zero evidence in the rest of the New Testament that Peter had preeminence over the other Apostles. To the contrary, Paul chastised him to his face in front of other disciples for caving to the Jewish believers. This would never be allowed if Peter was the Pope. Can you imagine a bishop in the Catholic church openly reprimanding the Pope in front of his subjects? Also, Peter's primary ministry was to the Jewish believers, while Paul's was to the Gentiles, including those in Rome.
There is no mention whatsoever in the rest of the New Testament of anything that even remotely resembles a Pope, or the preeminence of Peter, or anything of the sort. I find it hard to believe that the Bible would be silent about such an ostensibly important establishment of doctrine. I am quite astonished that the Catholic church can really hang their hat on one scripture that has other possibile explanations of what it could mean. Yet they do, and millions follow obediently. Amazing.
As for the keys to the kingdom, scripture elsewhere makes it clear that this is also extended to all believers, especially for church discipline.
Even if this wasn't enough evidence to convince you, the passage is hardly enough to build an entire system of Popery around. "Pope" isn't even a biblical word. The structure laid out in the New Testament is for pastors, evangelists, teachers, deacons, etc. There is also no system of priesthood in the New Testament, because the priesthood was abolished with the advent of the New Covenant. One of the primary differences between the Old and New Covenants is that priests are no longer needed. As a matter of fact, all believers are called a "royal priesthood." In 1 Peter 2:9, Peter says of all believers:
"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light."
Catholicism is not true Christianity as portrayed in the Bible. It is a man made religion that God is not in. Just off the top of my head, here is a brief list of things that Catholicism engages in that are strictly forbidden in the Bible:
-Pope heads the church as Vicar of Christ
-prayer to dead saints
-veneration of and prayer to Mary
-institution of the priesthood which Christ abolished
-transubstantiation
-inclusion of the Apocryphal books to the Bible
-elevation of tradition as authoritative as scripture
There are many many more, but unfortunately, this is not enough to convince Catholics, because most that I talk with are just like you, FamilyGuy, and admit that they don't take everything in the Bible seriously. What's the point of calling yourself Christian if you don't believe in the documents from which its namesake was founded? There really is no point. Is it just easier to identify yourself with the largest "Chistian" church on the planet, give all the responsibility of your salvation to the priesthood, trust that the Pope has things covered, and believe that the Catholic church is your ticket to heaven?
Salvation is personal, not collective, and when we stand before God, we cannot say, "Yeah, but the Pope said..." This will hold no water with the Ancient of Days, the Almighty God. You have the Bible right there in front of you, yet you don't believe it is relevant in these modern times. The Bible makes it clear that you either believe the entire Bible or you lay claim to none of it. It's an all or nothing proposition.
If you don't believe in the Bible, that's fine; most people are in your camp. But please don't be under the illusion that you can believe only selective parts of the Bible and still be a Christian. That is a most dangerous position to be in. The word "Christian" was first coined in the book of Acts. It is a Biblical word, and has real meaning behind it. The Bible defines what it is to be Christian. We cannot change that definition and still remain Christian.
Somehow I think that people throw that term around loosely, almost as if it defines a culture or a place to grow up in, rather than a defined set of beliefs. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." And, "there is no other name under heaven by which a man can be saved." Yet I hear professing Christians say all the time, things like, "Well, that's just my path to heaven. Yours is just as valid." That person, by definition, is not a Christian, because he just tossed Jesus' words right out the window. That person doesn't believe in the Jesus of the Bible, he believes in a false Jesus of his own fabrication. And a false Jesus doesn't save.
Anyhow, I digress. You asked me 2 other questions.
1) Is my way the right way? Not exactly; at least not worded in that way. Rather, it's not my way, it's the literal Bible way. That's God's way, not my way. It's just taking the Bible at face value. So the way I believe is exactly the way the New Testament believers believed, and that is unadulterated Christianity. I guess my beliefs are the ancient and original beliefs. They are right there for everyone to read. They are nothing new, and I didn't invent them, I just believe them.
2) What Bible do I prefer? I have done much research on the subject, and the modern translations that we have today that most accurately reflect the original manuscripts are the ESV, the NASB, the KJV, the NKJV and the RSV. The NIV, The Message, and the New American are probably the worst when it comes to staying faithful to the literal text.
