- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 4/19/26 at 12:08 am to Bsltee
quote:Amen!
Nope. Church founded by Christ, not Peter. And who is to say that Jesus was referring to Peter when he used rock
Jesus is the Rock my foundation is based on, not a man called Peter
The rock that the Church is founded upon is Peter's confession in Christ as the Son of God, not Peter, himself. Or in other words, Jesus is the rock, not Peter.
We find this re-affirmed elsewhere in the Scriptures, like in Ephesians 2:20, where Paul writes that the Church is" built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone". Here Paul speaks to all the apostles and prophets together as the foundation, with Christ as the cornerstone. Peter is not singled out here.
Likewise in 1 Corinthians 3:10-11, Paul says again that "...like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." He's speaking of Christ as the foundation, not Peter.
Peter affirms this, himself, when he refers to the church as living stones with Christ as the cornerstone (1 Peter 2:4-8). Peter didn't call himself the cornerstone or the sole foundation by which the Church is built upon.
Posted on 4/19/26 at 4:49 am to David_DJS
quote:
Why does the claim matter? Isn't it just about the abuse/covering up?
Because of all the "holier than thous" in here bragging about being the one true church. Can't you keep up?
quote:
it wasn't the only organization that handled sexual abuse involving minors by keeping it in-house, hiding evidence, moving or firing perpetrators and calling it good.
So you're saying that the Catholic Church is no better than any other corrupt and evil worldly organization?
We found something that we agree about.
Posted on 4/19/26 at 5:03 am to crotiger0307
I mean I think God would be anti war ?
Now the argument you are doing grater good I understand but in a vacuum pretty sure he doesn't like war
Now the argument you are doing grater good I understand but in a vacuum pretty sure he doesn't like war
Posted on 4/19/26 at 5:56 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water, and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock: so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink.
Jesus was always the rock.
Posted on 4/19/26 at 5:57 am to the808bass
quote:
Chrysostom
The man!
I’m reading Athanasius On the Incarnation.
I highly recommend the Romanists to return to their pre-corruption roots and reform the church. What a concept. (Maybe skip Origen’s weird heresies lol.)
Posted on 4/19/26 at 6:02 am to LSUbest
quote:
Jesus was always the rock.
This ^^^
You can't tell them anything.
Posted on 4/19/26 at 6:52 am to Bsltee
Go read the last few pages. It’ll help give context and perspective to Matthew 16
Posted on 4/19/26 at 6:56 am to LSUbest
Who said they are holier than thou?
Simply making a case for what we hold to be true. As are many others in here from different denominations.
Simply making a case for what we hold to be true. As are many others in here from different denominations.
Posted on 4/19/26 at 7:05 am to FooManChoo
You’re setting up a false either/or that the Bible doesn’t actually force. Yes, Christ is the ultimate foundation. Catholics fully agree with that, but that doesn’t mean He can’t build His Church on people under Him. Scripture shows that pattern all over the place. Even the verses you quoted prove that.
-Ephesians 2:20 says the Church is built on the apostles and prophets, with Christ as the cornerstone. So it’s not “Christ OR people,” it’s Christ as the source and foundation, working through people He appoints.
-1 Corinthians 3. Paul says Christ is the foundation, but then literally says he’s building on it and others will too. So again, Christ is the foundation in one sense, but there are real human roles in building up the Church.
-And Peter in 1 Peter 2 doesn’t deny this either. He points to Christ as the cornerstone, but also calls believers “living stones.” So multiple levels are going on at once, not just one flat meaning.
So when Jesus says “on this rock I will build my Church,” it’s not competing with “Christ is the rock.” It’s the same pattern: Christ is the ultimate foundation, and He chooses to build through specific people. In that moment, He singles Peter out, renames him, and gives him authority right after. Again, every time God renamed someone in the Bible something monumental followed.
During my search for which religion had the fullness of truth, I went back-and-forth a lot on this topic. One of the books I really enjoyed reading was Pope Peter by Joe Heschmeyer. Highly recommended. If nothing else it will show you what Catholics use to defend the papacy so that you can argue against it more effectively.
-Ephesians 2:20 says the Church is built on the apostles and prophets, with Christ as the cornerstone. So it’s not “Christ OR people,” it’s Christ as the source and foundation, working through people He appoints.
-1 Corinthians 3. Paul says Christ is the foundation, but then literally says he’s building on it and others will too. So again, Christ is the foundation in one sense, but there are real human roles in building up the Church.
-And Peter in 1 Peter 2 doesn’t deny this either. He points to Christ as the cornerstone, but also calls believers “living stones.” So multiple levels are going on at once, not just one flat meaning.
So when Jesus says “on this rock I will build my Church,” it’s not competing with “Christ is the rock.” It’s the same pattern: Christ is the ultimate foundation, and He chooses to build through specific people. In that moment, He singles Peter out, renames him, and gives him authority right after. Again, every time God renamed someone in the Bible something monumental followed.
During my search for which religion had the fullness of truth, I went back-and-forth a lot on this topic. One of the books I really enjoyed reading was Pope Peter by Joe Heschmeyer. Highly recommended. If nothing else it will show you what Catholics use to defend the papacy so that you can argue against it more effectively.
Posted on 4/19/26 at 7:09 am to crotiger0307
quote:
Jesus was pretty clear in stating that Peter was the rock upon whom the Church was founded,
All except that is not what he was doing, establishing HIS church upon a man. He established HIS church upon the truth that Peter uttered, not on Peter himself.
Why would the Son of God place the entirety of His church on the shoulders of a man? This same man denied Him three times, and was rebuked by Paul for trying to mix the law and faith with circumcision. Man is not the head of Jesus’ Church. Jesus is the head of His church, and the foundation is that Jesus is who He said He is, the Son of God, our Savior, and we receive what He died and rose again for, US, when we trust what Hid did for us on our behalf as the Son of God, because only the blood of He who is perfect, and whom fulfilled the law can pay for your entry into Heaven.
This post was edited on 4/19/26 at 7:17 am
Posted on 4/19/26 at 7:29 am to Mike da Tigah
We touched on this a bit in the last couple pages but I’ll reattack…
No Catholic is saying Jesus isn’t the head of the Church or the ultimate foundation. Of course He is… The question is whether He chose to work through a specific person in establishing His Church. And the New Testament shows that He does that all the time.
“why would Jesus place His Church on a man?” Because that’s literally how God operates throughout Scripture. He builds through people. Abraham, Moses, David, the apostles. Being human and even failing doesn’t disqualify someone, it actually fits the pattern.
Peter denying Jesus doesn’t weaken his role, it strengthens the point. Jesus knew exactly who Peter was and still singled him out, then later restores him and tells him to shepherd His flock (John 21). That’s not accidental.
Same with Paul rebuking Peter in Galatians 2. That wasn’t about Peter teaching false doctrine, it was about inconsistent behavior. And correction among leaders doesn’t mean there’s no authority… and again, if this was only about a “truth statement,” the passage doesn’t make sense. Jesus doesn’t rename a statement, give “keys” to a statement, or tell a statement to bind and loose. He’s clearly addressing a person and giving him a role.
So yes, Jesus is the head. Yes, salvation is through Him alone. No disagreement there at all… but that doesn’t cancel out the fact that He chose to establish His Church with real structure and leadership, and Peter is right at the center of that in the text.
No Catholic is saying Jesus isn’t the head of the Church or the ultimate foundation. Of course He is… The question is whether He chose to work through a specific person in establishing His Church. And the New Testament shows that He does that all the time.
“why would Jesus place His Church on a man?” Because that’s literally how God operates throughout Scripture. He builds through people. Abraham, Moses, David, the apostles. Being human and even failing doesn’t disqualify someone, it actually fits the pattern.
Peter denying Jesus doesn’t weaken his role, it strengthens the point. Jesus knew exactly who Peter was and still singled him out, then later restores him and tells him to shepherd His flock (John 21). That’s not accidental.
Same with Paul rebuking Peter in Galatians 2. That wasn’t about Peter teaching false doctrine, it was about inconsistent behavior. And correction among leaders doesn’t mean there’s no authority… and again, if this was only about a “truth statement,” the passage doesn’t make sense. Jesus doesn’t rename a statement, give “keys” to a statement, or tell a statement to bind and loose. He’s clearly addressing a person and giving him a role.
So yes, Jesus is the head. Yes, salvation is through Him alone. No disagreement there at all… but that doesn’t cancel out the fact that He chose to establish His Church with real structure and leadership, and Peter is right at the center of that in the text.
Posted on 4/19/26 at 7:31 am to gaetti15
quote:
Depends on how culpable you are. Like if you grew up in a Baptist household (insert any Protestant faith) your whole life, never experienced the Catholic faith besides what was told to you by Catholic hating family members who might misunderstand things told to them by their baptist family members...never tried to learn about the faith, etc? Lived a good lived oriented toward God and faith despite of that?
Probably not culpable so not a mortal sin...other humans may disagree.
This is nonsense.
Posted on 4/19/26 at 7:36 am to Canon951
Not really. While an incomplete argument, it is logical. Clearly there can be only one correct answer so in this example he set up he is assuming that Catholicism is the correct answer. Just like any other religion thinks their religion is the best option. If that’s truly the case, then Christ would have wanted everyone to belong to that one faith or structure. If you outright reject God or outright reject His Church knowingly doing so does not set yourself up well for salvation. But other circumstances could have put you in a place where it wasn’t presented to you and therefore probably won’t be held against you. We don’t know for certain of course.
Posted on 4/19/26 at 7:37 am to METAL
Acts 10:25 As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. 26 But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.”
Acts 14:13 The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them.
14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: 15 “Friends, why are you doing this? We too are only human, like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them.
In both of these cases Peter, Paul and Barnabas all rebuked the people when they tried to give honor and worship to them. Can you honestly say that the Catholic teaching does not pray or give honor to the saints that is deserved only for Christ? Serious question.
Acts 14:13 The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them.
14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: 15 “Friends, why are you doing this? We too are only human, like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them.
In both of these cases Peter, Paul and Barnabas all rebuked the people when they tried to give honor and worship to them. Can you honestly say that the Catholic teaching does not pray or give honor to the saints that is deserved only for Christ? Serious question.
Posted on 4/19/26 at 7:44 am to METAL
METAL,
I was raised and educated Catholic. I know full well what the RCC teaches and believes. It simply does not line up with scripture, or the fact that Peter was an apostle unto the Jews, and Paul to the Greeks (Galatians 2:8)
And since Rome is clearly not the circumcised, wouldn’t it be more plausible for Paul to be the first pope?
He clearly was not, but just one of many holes in the Peter is the first pope nonsense.
It’s once again man desiring a King rather than God as your King, and how many of those kings ended up steering God’s people in the wrong direction when man got what he was crying for amongst the Jews? They all fell short, and that’s why this kingdom is unlike the old kingdom. God IS the head of it all, and He doesn’t need a king as a figure head.
I was raised and educated Catholic. I know full well what the RCC teaches and believes. It simply does not line up with scripture, or the fact that Peter was an apostle unto the Jews, and Paul to the Greeks (Galatians 2:8)
And since Rome is clearly not the circumcised, wouldn’t it be more plausible for Paul to be the first pope?
He clearly was not, but just one of many holes in the Peter is the first pope nonsense.
It’s once again man desiring a King rather than God as your King, and how many of those kings ended up steering God’s people in the wrong direction when man got what he was crying for amongst the Jews? They all fell short, and that’s why this kingdom is unlike the old kingdom. God IS the head of it all, and He doesn’t need a king as a figure head.
Posted on 4/19/26 at 7:47 am to METAL
quote:
Not really. While an incomplete argument, it is logical. Clearly there can be only one correct answer so in this example he set up he is assuming that Catholicism is the correct answer. Just like any other religion thinks their religion is the best option. If that’s truly the case, then Christ would have wanted everyone to belong to that one faith or structure. If you outright reject God or outright reject His Church knowingly doing so does not set yourself up well for salvation. But other circumstances could have put you in a place where it wasn’t presented to you and therefore probably won’t be held against you. We don’t know for certain of course.
Do I understand this argument correctly? If I know Catholic teachings but reject them while still holding true to what scripture teaches about Jesus and believing in him alone than salvation does not hold well for me?? Friend, it's not about religion. Why is that so hard to understand? It's about believing in the one God sent which is his son. Your religion can't save you. Only Jesus can save you.
Posted on 4/19/26 at 7:47 am to Canon951
I get what you’re pointing at, but those passages are actually proving the Catholic point, not refuting it.
In both Acts 10 and Acts 14, what’s being rejected is worship. Cornelius falls at Peter’s feet in a way that treats him like something divine, and Peter shuts it down immediately. Same with Paul and Barnabas when people try to offer sacrifices to them like gods. Of course they reject that. Catholics reject that too. Worship belongs to God alone… but that’s not what Catholics are doing with the saints.
There’s a difference between worship and honor. Scripture itself makes that distinction. Paul literally says, “give honor to whom honor is due” (Romans 13:7). And even more directly, people constantly show reverence to others in Scripture without it being idolatry. David bows before Saul. Bathsheba bows before David. Nobody thinks they’re worshipping them as God. it’s the same idea here.
When Catholics “pray to” saints, we’re not treating them as gods or offering sacrifice to them. It’s more like asking someone in heaven to pray for you, the same way you’d ask a friend on earth. And that idea isn’t foreign to Scripture either. In Revelation 5:8 and 8:3-4, you literally see the saints in heaven presenting prayers to God. You don’t just need the extra seven bucks in the Bible to prove the Catholic point here.
So yes… if Catholics were sacrificing to saints or treating them as divine, those Acts passages would condemn it immediately, but we’re not doing that. We’re honoring members of Christ’s body and asking for their prayers, while worshiping God alone. Those are two very different categories, and Acts is only condemning one of them.
I know a lot of the Catholic beliefs and teachings are hard to wrap your mind around and come to terms with. It took me a very long time. Where I started was the fact that the Church and the orthodox church are the two that are traced all the way back to the early Church. That, the clear consistency in having the literal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the hierarchical set up with bishops priests, deacons, and many other things were all the proof that I needed to know that either orthodoxy or Catholicism was the correct answer. After that, it got difficult to discern what I held to be the correct answer as to the fullness of truth. The Orthodox make incredibly compelling points on the Filioque, original sin, scholasticism, and our understanding/definition of transubstantiation.
I dictated some of this so if it comes through weird I apologize. I’ll edit the grammar later.
In both Acts 10 and Acts 14, what’s being rejected is worship. Cornelius falls at Peter’s feet in a way that treats him like something divine, and Peter shuts it down immediately. Same with Paul and Barnabas when people try to offer sacrifices to them like gods. Of course they reject that. Catholics reject that too. Worship belongs to God alone… but that’s not what Catholics are doing with the saints.
There’s a difference between worship and honor. Scripture itself makes that distinction. Paul literally says, “give honor to whom honor is due” (Romans 13:7). And even more directly, people constantly show reverence to others in Scripture without it being idolatry. David bows before Saul. Bathsheba bows before David. Nobody thinks they’re worshipping them as God. it’s the same idea here.
When Catholics “pray to” saints, we’re not treating them as gods or offering sacrifice to them. It’s more like asking someone in heaven to pray for you, the same way you’d ask a friend on earth. And that idea isn’t foreign to Scripture either. In Revelation 5:8 and 8:3-4, you literally see the saints in heaven presenting prayers to God. You don’t just need the extra seven bucks in the Bible to prove the Catholic point here.
So yes… if Catholics were sacrificing to saints or treating them as divine, those Acts passages would condemn it immediately, but we’re not doing that. We’re honoring members of Christ’s body and asking for their prayers, while worshiping God alone. Those are two very different categories, and Acts is only condemning one of them.
I know a lot of the Catholic beliefs and teachings are hard to wrap your mind around and come to terms with. It took me a very long time. Where I started was the fact that the Church and the orthodox church are the two that are traced all the way back to the early Church. That, the clear consistency in having the literal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the hierarchical set up with bishops priests, deacons, and many other things were all the proof that I needed to know that either orthodoxy or Catholicism was the correct answer. After that, it got difficult to discern what I held to be the correct answer as to the fullness of truth. The Orthodox make incredibly compelling points on the Filioque, original sin, scholasticism, and our understanding/definition of transubstantiation.
I dictated some of this so if it comes through weird I apologize. I’ll edit the grammar later.
Posted on 4/19/26 at 7:50 am to METAL
Catholics pray to Mary and the saints for intercession when scripture clearly says that Jesus is the only mediator between God and man.
Posted on 4/19/26 at 7:55 am to Mike da Tigah
I was raised Catholic too, and I actually left the faith for over 15 years, so I get where you’re coming from. But Galatians 2:8 isn’t saying what you think it is… Peter going to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles is about mission, not authority. Even then, it overlaps. Peter opens the door to the Gentiles in Acts 10, and Paul still goes to Jews first everywhere he goes.
If Paul were the top authority, Acts doesn’t read that way. At the Council of Jerusalem, Peter is the one who stands up and settles it, and everyone goes quiet. Paul also goes to meet Peter and even says he did so to make sure he wasn’t running in vain. That’s not how you treat someone with no authority. Catholics 100% don’t base the papacy on Matthew 16 alone. Again, that book I recommended earlier is fantastic.
Also, the “we don’t need a man” argument kind of misses that Jesus Himself set up leadership. He gives authority to the apostles and specifically tells Peter to feed His sheep. That’s not replacing God… that’s God choosing to lead through people.
Christ is still the head… Catholics agree with that wholeheartedly. The question is whether He chose to build His Church with visible leadership under Him, and the New Testament points to this many times.
If Paul were the top authority, Acts doesn’t read that way. At the Council of Jerusalem, Peter is the one who stands up and settles it, and everyone goes quiet. Paul also goes to meet Peter and even says he did so to make sure he wasn’t running in vain. That’s not how you treat someone with no authority. Catholics 100% don’t base the papacy on Matthew 16 alone. Again, that book I recommended earlier is fantastic.
Also, the “we don’t need a man” argument kind of misses that Jesus Himself set up leadership. He gives authority to the apostles and specifically tells Peter to feed His sheep. That’s not replacing God… that’s God choosing to lead through people.
Christ is still the head… Catholics agree with that wholeheartedly. The question is whether He chose to build His Church with visible leadership under Him, and the New Testament points to this many times.
Page 8 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News