Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Gim]

I didn't even know Assumption of Mary was today...

So, there is a Christian day in August.

[Dylar]

I didn't even know Assumption of Mary was today...

So, there is a Christian day in August.

Yep. Every August 15th is the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. It's considered a Holy Day of Obligation within the Catholic Church.

[Constantinopolis]

So, there is a Christian day in August.

Yep. Every August 15th is the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. It's considered a Holy Day of Obligation within the Catholic Church.

In the Orthodox Church it is regarded as one of the most important Christian holidays of the year. Officially, it is one of the 12 Great Feasts, but it is celebrated much more widely and extensively than the majority of the other Great Feasts. In practice, it's probably the 3rd or 4th most important holiday of the Orthodox Christian year (after Pascha/Easter, Christmas, and possibly Theophany or Pentecost).

There is a two-week fast before the Dormition/Assumption of the Virgin Mary, and it is the primary holiday dedicated to the Mother of God. Most Orthodox Christians who are named "Mary" celebrate their name day on August 15th.

[Luminesa]

Const, your post on the Assumption was beautiful! I loved the quote from St. Ambrose. Keep up the good work! ;3

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Here's where your argument fails:
1. You're making a contrived argument that all stone metaphors in the Bible refer to the same stone. There is no such indication of this. Each metaphor of stone is referring to its own paradigm, as an idiomatic metaphor.

2. You're conflating two things, The Church and the New Covenant. While inherently and inseparably tied to one another, they are not the same thing. The Church is the Body of Believers. The Greek word from which we get the word Church is ἐκκλησία, which means an official assembly of people. The Church is the institutional assembly of believers, structured along the lines of Apostolic Succession. The Covenant is the promise made to this assembly. The nation of Israel was not the Old Covenant itself, they were the the beneficiaries of said covenant. A covenant is an agreement between two parties. The New Covenant is an agreement between God and the Church.



yes, yes it is. I don't know why you bothered to draw up that completely irrelevant map of scripture, there's not a Catholic alive that would claim that Christ is not the foundation on which the New Covenant sits, that Christ is the mediator reconciling man to God and that through him, through his sacrifice we have the Gospel and the promise of salvation and eternal life. No one is disputing this The argument is about who the Church, not the Covenant, is founded upon, which:




not nearly as easy to see that point. You've made no argument for this assertion, instead you've assumed this is the case by equating the Covenant and the Church as the same thing. As I said, this is why your argument fails.


This is a bold faced lie considering I directly commented on this in the post you're responding to, on a verse that you cited.

Ephesians 2:“20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets”"

We see a foundation of apostles and prophets directly referenced, and you tried to pretend that didn't exist. You lied.




Again, no Catholic, or other Christian for that matter would dispute that Christ is the Mediator and the Foundation of the New Covenant. What you're not grasping is, that it's irrelevant to the discussion we're having.



You've not proven that, instead you've only proven what we already know to be true. You have failed to prove that Christ being the foundation of the New Covenant also makes him the foundation of the Church, in reference to Matthew 16.

Matthew 16 declares unequivocally that Peter is the foundation of the Church. "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."
Or in Greek if you prefer: "κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς."
Literal translation: "You are rock and upon this rock I will build my church"

Christ thematically, linguistically, and actually declares Peter to be the foundation of the Church. He is the first Christian from which the Church, the followers of Christ will grow. Christ is not the Foundation of the Church, he is the Founder, the Head and the Church is his Bride.



Would he now? You know that for sure? You've asked him? and all the apostles? I thought your sect was against that sort of thing, praying to saints and all.

You know how I criticize you for "likening your-self as a prophet?" This is another example. You are claiming to speak for the Apostles, to know what they would do, and attempt to use that as an argument. Once again, you put yourself in the place of the Prophets. What hubris.


Problem is, you haven't scrutinized my doctrine. You've gone on a long winded tangent about something else, attempting to discredit such doctrine with contrived arguments and false equivalencies. You've failed to prove a correlation, but are dogmatically claiming the correlation to be true. Such a tactic won't work on me.





No need to apologize, but I honestly I suggest you don't respond to the rest of the post. You've demonstrated you're not willing to listen or even have an argument in good faith with true Socratic dialogue. Instead you're ignoring the points I'm making and talking past them to make your own points without deference to what I'm actually saying to you. You're not addressing my points, you're just using them as a road map to organize what you want to say. You're preaching, you're not debating. This thread isn't the place for that.

Not true. All stone metaphor's in the bible do not refer to Christ. The stone of Daniel cut out without human hands and The lively stones to name a few.

Yes, I'm aware of that. You don't seem to be, that's my point. Because this concession undermines the complete rest of everything you're saying.

Christ is the foundation the beginning of the church without him there would be no Church.

No, he's the foundation of the New Covenant. I don't want to go into cap locks but you need to get this through your skull. The Covenant is NOT the Church.

Now yes, without Christ there would be no church, and the Faith that the Church professes is founded upon Christ's promise. But, As I've had to repeat multiple times now: That is not what we are discussing. We are discussing why Peter, is called the foundation of the Church in Catholic Doctrine. It is done for a very specific reason, a reason you have not actually acknowledged or addressed. We have a very specific meaning when we we call him the Rock and it is that Doctrine you must dispel. The Doctrine claims that Peter serves as the foundation of the Church, in so much as he is the first Christian. Unless you can supply another Christian that existed before Peter, then the doctrine is perfectly valid.

This claim has to do with a single passage of the Bible that is its own self contained allegory. All the other passages you have cited are irrelevant to that claim. In the Passage of Matthew 16 Christ is acting as the Founder of the Church, not the foundation. He lays the foundation, he is not the foundation himself, in this passage.
"18 And I tell you, you are Peter,[d] and on this rock[e] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it."

Christ claims that he will build his Church on St. Peter. How is this concept so difficult for you to comprehend? I can only surmise that this is the reason you refuse to quote Matthew 16 and are going on about irrelevant matters. Because the Bible clearly states you are wrong, and gives firm credence to our beliefs. You can't tackle that directly so you are attempting to circle the issue all together and simply brow beat a tertiary claim.

It explicitly states in Ephesians that Christ is the Chief cornerstone. You know the one laid down in Zion by Yahweh for a sure foundation.

Isaiah foretells the foundation of the Covenant, the promise of eternal life, Ephesians is speaking of a very specific part of the covenant: the reconciliation of Gentiles and Jews into one body. When Paul calls Christ the Cornerstone, he's making a different claim than Christ does in Matthew. Paul is claiming that Christ is the cornerstone of the New Covenant that has bound the two peoples, Gentiles and Jews into one people. The Foundation referred to here, is actually not the people themselves but Covenant of which Christ is indeed the Cornerstone, and the proclamations of the Prophets and Apostles, who foretold the coming of Christ and the Declared the Good News to the World, respectively. The apostles and prophets are part of the foundation of that union, by which Christ is the Chief Cornerstone, because without him that union of Gentiles and Jews, and man to God, could not happen.
They are different allegories. They are different proclamations. When Paul calls Christ the Cornerstone in Ephesians he is making a different claim than Christ is making in Matthew 16. You're falsely equating them, which is why you're having such reluctance to the point I'm making.

I admit I'm somewhat shifting my ground here, but that's because I didn't actually read the whole passage before I commented the first time. I apologize for my laziness.

Yes the apostles doctrine and prophets are part of the foundation. But they are added onto the already existing foundation which is Christ the Chief cornerstone.

In that specific allegory yes. In in regards to Matthew 16, no.

Yes Peter is part of the foundation of the Church but so is Paul and the other apostles and the prophets,

Yes, that's true, but Peter is first. That's what we mean when we say Peter is the Rock, the foundation of the Church, because he was First. The First stone laid. The first Christian.

and you know what I would actually be inclined to agree that after Christ peter was one of if not the first member of the Church.

No there's no debating that. There is no one in the Bible who truly understands who Christ is and declares him to be so before Peter. Even John the Baptist did not truly grasp this reality. It's arguable that Peter didn't even truly understand what he was saying, but Peter is the First.

But again after Christ since he is the first member and is the sure foundation, without him there would be no church. Every single Christian church is founded on Christ, that's just a fact, so saying peter is the foundation really makes little to no sense.

Because you're not listening to the point I'm making. You haven't listened this entire time, which is why you can't wrap your brain around this very simple concept that I am saying to you: Peter is the Foundation of the Church, because he is the First member of the Church. That's it.

What is the Church? It is the assembly of believers. That's what the word Ecclesia means: assembly.

What does this assembly believe in? Christ. The promise of Salvation delivered by Christ, and attested to by the Apostles to all the Generations of all the World. If you have fellowship with the Apostles, you have fellowship with Christ. (1 John 1)

So is Christ a part of that Church? Indirectly. Christ isn't in the Church, but at the same time he is a part of it. This is described in Ephesians 5:

22 Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. 24 Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, 27 so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind—yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, 30 because we are members of his body.[b] 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church. 33 Each of you, however, should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her husband.

Christ isn't a member of the Church, he's the Bridegroom, and the Church his bride. And as husband and wife through the covenant of marriage become one flesh, so through the New Covenant does the Church and Christ become one flesh. Paul admits that Christ and the Church are separate entities, inseparably joined into one. He is right in describing this relationship as a mystery because it defies human understanding.

Also no I didn't lie I wrote the first half of that two days ago and simply missed it when I came back to it today. Had I not I would have written the same thing I just wrote for it.

Fair enough, I've had my share of blunders in this argument. I shouldn't have as been as adversarial as I was being. My apologies.

Yes Peter was one of if not the first rock added to the already present Cornerstone of the church but was not the first stone. Christ is the first stone of the church the Chief cornerstone laid down in Zion by God on which the Church is built.

Repeating yourself doesn't make this statement any more accurate.

If you remove the foundation from something then what is built upon it will crumble and fall.

Are you supporting the Papacy? "On this Rock I will build my Church" That means the Papacy is inherent to the Church. Welcome to the Catholic Church. This would be an accurate statement, if were talking about a literal structure, instead we're talking about a figurative statement.

That being said, Peter hasn't been removed from the Church any more than Christ has. Peter still lives, is a member of the Church. His office has been passed to his successors.

Without Christ there would be no Christian Church, that's simple plain fact.

That's a tautology. It's like saying without TV there'd be no TV shows. Without Buddha there'd be no Buddhism either. It's a self reinforcing statement that doesn't prove your point. Yes without Christ there'd be no Christian Church, because there'd be no Christianity at all. That doesn't prove your point.

Every founding belief in the Christian Faith is centered around Christ.

Yes Because Christ IS the foundation of Christian Belief. But that's a different statement than Christ is the Foundation of the Church. Christian belief is not the same thing as the Church. They are separate entities that are intrinsically linked.

Without Peter and the doctrine he was given there would still be the church since we would still have the other apostles and Yahshua himself. The light given to him was indeed important as were the deeds done during by him during his lifetime, but without him there would still be a church through any of the other apostles.
So you tell me. Who sounds more like the foundation of the Church?

Still Peter, because you refuse pointblank to acknowledge what I'm saying, and are creating a strawman to argue past me with. I am not saying Peter is the foundation of the Christian Faith, or the foundation of the New Covenant, that has never been the claim, as much as you have mischaracterized my position that way.

I'll reiterate that position. We have a very specific meaning in mind when we say that Peter is the Foundation of the Church: Peter is the First Christian. It's. That. Simple. You may not like the word choice but that is not significant basis to reject it. It doesn't Supplant Christ as the Bride Groom, Chief Priest, or Head of the Church. It doesn't supplant Christ as the Cornerstone of the Christian Faith. It very simply claims that Peter is the First Christian. He is the First member of the Church. In that moment by the Sea of Galilee he was the Sole member of the Church. (Technically the Covenant hadn't even been fulfilled yet, so Peter was Christian before there were Christians. Peter the first hipster.) Calling Simon son of Jonah, The Rock and and saying the Church is built on him, is figurative way of stating this simple reality: Peter is the First Christian and all Christians will be following in his footsteps when they profess their faith in Christ and join the Church.

It's what the word οἰκοδομέω means:
metaphoric:
to found, establish
to promote growth in Christian wisdom, affection, grace, virtue, holiness, blessedness
to grow in wisdom and piety


Peter is the first Christian and from him Christ will found/establish/Grow his church. It's. That. Simple.

I address your points in a fair and pointed manner laying out in detail what it is I am saying and what the scripture I am presenting is saying. I don't address them in the manner you do since I am not proficient when it comes to computers, so while you might not always be able to see it I do address each of your points. Well those that have relevancy to the discussion that we are having anyway.

You don't address my points at all. If you had been addressing my points, you would have challenged me in saying that perhaps Peter is not the Rock alluded to in Matthew 16. It would be foolish of you as that's demonstrably false, but that would be an actual challenge of my argument. Instead you're going off on a tangent, that is irrelevant to the claim I have made.

Honestly there is not much more to be said on this matter. There is no profit to be gained, only argument that will end the same way every time.

because you don't listen. This is my criticism of you repeatedly. You're not here to debate, you're hear to preach.

I am truly sorry for it turning out this way but I hope maybe you will see the light and the truth of the word of God.

I have. You have yet to speak it in regards to this matter.

I will respond to the rest of your previous post when I find the time, and hopefully there we may come to an agreement on at least one matter.

We won't unless you actually engage with the arguments being presented. Prove the merits of my argument false, THEN offer a counter. You're just countering without dispelling, which profits nothing.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

-snip-

That post has more words in it then my all of the fan fics I have written.

9,683 words according to https://wordcounter.net/

All my story's combined come in at 5,837.

So, just wow, that is a lot of words.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Oh my God, the argument is still going.

But that's nothing. The 16th century Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim(?) exchanged 400 pages of letters with the Lutherans.

[Dylar]

Oh my God, the argument is still going.

But that's nothing. The 16th century Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim(?) exchanged 400 pages of letters with the Lutherans.

How long's this argument been going on? Feels like it's been 60 pages...

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Oh my God, the argument is still going.

But that's nothing. The 16th century Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim(?) exchanged 400 pages of letters with the Lutherans.

https://youtu.be/QoLywiaM6PA

[United Muscovite Nations]

Oh my God, the argument is still going.

But that's nothing. The 16th century Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim(?) exchanged 400 pages of letters with the Lutherans.

https://youtu.be/QoLywiaM6PA

>tfw this speech wasn't repeated verbatim in the sequel

[Tarsonis Survivors]

https://youtu.be/QoLywiaM6PA

>tfw this speech wasn't repeated verbatim in the sequel

Right? Every thing we loved about the original, the sequel screwed up.

[United Muscovite Nations]

>tfw this speech wasn't repeated verbatim in the sequel

Right? Every thing we loved about the original, the sequel screwed up.

Honestly, the first movie was terrible, and that's what made it great. The sequel was terrible in a way that wasn't enjoyable; it just wasn't cheesy enough.

[Salus Maior]

Oh my God, the argument is still going.

But that's nothing. The 16th century Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim(?) exchanged 400 pages of letters with the Lutherans.

To be fair, they probably haven't had that many responses between each other.

It's just that they're long and appear infrequently.

[Diopolis]

Halfway through today's solemn mass for the assumption of the virgin Mary, the power went out. It's a small church in Texas. In August. Probably technically packed past the point the fire department would consider acceptable. I was serving, so at least I got a lot of incense, and it didn't smell quite so bad.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Halfway through today's solemn mass for the assumption of the virgin Mary, the power went out. It's a small church in Texas. In August. Probably technically packed past the point the fire department would consider acceptable. I was serving, so at least I got a lot of incense, and it didn't smell quite so bad.

I can imagine what that smelled like. No bueno

[Gim]

Halfway through today's solemn mass for the assumption of the virgin Mary, the power went out. It's a small church in Texas. In August. Probably technically packed past the point the fire department would consider acceptable. I was serving, so at least I got a lot of incense, and it didn't smell quite so bad.

Oh, Lord! Do not neglect these people!

[Talchyon]

You've not proven that, instead you've only proven what we already know to be true. You have failed to prove that Christ being the foundation of the New Covenant also makes him the foundation of the Church, in reference to Matthew 16.

Matthew 16 declares unequivocally that Peter is the foundation of the Church. "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."
Or in Greek if you prefer: "κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς."
Literal translation: "You are rock and upon this rock I will build my church"

Christ thematically, linguistically, and actually declares Peter to be the foundation of the Church. He is the first Christian from which the Church, the followers of Christ will grow. Christ is not the Foundation of the Church, he is the Founder, the Head and the Church is his Bride.



Now yes, without Christ there would be no church, and the Faith that the Church professes is founded upon Christ's promise. But, As I've had to repeat multiple times now: That is not what we are discussing. We are discussing why Peter, is called the foundation of the Church in Catholic Doctrine. It is done for a very specific reason, a reason you have not actually acknowledged or addressed. We have a very specific meaning when we we call him the Rock and it is that Doctrine you must dispel. The Doctrine claims that Peter serves as the foundation of the Church, in so much as he is the first Christian. Unless you can supply another Christian that existed before Peter, then the doctrine is perfectly valid.

This claim has to do with a single passage of the Bible that is its own self contained allegory. All the other passages you have cited are irrelevant to that claim. In the Passage of Matthew 16 Christ is acting as the Founder of the Church, not the foundation. He lays the foundation, he is not the foundation himself, in this passage.
"18 And I tell you, you are Peter,[d] and on this rock[e] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it."

...

and you know what I would actually be inclined to agree that after Christ peter was one of if not the first member of the Church.

No there's no debating that. There is no one in the Bible who truly understands who Christ is and declares him to be so before Peter. Even John the Baptist did not truly grasp this reality. It's arguable that Peter didn't even truly understand what he was saying, but Peter is the First.

...

I'll reiterate that position. We have a very specific meaning in mind when we say that Peter is the Foundation of the Church: Peter is the First Christian. It's. That. Simple. You may not like the word choice but that is not significant basis to reject it. It doesn't Supplant Christ as the Bride Groom, Chief Priest, or Head of the Church. It doesn't supplant Christ as the Cornerstone of the Christian Faith. It very simply claims that Peter is the First Christian. He is the First member of the Church. In that moment by the Sea of Galilee he was the Sole member of the Church. (Technically the Covenant hadn't even been fulfilled yet, so Peter was Christian before there were Christians. Peter the first hipster.) Calling Simon son of Jonah, The Rock and and saying the Church is built on him, is figurative way of stating this simple reality: Peter is the First Christian and all Christians will be following in his footsteps when they profess their faith in Christ and join the Church.

It's what the word οἰκοδομέω means:
metaphoric:
to found, establish
to promote growth in Christian wisdom, affection, grace, virtue, holiness, blessedness
to grow in wisdom and piety


Peter is the first Christian and from him Christ will found/establish/Grow his church. It's. That. Simple.

Hey. You argue (several times here) that Peter is the first Christian, and that there were no other Christians before Mt. 16. Well, what about in Mt. 14:33 when all of the disciples proskuneo'd themselves before Jesus (an act that was only done before God) and said, "Truly You are the Son of God" ? Doesn't that undermine your argument that there were no Christians before Peter in Mt. 16?

[Gim]

Hey. You argue (several times here) that Peter is the first Christian, and that there were no other Christians before Mt. 16. Well, what about in Mt. 14:33 when all of the disciples proskuneo'd themselves before Jesus (an act that was only done before God) and said, "Truly You are the Son of God" ? Doesn't that undermine your argument that there were no Christians before Peter in Mt. 16?

What? There were prophets and people who believed in God, before Peter was even born. What the heck?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Halfway through today's solemn mass for the assumption of the virgin Mary, the power went out. It's a small church in Texas. In August. Probably technically packed past the point the fire department would consider acceptable. I was serving, so at least I got a lot of incense, and it didn't smell quite so bad.

Oh, Lord! Do not neglect these people!

You ever smelled spoiled chicken wrapped in leathery burnt bacon? Cause that's what it smelled like.

[Gim]

Oh, Lord! Do not neglect these people!

You ever smelled spoiled chicken wrapped in leathery burnt bacon? Cause that's what it smelled like.

Yeah, now that you came near.

[Pasong Tirad]

You ever smelled spoiled chicken wrapped in leathery burnt bacon? Cause that's what it smelled like.

Hey now, let's not hate. A lot of parishes don't have the luxury of fans or air conditioning.

[Gim]

You ever smelled spoiled chicken wrapped in leathery burnt bacon? Cause that's what it smelled like.

Hey now, let's not hate. A lot of parishes don't have the luxury of fans or air conditioning.

Yeah, he should really stop.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Hey now, let's not hate. A lot of parishes don't have the luxury of fans or air conditioning.

Yeah, he should really stop.

Dude go back to the Hockey thread gim. you've never shone any aptitude at hockey nor Theology, but they'll tolerate your ineptitude there.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

You ever smelled spoiled chicken wrapped in leathery burnt bacon? Cause that's what it smelled like.

Hey now, let's not hate. A lot of parishes don't have the luxury of fans or air conditioning.

Does not erase human body Oder. trust me, as a marine whose job it was to deal with swear fat peoples who didn't meat Marine Corps standards, sweaty people stinnk. Fact of life.

[Luminesa]

You ever smelled spoiled chicken wrapped in leathery burnt bacon? Cause that's what it smelled like.

Yeah, now that you came near.

A fair bit rude of you, huh?