Submitted by Lemuel
Pope Francis
Pope Francis

Recently, Pope Francis sent a video to a conference of Protestant Conservative Evangelicals. In the video, Pope Francis extols them to embrace a healing of the protestations enacted by Martin Luther’s 90 theses when he nailed them to the church door in his native Germany. Pope Francis contends in his video that the Lutheran Church has buried the hatch and returned to the mother church, the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) or the Papacy and that the children of protestation now have no more reason not to be reunited with the RCC. I must admit that given what has been said about the current Pope, only he could have made this video. For he has truly been a model of the real Francis, whose name he took.

The video with the conference has gone viral on YouTube (Kenneth Copeland and Pope Francis), and the Evangelicals are now planning a number of visits to Rome to set the criteria for their return to Rome. On the surface, this should be a time for all religious sects and affiliates to rejoice and clamor to the door of the nearest Roman Catholic Church to render their confessions and partake in Communion and Mass. But what exactly was Martin Luther protesting against and what are the implications for this return to the mother church of Rome.

Luther’s protest emanated from his reading of a Latin Bible which he found at his monastery; in it he discovered that indulgences (payments to secure one’s loved ones from the torment of Hell) were bogus and not founded on the Scriptures.

Confessions to a Priest went totally against the Scripture’s mandate to take/ confess your sins to God and God alone, for man has no power to forgive sin. The Pope’s infallible nature was a figment of the Papacy’s imagination. For at that time, even Kings were expected to crawl on their knees in abeyance when approaching the Pontiff (the Vicar of Christ, Christ Representative on Earth). Luther’s contention was that the Pope, as a man, was as sinful as every one of us who parade across this Earth. And these are only a few of Luther’s observations.

The important aspect of Luther’s protestation was that he was absolutely sure that the RC was the true church until he visited Rome. When he first arrived with deep emotion, he prostrated himself on the ground and cried, “Holy Rome, I salute thee”. Later having experienced Rome, he said, “No one can imagine what sins and infamous actions are committed in Rome; they must be seen and heard to be believed. Thus, they are in the habit of saying, if there is Hell, Rome is built over it: it is an abyss whence issues every kind of sin.”

The RC at that time and still today contends that she is the one with the key to Heaven and Hell and no one enters either without her permission. True to her form, the Pope prepared a papal bull and Martin Luther was excommunicated for not recanting the above sordid truths that were launched against the RC. He was denounced as accursed of Heaven.

To this day, Rome has not changed any of her doctrines in relation to any of her false or preposterous positions. She has yet to apologize to Martin Luther or withdrawn that papal bull which denounced him. Yet, by passing all of the above, Pope Francis is holding out a hand of healing to the protestant churches which in return are galloping in the direction of Rome.

96 responses to “The False Healing Hand of Rome”


  1. @ Robert Ross

    F cow! we are dealing with Mr Bullen today.


  2. Oh dear….Pacha I have just read you again though dunno why I’m bothering. WHERE did I defend the RC Church? Please give chapter and verse.


  3. @ Robert Ross
    We are now dealing with Mr Bullen. You.


  4. Pacha…sorry to say, you are a sick retard who is doing neither yourself nor BU any good whatsoever.


  5. @ Robert Ross

    But uh cussing you though. How much good do you do BU with your constant sniping, Mr Bullen?


  6. @ Robert Ross
    Think of us like racism. Unending, unremitting, Mr Bullen


  7. answer the question …where did I defend the RC Church? You can’t spin all your life Pacha. Sometime you gonna have to get real. Maybe at 3.0


  8. @ Robert Ross
    You rerally think that a Mr. Bullen like you. Whose every thought is predicated on racial supremacy can command us to answer your question. Mr. Bullen. Yuh pooch picker


  9. Then Mr Spin you answer yourself.


  10. “Command US” – gee what a prick. Now Pacha….I just want you to know that I’m REALLY looking forward to seeing you at 3.0. Don’t disappoint me.


  11. Robert Ross
    You are a pooch picker. A racist. A suborner of crimes against children and Mr. Bullen himself.


  12. Pacha I’m leaving the office now. Have something to do before our date. Be there.


  13. @Robert Ross
    It is you who are Mr Bullen

  14. GEORGIE PORGIE Avatar
    GEORGIE PORGIE

    robert ross | May 6, 2014 at 10:27 AM |
    GP

    I see what you’re saying GOOD
    but I think you’re composing. NOT AT ALL

    NOTICE THAT IN MATHEW 16 JESUS DID NOT SAY “I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH ON YOU PETER”
    NOR DID HE SAY PETER “you SHALL BE THE FIRST POPE”


  15. Georgie:

    Those who looked at the original word for Peter indicate that it meant small pebble not the big hard rock (associated with the building of a foundation) that Ross would want us to believe. he or his priest friend can go to the greek text.

  16. Caswell Franklyn Avatar
    Caswell Franklyn

    Just another titbit. How many of you know that there were two popes with the name John XXIII? The first reigned from May 1410 – May 1415. He was deemed guilty of incest, adultery and homicide. He also kept his brother’s wife in the Vatican as his mistress. He was therefore deposed by decree of the Council of Constance and his name excised from the list of popes.

    He was demoted to Cardinal-Bishop as a punishment and sent to Tusculum, where he seduced over 200 nuns impregnating many of them.

  17. GEORGIE PORGIE Avatar
    GEORGIE PORGIE

    Lemuel | May 6, 2014 at 2:25 PM |
    Georgie:

    Those who looked at the original word for Peter indicate that it meant small pebble not the big hard rock (associated with the building of a foundation) that Ross would want us to believe. he or his priest friend can go to the greek text.

    IN THE GREEK OF THIS VERSE JESUS MADE A PUN ON PETROS (small rock) AND PETRA (foundation stone)


  18. Georgie Porgie

    First and forth most: the office of the Pope is the instrument of the Devil on earth. I have two fundamental points to substantiate as well as corroborate the position that the office of the Pope is the office of the Devil. (1) The Bible tells us that man is head of wife, as Christ is the head of Church and yet the Pope is portray as the head of the Christian Church. (2) The Pope goes by the name Father or Holy Father and yet the Bible tells us: ” To call no man Father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in Heaven.”


  19. no matter how many times Rock is interpreted ,,there is no doubt that JeSIUS intentions were made clear when he promised peter that the gates of hell would not prevail against him,,,, too many have a twisted and self serving view when trying to decipher,,either Jesus is a liar,,,,or he was telling the Truth to peter ,,,,, if one take a close look at the relationship and iteractions between Christ and Peter……..one would be hard press to challenge what Christ meant for his will to Peter,,, the history of Peter and Jesus shows that a bond of faith and trust had been built between them more so over the years after the crucifixion,,,, sealing PETERS approval in the eyes of jesus was when Peter more than all the other apostle recognized and confirm openly Jesus as THE CHRIST THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD<<,, it was then that JESUS had no doubt, or reservations about peters commitment to lead the flock,,,. and gave him the authority to do so,,,,,,,
    this issue has been a bone stuck in throat of many evangelicals especially baptist ,,who in there minds believe that a man Paul,,,the persecutor of the early Church was deserving of being the leader,,,what they forgot that PAUL was an evil man….who had killed thousands of the believers of Christ,,,and was forgiven nevertheless ,,,,,he fell short and still had an outstanding debt to pay for the innocent lives he had destroyed,,, ,,his redemption is to be admired and his works must be appreciated ,,,, but the destruction on those lives he crossed was horrific by all accounts,,,and might have been the hindrance in him not becoming a leader ,, not being chosen to be leader of the church was indeed a small price he had to pay,,,for GOD could have dealt with Paul in a much harder way,,,,


  20. Georgie Porgie

    Here is the two scriptures from the KJV:
    Matthew 23:9 And call no man your Father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in Heaven.

    Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the Church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.


  21. i meaning don;t you see how foolish you become on one hand you try to dispute jesus words when he says rock…now in your foolish stupor drags out another quote which jesus says to call no man FATHER,,,,,how childish and ridiculous can people be,,,in all my not so long years …i have been told out of respect to call my male parent father,,,,,,man stuepse,,,,the rock now father ,,what next,,,,,,,
    what is wrong with you people,,,,,,,,,,jesus is the head of the church,,there is not disptuing that according to christian teaching nevertheless he was a jew and died a jew,,,,,yet the christians has latched on to his every word,,,,,,, now from all the accounts to the pope being the heads i have never read inany cathoilic literature where jesus was denounced as being the head of the church,,,,,however ,,the church has relied on jesus commitment given to peter to be a leader or builder of the church,,,,,the pope is the leader of the church and the HEAD of vatican city,,,,,,,,,,,,,


  22. AC:

    Do not burst a blood vessel. Such thoughts as you are pondering may do you harm. But you too proud to ask Georgie for guidance!!


  23. I suspect that the use of the word Rock in place names is another example of early Quaker influence on naming conventions in Barbados.

    I think it is straight out of their interpretation of the Bible.

    There are not too many parishes that don’t have in a Rock Hall!!


  24. Georgie Porgie

    I am sure you have heard the news? U.S. Gay Magazine, names Pope Francis person of the year’ for famously saying he would not judge homosexuals. It really speaks to the moral as well as the religious decrepitudes of our modern age. Doesn’t it?


  25. The NT was first written in what language?
    When was the first English version?
    How long has the Bishop of Rome been acknowledged as ‘the Pope’ and head of the Church Universal?

  26. GEORGIE PORGIE Avatar
    GEORGIE PORGIE

    robert ross | May 6, 2014 at 9:06 PM |
    The NT was first written in what language?
    When was the first English version?
    How long has the Bishop of Rome been acknowledged as ‘the Pope’ and head of the Church Universal?

    re tHE NT WAS WRITTEN IN KOINE GREEK

    the TRUE church has NEVER acknowledged never ‘the Pope’ as ANYTHING

    read FOX”S BOOK OF MARTYS
    THE TRAIL OF BLOOD
    THE FAITHFUL BAPTIST WITNESS inter alia

    ONLY the RC organisation worships the Pope

    If you read the NT the church is always presented as LOCAL SELF GOVERNING independent CHURCHES e.g the seven churches listed in Revelation 1-3.
    The epistles were written to specific chuches

    All of the POPE bull and his bulling will soon come to and end as described in Revelation 17 & 18 as clearly set out in an earlier post.


  27. Georgie:

    Why are you suffering that fool Ross?

  28. GEORGIE PORGIE Avatar
    GEORGIE PORGIE

    This is Basic Church History

    THE TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE INTO ENGLISH

    The translation of the Bible into the English language coincided with the invention of the printing press and the period of Reformation (15th -16th centuries). Before this time, the use of the Bible in the West was forbidden in any language other than Latin. The Latin translation, from the original Hebrew and Greek, was made by St. Jerome in the fourth century. It became the authoritative Bible for the Western Church and was known as the Vulgate. The reading of the Bible, even in the Latin, was forbidden the lay people without permission. This denial by the authorities of the Western Church was one of the main reasons for the Protestant Reformation. Therefore, the first act of the first reformer, Martin Luther, was the translation of the Bible into German in 1522, which translation was the main factor in the establishment of the German language. Before the Reformation and the printing press, various parts of the Bible had been translated into English from the Latin Vulgate.

    The Western Church was very strict in the use of Latin not only for the Bible, but also for the ritual worship of the Church, which was incomprehensible to the people. It should be noted that before the Reformation, there was no complete translation of the Bible in English. The only translation in English, from the Latin and not the original Greek language, covering only the New Testament and some parts of the Old, was that attributed to John Wycliffe of England. Despite the fact it was made with the knowledge of the authorities of the Church, its use was forbidden without special permission, according to the decision of the Synod of Oxford of 1407. The first translation of the Bible into English from the original languages, Hebrew and Greek, and the first which was printed was that of William Tyndale in c. 1523. Before this translation, the only printings of the Bible were the Vulgate (first printing, 1456), the Hebrew text of the Old Testament (1488), the text of the New Testament Greek by Erasmus (1516), with four revisions through 1535, and the literal translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Latin (1528). The translation of the New Testament into English from the original Greek text depended on the initiative of Tyndale (c. 1523), without the sponsorship or permission of the Bishop of London. Tyndale was denounced and forced to flee to Germany, where he probably met Martin Luther. Tyndale started to print the New Testament in English in Cologne, but was again forced to flee to another city, Worms.

    In Worms, he finally completed the printing of the English translation of the New Testament in its entirety. This translation was reprinted many times in Holland. Copies of this translation reached England, where it aroused the anger of his enemies. Nevertheless, Tyndale continued his work and undertook to translate and print the books of the Old Testament. He first printed the five Books of Moses, the Pentateuch, in Antwerp in 1529-30. Over the next few years, he printed the other books of the Old Testament. Tyndale later printed the New Testament and the Pentateuch together with marginal notes reflecting the Protestant views. This further incensed his enemies, who had him condemned as a heretic. He was burned at the stake in Holland in 1536. Tyndale’s translation, especially that of the New Testament from the original Greek, marked the beginning of many other English translations from the original Greek, using Tyndale’s translation as a guide. Unfortunately, the original Greek New Testament edited by Erasmus in 1516, which was used by Tyndale for his English translation, contained many mistakes. Still, Tyndale’s English translation of the Bible was a pioneer work and an independent effort. Much of his translation is used in the King James Version of 1611.

    TYNDALE’S TRANSLATION AND THE KING JAMES VERSION

    Tyndale’s English translation of the entire Bible was the basis for the many other English translations that followed. The subsequent English versions are Coverdale’s Bible, 1535; Thomas Mathew’s Bible, 1537; the Great Bible, 1539; the Geneva Bible, 1560; and the Bishop’s Bible, 1568. Also the Rheims-Duae’s in 1582 was translated from the Latin Vulgate. Within approximately 50 years from the time of Tyndale’s first printed translations, the above six translations were made. It must be noted, however, that none of these English translations were accepted as an authorized English version because of general dissatisfaction with them and the many mistakes found in them. Therefore, after 30 years, another attempt to translate the Bible anew into English was made by a conference in England, where a new version of the Bible was suggested to King James. King James was convinced of the need for a new English translation of the Bible. He appointed 54 scholars to undertake the task. These scholars used the Bishop’s Bible of 1568 as a basis, but earlier English versions were also taken into consideration, especially Tyndale’s.

    These 54 scholars, appointed to translate a new, original English version, failed because they used the earlier English translation, which had many mistakes. Thus, theirs was a new revision, not a new translation. Regardless, this new version was received with great enthusiasm and happiness, and within a generation, it displaced all other English translations. This new version became known as the King James Version, or the Authorized Version. This King James Version was printed in 1611 and has become the familiar form of the Bible for many English-speaking generations. The King James Version was the only version that bore the royal authority and was “appointed to be read in churches.” It is characterized as “the noblest monument of English prose.” The King James Version has played a prominent role in forming the personal character of the church and institutions of the English-speaking people.

    Yet, even this King James Version was neither well-received nor free of criticism by some. Nevertheless, it has prevailed through the centuries and is still held in great esteem today, both by preachers and lay people, despite its defects, which were noted more clearly in the mid-nineteenth century and more so today. The Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible possessed today were unknown to the 54 scholars of the King James Version. The manuscripts of the Bible which were found later pointed out more clearly the serious defects of the King James Version. This fact convinced the Church of England in 1870 to make a revision of the King James translation. This revision was published in 1881 (N.T.) and 1885 (O.T.) and was known as the English Revised Version of the Bible, which included the Apocrypha, printed in 1895. However, to its detriment, this committee of revisers included only Anglican scholars. This version was not accepted by the vast majority of local churches and people, who cherished the King James Version.


  29. let me tell you something lemuel;;;;;;;jesus did not give the keys of interpretation to GP,,,furthemore jesus was a jew,,,,,,and all this bible doctrine is a whole lot of mixed up dogma and theories from several jewish and greek and a god knows what a bunch of different languages put together with man’s interpretations and influence to control,,,,,,Gp is so steeped in this hogwash that even though he knows that man’s heart is corrupt by nature,,,,,he does not have the commonsense to conclude that if man had anything to do with this literature it can;t be kosher,,,i meaning fuh god sake, after years of university and medical teachings,,,,don;t know the meaning of the word ,,rock,,,,,then you lemuel tell me i am proud ,,,hell yes when dealing wid neanderthals in2014, ;;;;;some say a rock is a pebble,,,,,,others say a pebble is a rock,,,,,,,,can;t u imagine a heaven with a bunch of clowns,,,,,, hell no……….


  30. AC:

    Again, you are going to burst a blood vessel with these pebbles and hard rocks!


  31. the only part of the bible i pay homage to and deeply respect..is ,,where it say to love your neighbour as you would love yourself,,,,,,,all the other parts like who sleep wid who,,like the days of our lives soap opera,,i already shredded and threw in the garbage,,,,,my bible has two sentences and no chapers it is so small that a two year old can read it and understand it…….do you think i really care how old abraham was when he had his first child and with whom he had it,,,,or if jesus was resurrected from the grave,,do m you think that is important to being good,,,,it makes for good table talk,,,,,and back yard conversation……do u think i am looking for the heavens to open up and a man on a white horse coming out of the sky,,,,,,no,,,,,,,,people like you and GP wid limited time on yuh hands got nothing better to do,,,,,,but try to brain was people,,, i not having it,,,,,


  32. AC:

    In the judgement, how can you deny that Lemuel and Georgie tried they best with you. Whether you or whoever do not believe in the coming back of Jesus in glory, your unbelief shall not stop it happening.


  33. Poor GP…did a scissors and paste job.

    But thank you. You made my case. The NT was written in Greek NOT English. it was written by those who understood Greek. How then 2000 years on can you say they “mistranslated” when it’s clear that for the continuum the Church has consistently held the Matthew passage to mean as I’ve suggested it might?

  34. GEORGIE PORGIE Avatar
    GEORGIE PORGIE

    Are you a total moron?
    Can you read?
    WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT JESUS APPOINTED PETER POPE?
    WHERE IN THE WORD OF GOD DOES IT SAY PETER I WILL BUILD THE CHURCH ON YOU OR THE RC CHURCH?
    WHEN DID THE CHURCH START?

    WHEN DID THE RC ORGANISATION START? ALMOST 300 YEARS AFTER PENTECOST.
    SO PETER LIVED 300 YEARS TO BECOME THE FIRST POPE? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU

    WHICH “chucrch” has consistently held the Matthew passage to mean as I’ve suggested it might? ONLY THE rc ORGANISATION AND ITS OFFSHOOTS, WHERE THE BIBLE IS NEVER STOOD OR UNDERSTOOD.

    THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF ERROR = THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF ERROR
    IT IS WRITTEN….STUDY TO SHOW THYSELF APPROVED UNTO GOD , A WORKMAN THAT NEEDETH NOT TO BE ASHAMED, RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH.

    WE AWAIT TO REJOICE AT THE END OF THE RC ORGANISATION AND ITS CORRUPTION AS PREDICTED IN REVELATION 17 &18


  35. @ GP
    WE AWAIT TO REJOICE AT THE END OF THE RC ORGANISATION AND ITS CORRUPTION AS PREDICTED IN REVELATION 17 &18
    ++++++++++++++++++
    Bushie would not seek to hasten that end if he were you.

    You yourself identified during your long but interesting post above, that the great whore AS WELL AS HER DAUGHTERS comprise the “organization” of which you speak.
    This ‘family’ of HOs are identified by a series of blasphemous doctrines which can best be described as “ANTI-CHRIST” because they go against the very CORE of what the fella Christ said, stood for and promoted……

    The unshakable commitment to a “TRINITY” is one such flawed doctrine which fundamentally defines God as a CLOSED ENTITY…… When Jesus REPEATEDLY and CONSISTENTLY said otherwise.
    Indeed, by the VERY ACT of DYING, he demonstrated that GOD is NOT a closed entity…….then he reinforced this by becoming the “first begotten son”……

    Even to casual onlookers, the RC church is a wicked, corrupt, secret society that has no relevance to BBE, ….but practically ALL of the “daughters of that abomination” who are “Protestants” against various aspects of RC doctrines ……ALSO adhere to her basic wicked and misleading doctrines…..carrying the very same “mark”…

  36. GEORGIE PORGIE Avatar
    GEORGIE PORGIE

    The Church of Rome says that because the Aramaic/Syriac original of Matthew 16:18, underlying the existing Greek text, uses the word KE’PHA’ both as the proper name given to Simon bar Jonas and as the word for the Rock upon which Christ promised to build His Church, that therefore Peter (Aramaic, Ke’pha’) is the rock and the foundation of the Church. Rome bases many of its claims of papal supremacy on this identification of the Apostle Peter with the Rock mentioned by Christ in this passage of Matthew’s Gospel. If the defenders of Rome are wrong at this point then their argument that Peter is the Rock fails.

    1. The Greek text is the inspired original of the New Testament. No Aramaic underlying text is extant. Though there are Syriac/Aramaic translations of these original Greek texts they cannot be relied upon to accurately represent any supposed original Aramaic usage. They are merely uninspired translations of the original Greek text and may or may not represent any Aramaic/Syriac original.
    2. The Greek text of Matthew 16:18 uses two separate (different) Greek words in the passage.
      Petros, the name given to the Apostle
      Petra, the word used for rock
      Rome says that “Peter” (PETROS) is merely the masculine form of the feminine noun PETRA, and therefore means the same thing. But…

    3. Classic Greek authors (before the New Testament was written) treat the words PETROS and PETRA as two different words.
      According to Liddell and Scott:
      Petros, …(distinct from petra)…
      Hom. IL. 16.734; 7:270; 20.288
      E. Heracl.1002, “panta kinesai petron” …”Leave no stone unturned”
      cf. Pl. Lg. 843a
      X. HG 3.5.20 “Petrous epekulindoun” “They rolled down stones.”
      S. Ph 296 to produce fire “en petroisi petron ektribon”
      Id. OC 1595 of a boulder forming a landmark
      [the usual prose word is lithos]”
      from: A Greek – English Lexicon, complied by Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, pg. 1397- 8, Pub. by Oxford, at the Clarendon Press.)
      NOTE: Petros, a stone, a smaller movable stone (Heracletes uses it in the phrase “leave no stone unturned.”) So, a “PETROS” is a stone which can by turned over, hence, a movable stone.
      Petra, a large massive rock, a large boulder, a foundation stone.
      The word “Petros” is only used in the Greek New Testament as a proper name for Simon bar Jona.
      Petros is not merely a masculine form of the word petra, but is a different word with a different meaning, though both words are derived from a common root.

    4. The wording of Matt. 16:18 uses two different Greek words. If Jesus was referring the second word to Simon Peter he could have said “epi tauto to petro” (using the masculine gender in the dative case) the same word as “Petros.” But what he said was “Epi taute te petra” using Petra, a different Greek word.

    5. The usage of two different words in the inspired Greek original, if representing an Aramaic original (which is in no case certain) would seem to point to the usage of two separate Aramaic words in this passage.

    6. The Peshitta Syriac translation of the New Testament in Matthew 16:18 uses kepha’ for both Greek words petros and petra. Is this accurate, or could it be a mistranslation of the original Greek Text?

    7. The proper translation of Petros is Ke’pha’. On this we have the authority of the Word of God itself in the Greek original of the New Testament, where the name “Ke’pha” (in the English Bible “Cephas”) is six times given as the Aramaic equivalent to Petros for the name of Simon bar Jonas. (John 1:42; 1Corinthians1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Galatians 2:9) So, we can say, based upon the authority of the original Greek of the New Testament that Petros, the name given to Simon bar Jona by the Lord Jesus (John 1:42) is the correct translation of the Aramaic/Syriac word Ke’pha’. Greek: Petros = Aramaic: Ke’pha’ (“Cephas”)
      But what of the Greek word Petra? Is it correctly translated as Ke’pha’?
      There is nowhere in the Greek New Testament where the word Ke’pha’ is given as the correct translation of the Greek word Petra. In order to determine the Syriac/Aramaic word which best translates the Greek word Petra we will have to look at the translations of the Greek New Testament which were made in the first five centuries of the Christian Church to determine how the Greek word Petra was understood.
      Greek: Petra = Aramaic: ?

    8. In the Peshitta Syriac New Testament the Greek word “PETRA” is translated by the Aramaic word SHUA' as in Matthew 7:24-25 meaning a massive rock or a boulder.
      PETRA is used 16 times in the Greek New Testament:
      Of those times it is translated in the Peshitta Syriac
      9 times by the word SHU
      A’ ,
      6 times by the word KE’PHA’ and
      1 time by the Hebrew root word ‘ABENA’
      Of the ten times PETRA is used in the Gospels it is translated:
      7 times by the word SHU`A’
      (Mt.7:24, 25; Mk.15:46; Lk 6:48[2x];8:6, 13)
      3 times by the word KE’PHA’
      (Mt.16:18; 27:51; 27:60)

    Of the three times KE’PHA’ is used to translate PETRA in the Gospels:
    [1] in Mt. 27:60 the parallel passage in Mark’s gospel (Mark 15:46) more correctly uses SHUA' to translate PETRA.
    [2] in Mt. 27:51 the word KE'PHA' is used to describe the rocks (plural) which were broken at the earthquake when Christ died (and hence, these rocks became movable)
    [3] the other passage is Mt. 16:18 where KE'PHA' is used to translate both PETROS and PETRA.
    In all other places in the Gospels the Greek word PETRA is translated by the Syriac word SHU
    A’, meaning “a massive rock.”
    KE’PHA’ is used in the Syriac N.T. as the translation of both the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS.
    The Greek word LITHOS, which means “a stone” (generally of a size which could be picked up or moved) is ALWAYS translated by the Syriac word KE’PHA’.
    As LITHOS in classical Greek is the common prose word for “a stone” (see the quote from Liddle and Scott’s Lexicon, above) and PETROS is more common in poetry, this shows that the definition of KE’PHA’ as “a stone” is correct. The Syriac KE’PHA’ is equivalent to the Greek LITHOS, a movable stone.
    KE’PHA’ IS ALWAYS USED TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD LITHOS.
    SHU’A IS THE MORE USUAL AND CORRECT SYRIAC WORD TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD PETRA.
    KE’PHA IS A MOVABLE STONE = LITHOS / PETROS.
    SHU’A IS A MASSIVE ROCK = PETRA.
    The Syriac word SHUA' is NEVER used to translate the Greek word LITHOS.
    Because a LITHOS is NOT a large massive rock, but a SHU
    A’ is.
    The Syriac KE’PHA’ is correctly used to translate the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS because these are movable stones.

    1. The fact that the Greek text of the New Testament uses two separate Greek words in the passage [Matthew 16:18] indicates that any underlying Aramaic/Syriac original (if there was one, AND THIS IS FAR FROM PROVEN) also must have used two separate words.

    Conclusion

    a. A reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac of the passage would properly be:
    “You are KE’PHA’ (a movable stone) and upon this SHU`A’ (a large massive rock) I will build my church.”
    This is in exact correspondence to the original inspired Greek text:
    “You are PETROS (a movable stone) and upon this PETRA (a large massive rock) I will build my church.”

    b. The Peshitta Syriac New Testament text, at leaast in its extant MSS, mistranslated the passage in Matthew 16:18, incorrectly using the Syriac word KE’PHA’ for both Greek words PETROS and PETRA.

    c. The Church of Rome bases its doctrine of Peter being the Rock upon which the Church is built on this mistranslation and/or a falsely reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac original, ignoring the distinctions in the Aramaic language.

    d. The Greek text does not teach that Peter is the rock. The rock is either Peter’s confession of Christ, or Christ Himself, in Peter’s answer to Jesus’ earlier question “Who do men say that I the Son of man am?”


  37. Bushie:

    The warnings are being given to the RC and her daughters who have and will further blend into prophetic Babylon. Those who do not heed the warnings shall suffer their fate, but as usual we laugh all of this to scorn.

  38. millertheanunnaki Avatar
    millertheanunnaki

    @ Lemuel:

    Your scholarly contribution makes for interesting reading and has attracted the usual suspects of religious scholars.
    You, along with GP and BT, find it rather easy to attack the RC organisation. A very easy target for the coming post-Christian era.

    Isn’t it funny how an underground movement could have moved from being victims of Roman might and who suffered more atrocities than the Jews under Hitler to become the perpetrators of similar atrocities against other groups especially in the ‘New World’ while sitting in the Roman seat of imperial power in the Vatican, a city of paradoxical morality.
    Maybe we should put it down to retribution for a faith that grew out of a cult to become the biggest legally accepted practitioner of magic and “white” voodoo used to deprive millions of their lands and lives.

    Christianity in Europe is coming full circle and is becoming once more a cult today with its more ardent members from sub-Sahara Africa.
    Why not be more balanced in your criticism and save some of its harsher barbs for those religious bigots parading under the umbrella of religious fundamentalism?

    Why not express abject disdain and rejection for groups like the Islamist Boko Haram which find nothing wrong is perpetrating acts of brutal inhumanity in the name of the same god of Abraham that ‘protesting’ Christians like you and reformed Jews worship as a god love and life? Neither should you overlook the acts of the likes of Jim Jones and David Koresh.

    The RC Church under Francis would never condone such acts of brutality even if done by Cortes and Pizarro with the blessing of the Spanish Inquisition and the Vatican.


  39. Miller:
    I am not sure but are you contending that the RC is going to be saved and purged under Pope Francis? Are you aware that the RC is an institution like the Presidency of the US and that no one man shall prevail against it. Remember, Caswell has been revealing here that institution’s propensity for killing all who stand in its way, even if they are called Pope!

  40. millertheanunnaki Avatar
    millertheanunnaki

    @ lemuel | May 7, 2014 at 11:06 AM |

    Christianity- and by extension R C- will fade and eventually die, sorry disappear, like all major religions before it. Sol Invictus!

    The most likely contender for the throne, at least in the West (and Hal Austin can attest), is Islam a younger and passionately fitter religion. Someday that form of opiate too will suffer a similar fate as Christianity and her predecessors.

    Religion, like everything else including institutions, must evolve to survive.
    We bet you would never consider yourself to be in any way connected to chimps or bonobos even though you share 97% of their genetic makeup.
    Let’s see how you reveal, if not delude, your intellectual self by denouncing what has just been written.


  41. @ Miller
    Steupsss 🙂


  42. Miller:
    Why are you squeezing the Evolution argument into this conversation. Yes, humans are related genetically; that allows for biotechnology without that relationship that discipline would not be possible.

    The Islam argument has been going around for some time by the futurists. But the regimen of the religion is such that our rum drinkers would find it impossible to turn to Islam. Our women have lived in freedom for many many years. Do you see the gay and lesbian movement, which would have a voice, joining the ranks of Islam. Do you see the capitalists of this world embracing Islam. I could go on and on with the impracticality of the futurists assumption.

    Whereas RC gives a form of worship and some abeyance to religious custom, Islam calls for the complete ingesting of a culture, where the learning of the arab tongue is required. The RC is re-emerging!!


  43. @ GP
    Here’s a question for you, Doc…………………….

    Why would Jesus Christ want to build his church on the foundation of a mere mortal man?

    Matthew 16:17 says quote:-
    17 “And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
    18 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.” Unquote.

    Now, my understanding of verses 17 – 18 is this……………

    Jesus Christ is saying that since Peter knew by revelation from His Father in Heaven that Jesus was The Christ, then He (Jesus Christ) would build His church upon that sure rock of REVELATION. We definitely cannot make any mistake when we go by revelation ( the best foundation, right?) from the Heavens but we can surely make a complete mess of things when we rely on man’s word. Jesus Christ Himself warned us that we should not “trust in the arm of flesh”! So why would He then want to build His church on a mere mortal even though this person happened to be Peter one of His Chief disciples? Peter was still made of flesh! And this was shown very clearly when the cock crowed the third time and Peter denied that he knew Christ.

    So it is my firm belief that Jesus Christ did not build His church upon any mere mortal but He built it upon the sure foundation of the Rock of Revelation! Revelation from the Heavens through the Holy Spirit.

    Hope you are following the gist of what I am trying to say.

    Keep up the good work.

  44. GEORGIE PORGIE Avatar
    GEORGIE PORGIE

    de hood | May 7, 2014 at 2:24 PM |
    @ GP
    Here’s a question for you, Doc…………………….
    Why would Jesus Christ want to build his church on the foundation of a mere mortal man?
    I CAN NOT SEE HOW HE WOULD….SINCE THIS IS CONTRARY TO MANY SCRIPTURES
    re
    Now, my understanding of verses 17 – 18 is this……………
    Jesus Christ is saying that since Peter knew by revelation from His Father in Heaven that Jesus was The Christ, then He (Jesus Christ) would build His church upon that sure rock of REVELATION.
    THAT IS ALSO MY INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THE TEXT SAYS IN GREEK, ENGLISH ,GERMAN, FRENCH , and COMMON SENSE.
    Your interpretation is the same of sane serious students of the Scriptures


  45. you guys are a bunch of f up idolaters,,,,,can ‘t even get the meaning and understanding of what Jesus meant when he used symbolic language to execute the will he had for peter. using the rock as a symbol of strength,, jesus was not a liar,,,,,not unlike a will where family members devour and cat spraddle each other,,the mere thought by many evangelical charismatic born again believers ,,that jesus made peter chief executive officer and ceo of the living church,,,is blasphemy,,,,,well guys get use to it,,,,until kingdom come, not going change now,,,cause there is now way ..that born again evangelical christians going ever,,,did i say ever,,have a role in rewriting bible dribble,,,,,even kenneth copeland realize that,,and finally figured out ,,”if yuh can:t beat them join them: what a way to go copeland what a way to go,,,,,the end gotta be at hand,,,,Glory,,,,,,,


  46. ‘Sane and serious’

    Now I guess that counts as special pleading. And rooted in prophetical justification. Actually I think it’s called ‘superstition’ – as I suppose most of it is.

Leave a Reply to PachamamaCancel reply

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading