Protestants: Where is the Bible in the Bible?

[jeg101]

Catholics not just believe in the Bible as the Only Word of God. they also believe that the Word of God is founded three pillars.

1. Sacred Scripture: Written Tradition.
2. Oral Tradition: Un-written
3. Magisterium of the Church: The Church interprets both SS and OT.
   and they also believe in **the additions by unkown authors **that took place in the text of the Gospels and other books of NT, after they were first written down.

If they can believe in those additions of unknown authors then what is the big deal or amazing thing in their belief in more than their Bible of 73 books when Coptics have more books in their Bible and Protestants have merely 66 books in their specific KJV Bible.?

 

[byoby]

I have read 1 Peter Chapter 2 and I see nothing of it that is contrary to the Catholic Church teachings.

You are all living stones, being built up into a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices…

Peter it seems is not the only stone. He may have been the first, but not the only. Would the Rock that Jesus is refering to be Peter’s Confession that Jesus is the Son of the Living God? Are not we all given the keys (access) to heaven if we believe as Peter did? That is the hope which is within me. I have a feeling you are about to squash my hope.

1 cor. 3:4 No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is already laid, which is Jesus Christ

1 cor. 3:4 For when one says “I am of Paul,” and another “I am of Appollos,” are you not carnal?

The Apostle Paul goes onto say that he and Appolos are nothing, but it is God who gives the increase. Do you think that the Apostle Peter would disagree with this statement? I believe that Peter was a leader in the early church but that is as far as I can go.

 

[milesawayman]

Hi everybody! I am new here. As a Catholic, let me post the following statements below;

the error of all Protestants (Sola Scriptura) believers make is in thinking that original Christianity was based upon the Bible. Not so. That idea was invented by Martin Luther in the 16th century. Protestants and many other denominations believe this man-made fiction.

The Catholic Church wrote what later would become the New Testament during the first Christian century. She (Catholic Church) selected and canonized the writings of the New Testament from among many writings that circulated among the local Churches during the first four centuries, canonized the writings of the OT she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles, and formed the Bible when she was nearly 400 years old. The Bible is a Catholic book.

The “biblical doctrine” (i.e., bible only) certainly didn’t have first priority for the first four Christian centuries when there was no Bible. The words that were to be eventually committed to writing and declared ‘Scripture’ were taught orally by the Apostles to the Church and through the Church to the world. Other teachings of Christ and the Apostles were equally the Word of God, but were not written down; they were transmitted orally through the Sacred Tradition of the Apostles.

Scripture tells us that we are to believe the Church – “the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth” 1 Tim 3:15 RSV.

Jesus didn’t leave us a Bible; He left us a Church and endowed it with all the Truth of His teaching and the Sacraments necessary for our salvation. He didn’t write, nor did He instruct any of His Apostles to write. The Church Jesus founded produced the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

milesawayman

---

**". . . the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this."(John Henry Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christine Doctrine, Image Books, 1960, p. 34).

“To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” (ibid, p. 35, John Henry Cardinal Newman, former Anglican clergyman and Catholic convert.**

 

[qui_est_ce]

Hi everybody! I am new here. As a Catholic, let me post the following statements below;

the error of all Protestants (Sola Scriptura) believers make is in thinking that original Christianity was based upon the Bible. Not so. That idea was invented by Martin Luther in the 16th century. Protestants and many other denominations believe this man-made fiction.

The Catholic Church wrote what later would become the New Testament during the first Christian century. She (Catholic Church) selected and canonized the writings of the New Testament from among many writings that circulated among the local Churches during the first four centuries, canonized the writings of the OT she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles, and formed the Bible when she was nearly 400 years old. The Bible is a Catholic book.

The “biblical doctrine” (i.e., bible only) certainly didn’t have first priority for the first four Christian centuries when there was no Bible. The words that were to be eventually committed to writing and declared ‘Scripture’ were taught orally by the Apostles to the Church and through the Church to the world. Other teachings of Christ and the Apostles were equally the Word of God, but were not written down; they were transmitted orally through the Sacred Tradition of the Apostles.

Scripture tells us that we are to believe the Church – “the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth” 1 Tim 3:15 RSV.

Jesus didn’t leave us a Bible; He left us a Church and endowed it with all the Truth of His teaching and the Sacraments necessary for our salvation. He didn’t write, nor did He instruct any of His Apostles to write. The Church Jesus founded produced the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

milesawayman

**". . . the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this."(John Henry Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christine Doctrine, Image Books, 1960, p. 34).

“To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” (ibid, p. 35, John Henry Cardinal Newman, former Anglican clergyman and Catholic convert.**

Welcome. You did a great job of summarizing all the relevant points. Keep coming back.

---

 

[guanophore]

You are all living stones, being built up into a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices…

Peter it seems is not the only stone. He may have been the first, but not the only. Would the Rock that Jesus is refering to be Peter’s Confession that Jesus is the Son of the Living God? Are not we all given the keys (access) to heaven if we believe as Peter did? That is the hope which is within me. I have a feeling you are about to squash my hope.

Peter is the Rock upon which Christ chose to build His Church. Yes, we are all living stones built in (to the extent that we are in union with Peter). Yes, the statement of faith made by Peter is also a Rock upon which our faith is based. Yes, Christ is also the Rock that has been made the head of the corner.

No, the keys that Jesus gave to Peter are the keys of the David Kingdom. It is not about access as much as about authority. We can benefit from the keys Jesus gave to the apostles for the purpose of access if we believe as Peter did. Let not your hopes be squashed, but neither let your hope be separated from the Apostles.

1 cor. 3:4 No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is already laid, which is Jesus Christ

1 cor. 3:4 For when one says “I am of Paul,” and another “I am of Appollos,” are you not carnal?

The Apostle Paul goes onto say that he and Appolos are nothing, but it is God who gives the increase. Do you think that the Apostle Peter would disagree with this statement? I believe that Peter was a leader in the early church but that is as far as I can go.

I am sure that Peter agrees that the foundation is Christ. He and the other Apostles were given the great gift of participation in that foundation. To the extent that we are in union with the Apostles, we also can be built in, like living stones.

 

[Orionthehunter]

They did rely on the traditions that were taught by Jesus and the Apostles now recorded for us in the Bible.

Analogy: I take a car to my daughter in college. She is instructed on how to use it for her benefit. I find out that she is using it to get groceries, go to her job, go see her boyfriend in another town, and to go to bars. I find out that she is doing all of these things and I write to her and say: Quit using it to go out of town to see your boyfriend and to bars. But I say nothing about using it to get groceries or go to her job. The obvious implication is that the first two uses are permitted and the last two are not permitted.

Similarly, the Apostles began saying the Mass before a single page of NT Scripture was written. Despite the fact that the Epistles are primarily admonishment for bad teaching, it is glaring that the Epistle letters never once said “don’t do the Mass, don’t believe what we SAID when we were there about the Real Presence, and ignore us because we really have no authority from Christ. Make it up all yourself.”

This my friend is the argument that non-Catholics make all the time. It is ludicrous.

But which scriptures were those, and who determined which books were part of that OT canon?

The point is that the list of what belongs in the Bible is no where to be found within it’s pages. Who decided which books belonged, and how?

No, because it was the Sacred Tradition that formed the Bible, and not all of the Apostolic Teaches are recorded there. One thing that is not recorded is which books should be contained in the canon.

No, this is too black and white. Sacred Tradition never contradicts the bible, but some of the Teachings are very difficult to discern, because the Bible does not contain all the teaching. They are not “extra-biblical” in the sense that they are “outside” of scripture, but they are not dependent upon the scripture for proof either.

The Bible is not the Guideline for all that we should believe and follow. It is a good guideline, but since it was written by, for, and about the Catholic Church, it’s contents can only best be understood from within the context of the Catholic Church.

From Singinginbeauty: How many times did Jesus or His disciples refer people back to the scriptures… 142 times.

The OP is a catch 22… ‘Where is the Bible in the Bible?’ It’s a silly question. The Bible IS Scripture and Scripture IS the Bible. You wouldn’t read the book ‘Little Women’ and expect the book to refer to itself. You don’t often read a self help book that refers to itself because obviously you know what you are reading. Why would the Scriptures refer to a book (the Bible) that hadn’t even been put together in the form we have today? Those in the time of Jesus would be walking around scratching their heads wondering what this ‘bible’ is. But they would never question what you were refering to when you say ‘scripture’. So since the Bible IS the Scriptures and the Scriptures are the Bible there is no difference but a title / name. You know the expression ‘A rose is a rose by any other name’? Scriptures, whether together in the book we call the Bible or separate as they were until they were compiled, are still the Scriptures. So would it be better to ask, where is that in Scriptures? Would that make more sense and be less confusing? Because we can do that… it would just be the same as asking, where is that in the Bible?

Good argument. So, since the Scripture grew out of the Mass, why would Scripture have to reference the Mass and Real Presence?

From Singinginbeauty: Don’t catholics claim that NO tradition they hold falls outside of Scripture??? So this would mean that all tradition can be put to the test against the Bible AND hold up, right? This claim is what protestants use when they ask, where is that in the Bible? So it is either one way or another. Either your traditions ARE in the Bible or they aren’t. Can’t have it both ways. So either you can say there are technically some EXTRA-biblical traditions OR the bible is the guideline for everything we believe and should follow hence, anything and everything we hold in tradition is followed in the Bible.

The Church, Tradition, written Scripture all flow out of Christ. They are all part of the whole. And in context, they all can be found together. Just read the Catechism and note how it relates back to Scripture, or an encyclical which refers back to Scripture, or tradition that refers back to Scripture. Similarly, Scripture refers to Tradition, the Church and Teaching.

 

[Mannyfit75]

You are all living stones, being built up into a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices…

Peter it seems is not the only stone. He may have been the first, but not the only. Would the Rock that Jesus is refering to be Peter’s Confession that Jesus is the Son of the Living God? Are not we all given the keys (access) to heaven if we believe as Peter did? That is the hope which is within me. I have a feeling you are about to squash my hope.

1 cor. 3:4 No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is already laid, which is Jesus Christ

1 cor. 3:4 For when one says “I am of Paul,” and another “I am of Appollos,” are you not carnal?

The Apostle Paul goes onto say that he and Appolos are nothing, but it is God who gives the increase. Do you think that the Apostle Peter would disagree with this statement? I believe that Peter was a leader in the early church but that is as far as I can go.

In this passage it is Jesus who is the foundation of the Churcfh. It is important to note that the context of the passage is intented for its leaders.

Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:13-20 is a different subject. In Matthew 16:13-20, Jesus himself tells Peter, that the Father in Heaven, that He (Jesus will build His Church upon Peter). It is in this passage that Peter is the Rock. Jesus himself build His Church and He is the Church for Jesus did say onto Saul, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”

Peter and the Apostles themselves are members of this Church since they are amongst the first. They are part of his mystical Body. Simon Peter is the Rock in Matthew. The context of the other passage is correct, because the passages mention pertains toe subject at hand.

In Matthew 16:16-18. Jesus is not the Rock. If it He was, His name would be Peter rather than Simon. The logical you try to spell out falls apart. You can’t make up and twist Scripture to find you own views.

The interpretation you have is contrary to what most Biblical Scholars agree.

 

[byoby]

In this passage it is Jesus who is the foundation of the Churcfh. It is important to note that the context of the passage is intented for its leaders.

Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:13-20 is a different subject. In Matthew 16:13-20, Jesus himself tells Peter, that the Father in Heaven, that He (Jesus will build His Church upon Peter). It is in this passage that Peter is the Rock. Jesus himself build His Church and He is the Church for Jesus did say onto Saul, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”

Peter and the Apostles themselves are members of this Church since they are amongst the first. They are part of his mystical Body. Simon Peter is the Rock in Matthew. The context of the other passage is correct, because the passages mention pertains toe subject at hand.

In Matthew 16:16-18. Jesus is not the Rock. If it He was, His name would be Peter rather than Simon. The logical you try to spell out falls apart. You can’t make up and twist Scripture to find you own views.

The interpretation you have is contrary to what most Biblical Scholars agree.

The fact that Jesus is the foundation of the church is not a revelation for a lay-person such as myself?

Are you saying that Christian lay-people are not members of the Body of Christ?

I am not trying to twist scripture to find my own view, just trying to form a view from the scriptures. I realize that some here will say I can not do that without the Catholic Church and that is what I am trying to figure out. If what the Catholic Church teaches is correct then it should most certainly hold up against my non-scholarly arguments and questions. You would have to agree that the Catholic Church has to rely on this interpretation to justify itself and the papacy so it should be easy to defend.

Why does it not say You are Peter and on You I will build my Church, or You are Peter and on Peter I will build my Church? Why do the English translations make a distinction between Peter and rock? Is this distinction not made in the original text? and if so why is it now made?

These are honest questions so please do not view my questions as an attack, just want to know how you get your view.

God Bless

 

[Mannyfit75]

The fact that Jesus is the foundation of the church is not a revelation for a lay-person such as myself?

Are you saying that Christian lay-people are not members of the Body of Christ?

They are members of the Mystical Body of Christ. I don’t deny that. I also believe the Church to be hiarchial.

I am not trying to twist scripture to find my own view, just trying to form a view from the scriptures. I realize that some here will say I can not do that without the Catholic Church and that is what I am trying to figure out. If what the Catholic Church teaches is correct then it should most certainly hold up against my non-scholarly arguments and questions. You would have to agree that the Catholic Church has to rely on this interpretation to justify itself and the papacy so it should be easy to defend.

Why does it not say You are Peter and on You I will build my Church, or You are Peter and on Peter I will build my Church? Why do the English translations make a distinction between Peter and rock? Is this distinction not made in the original text? and if so why is it now made?

Jesus actually spoke Aramaic. The word for Rock in** Aramaic **is Kepha.

If the passage was read in Aramaic it would be written like this.

“Blessed are you Simon, Son of Bar Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this, but My Father who is in heaven. I say to you are** kepha **and upon this kepha I will build my church.”

Matt. 16:17 to further demonstrate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, Jesus says Simon “Bar-Jona.” The use of “Bar-Jona” proves that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, “Bar” means son, and “Jonah” means John or dove (Holy Spirit). See Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34 which give another example of Jesus speaking Aramaic as He utters in rabbinical fashion the first verse of Psalm 22 declaring that He is the Christ, the Messiah. This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time.

Matt. 16:18 - also, in quoting “on this rock,” the Scriptures use the **Greek construction “tautee tee” **which means on “this” rock; on “this same” rock; or on “this very” rock. “**Tautee tee” is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence **(and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”

Matt. 16:18-19 - in addition, to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter’s leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter - you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom).

These are honest questions so please do not view my questions as an attack, just want to know how you get your view.

God Bless

These questions are fine. I just gave you one answer.

 

[guanophore]

Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:13-20 is a different subject. In Matthew 16:13-20, Jesus himself tells Peter, that the Father in Heaven, that He (Jesus will build His Church upon Peter). It is in this passage that Peter is the Rock. Jesus himself build His Church and He is the Church for Jesus did say onto Saul, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”

Peter and the Apostles themselves are members of this Church since they are amongst the first. They are part of his mystical Body. Simon Peter is the Rock in Matthew. The context of the other passage is correct, because the passages mention pertains toe subject at hand.

In Matthew 16:16-18. Jesus is not the Rock. If it He was, His name would be Peter rather than Simon. The logical you try to spell out falls apart. You can’t make up and twist Scripture to find you own views.

The interpretation you have is contrary to what most Biblical Scholars agree.

I agree with most of this. I agree with most of what you write! However, in this case, I would say that Jesus IS the Rock, and that, in this moment, Jesus grafted Peter into His rockness inseparably. Jesus knew this was right by the Divine Revelation that was given to Peter. Jesus built the Church upon His own identity as Messiah and Lord, the cornerstone. He built His Church upon Divine Revelation of the Truth as expressed by Peter, and He built His Church on Peter, whom He grafted into his “rockness”, making of Him the living stone.

 

[guanophore]

The fact that Jesus is the foundation of the church is not a revelation for a lay-person such as myself?

Who ever said lay persons could not lead?

Are you saying that Christian lay-people are not members of the Body of Christ?

I am confused about this. How did you get from a letter addressed to the leadership to this?

I am not trying to twist scripture to find my own view, just trying to form a view from the scriptures. I realize that some here will say I can not do that without the Catholic Church and that is what I am trying to figure out.

Oh, you can do it allright. Founders of heresies have been doing it for centuries. It is just not a recommended practice. Since the Church preceeded the scriptures, and the Church formed the canon, we know that nothing in the scripture contradicts the Apostolic Teaching.

If what the Catholic Church teaches is correct then it should most certainly hold up against my non-scholarly arguments and questions. You would have to agree that the Catholic Church has to rely on this interpretation to justify itself and the papacy so it should be easy to defend.

Indeed not, byoby. The Church’s teachings are not based on scripture. On the contrary, the Teachings are reflected in scripture. The scriptures teach us that the Church is also “God-breathed”

John 20:21-23
." 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Why does it not say You are Peter and on You I will build my Church, or You are Peter and on Peter I will build my Church?

I can’t say why the HS chose the words that were chosen. All I can tell you is that the early church understood that this was about Peter. If you don’t believe me, post this question over on the Eastern Forum. You will find that the Orthodox have no allegience to the successor of Peter in Rome, but that they, as recipients of the Apostolic Tradition, will tell you the same thing.

Why do the English translations make a distinction between Peter and rock? Is this distinction not made in the original text? and if so why is it now made?

Once you have learned about your family history, you will understand this. Do you know why the English broke away from the Apostolic Succession?

These are honest questions so please do not view my questions as an attack, just want to know how you get your view.

I had to ask the same ones myself, so I take no offense.

 

[byoby]

Indeed not, byoby. The Church’s teachings are not based on scripture. On the contrary, the Teachings are reflected in scripture. The scriptures teach us that the Church is also “God-breathed”

This is a significant statement. Are you sure?

 

[guanophore]

This is a significant statement. Are you sure?

Are you asking if I am sure that the Scriptures proceed from the Church, or if I am sure that the Church is God - breathed?

John 20:22-23
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Is Jesus God?
Did He breathe upon them?
Did He empower them?
Did He build His Church?

If not, then how do you read it?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Are you asking if I am sure that the Scriptures proceed from the Church, or if I am sure that the Church is God - breathed?

Is Jesus God?
Did He breathe upon them?
Did He empower them?
Did He build His Church?

If not, then how do you read it?

I listen to EWTN daily, although my commute is short. This morning was Life is Worth Living by Fulton Sheen. It was most interesting. He talked about Church Tradition being the New Testament. Jesus did not write anything, except for the instance of the woman accused of adultery. None of the Apostles did much writing for about 30 years after the death of Jesus. This is because God wanted us to focus on the PERSON. God wanted the Apostles to be living witnesses to Jesus. It was when these first-hand witnesses were starting to die, that writing the Gospels became necessary. Paul was not a living witness to Jesus, hence his writings are of prolific. This would explain the problem a lot of Protestants have with Peter, not Paul, being the first Pope (should there be a Pope, in their minds). When a person begins to write, we focus on the WRITINGS. Aristotle did not write, he taught. Plato wrote. We know much about the writings of Plato.

Unfortunately, I did not get to hear the whole segment.

 

[MariaG]

ok

1 cor. 4:6-7 “Do not go beyond what is written.”

So, if I were to take what you quote to mean what you seem to think it means, then Scripture contradicts itself since in other parts it clearly tells us to hold fast to the oral and the written.

Since I do not think scripture contradicts itself, neither can I believe that the phrase. “Do not go beyond what is written” means that the apostles wrote it all down now.

Unless you would care to expand on how your interpretation of that particular scripture and share how your interpretation does not in fact make scripture contradict itself, I’ll have to stick to the interpretation of the Catholic Church which makes all of scripture true.

here are some regarding tradition off the top of my head:

Mathew15:6
Col 2:8

So let’s look at these and put them in context.

Matthew 15:6

1Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said,
2 “Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.”
3] He answered them, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
4] For God commanded, Honor your father and your mother,' and, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.’
5] But you say, `If any one tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, he need not honor his father.’
6] So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God.
7] You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

---

Is Christ condemning tradition that other scripture tells us to hold fast to, tradition that is inspired by the Holy Spirit? Or is Christ condemning a man-made tradition that clearly contradicts the word of God?

Col 2:8
8]
See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.

---

We see here that the distinction is clearly made. Man Made tradition is being condemned.

But again, since other scripture tells us to hold fast to tradition, clearly there are more than just man-made traditions.

And in the Catholic Church, we believe we are holding onto God-breathed Tradtion, and not man-made.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[agangbern]

Originally Posted by byoby View Post
ok

1 cor. 4:6-7 “Do not go beyond what is written.”
So, if I were to take what you quote to mean what you seem to think it means, then Scripture contradicts itself since in other parts it clearly tells us to hold fast to the oral and the written.

Since I do not think scripture contradicts itself, neither can I believe that the phrase. “Do not go beyond what is written” means that the apostles wrote it all down now.

In the Douay Version that I have, 1Cor 4:6 read thus: “Now, brethren, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos by way of illustration for your sakes, that in our case you may learn not to be puffed up one against the other over a third party, transgressing what is written.”
So, if we have to put them together, the point would be that we are not to violate anything that has been written. It does not mean that the Church should not teach anything that does not appear in the bible, otherwise, the Church would become a slave of the bible.

 

[agangbern]

Why does it not say You are Peter and on You I will build my Church, or You are Peter and on Peter I will build my Church? Why do the English translations make a distinction between Peter and rock? Is this distinction not made in the original text? and if so why is it now made?

These are honest questions so please do not view my questions as an attack, just want to know how you get your view.

God Bless

They really appear honest questions!
Let us quote again Mathew 16:18: “And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Jesus here was talking to a man named Simon, but whose name He changed to Peter saying, “Thou are Simon, the son of John; thou shalt be called Cephas (which interpreted is Peter)”. It is said that in Aramaic Cephas means “rock”, in Greek “Petros”.
Now, to the question: “Why do the translators make a distinction between Peter and rock?” How I wish those translators or their representative are still alive so that they could answer this by themselves. But even without them, is the answer not obvious? In that sentence in Mathew 16:18, is there really no distinction between the two? When Jesus said, “thou art Peter”, “Peter” was both a personal name and an adjective. But when he said “upon this rock” , “rock” was purely a noun. To use the same word in the two phrases would not so much express that distinction and in fact would even be grammatically awkward.

Peter is the place where the Church was built. The name would answer the question: Where is the Church of Christ built? When that Church was built, Jesus was made the corner-stone. Certainly, every construction engineer knows that the place where a building is to be built is distinct and different from the corner-stone of that building. While the corner-stone Jesus Christ is, of course, a rock, the place, Peter, where the Church was built is also a rock, for Christ made him so.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I agree with most of this. I agree with most of what you write! However, in this case, I would say that Jesus IS the Rock, and that, in this moment, Jesus grafted Peter into His rockness inseparably. Jesus knew this was right by the Divine Revelation that was given to Peter. Jesus built the Church upon His own identity as Messiah and Lord, the cornerstone. He built His Church upon Divine Revelation of the Truth as expressed by Peter, and He built His Church on Peter, whom He grafted into his “rockness”, making of Him the living stone.

I have no disagreement with that. Fr. John Corapi said, “Jesus grifted Peter into himself.” Peter being the Rock in the passage of Matthew 16:18 is does address Simon Peter as the Rock to be build by Jesus Christ.

 

[byoby]

In the Douay Version that I have, 1Cor 4:6 read thus: “Now, brethren, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos by way of illustration for your sakes, that in our case you may learn not to be puffed up one against the other over a third party, transgressing what is written.”
So, if we have to put them together, the point would be that we are not to violate anything that has been written. It does not mean that the Church should not teach anything that does not appear in the bible, otherwise, the Church would become a slave of the bible.

Is there anything wrong with being a slave of the Bible (Inspired Word of God)? We are all slaves to whomever or whatever has mastered us and in my case I hope and pray it is God. It seems to me that if we all became slaves of the Bible then there would not be so much division today in the Body of Christ. I believe Pauls advice is just as timely today as it was then.

Jesus is the Word of God. John 1:1

 

[guanophore]

ok

1 cor. 4:6-7 “Do not go beyond what is written.”

here are some regarding tradition off the top of my head:

You are taking this quote out of context.

" I have applied all this to myself and Apol’los for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another." 1 Cor 4:6

Paul has written a long treatise about jealousy, posessiveness, and against factions. He is not saying that sacred tradition should be rejected, but is using himself and Apollos as examples.