Protestants: Where is the Bible in the Bible?

[byoby]

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.

I found a passage in the book of Revelations concerning the new Jerusulem coming out of heaven. It states that the Foundation is 12 layered with the names of the 12 Apostles on each. I can now see how Jesus would say that Peter is part of that foundation. My question now is who succeded Peter and did this successor have more authority then any other living Apostles at the time(If there were any)? I do not know the sequence of which these men died.

Where are we promised in scripture Apostolic Succesion? Who is the 12th Apostle named on the foundation since Judas Isc. obviously did not make the cut? Mathias who was appointed by Peter and other Apostles in Acts or Paul who was appointed by Jesus?

Sorry for my many questions.

 

[guanophore]

Is there anything wrong with being a slave of the Bible (Inspired Word of God)?

Yes. This is a form of idolatry. The Bible is a book, a collection of books (library) in which the real Word has expressed Himself.

“You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.” John 5:38-41

The purpose of the scripture is to lead the reader to the Living Word.

" Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these **are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, **the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name." John 20:30-31

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.

you have an error in logic, byoby. The Bible is not a teacher. Jesus is our Teacher, and those authorities that He appointed. this is why the Jews still read the same scriptures that Jesus did, and do not find Him.

However, I agree with you, that if you are devoted to the Bible, then you can find your way to Christ. Be aware, that Christ is not separate from His Church.

Jesus is the Word of God. John 1:1

Knowing this, find Him in those whom He appointed to be the custodians of His word, the Apostles.

 

[agangbern]

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

It is completely wrong to be a slave of the bible. For the bible is not even a person. How can man, a rational being, be a slave of a non-person? He can be slave of God, yes! But never of a book. Jesus is the Word of God, no question about that. The bible teaches us where life is; it teaches us that life is in Jesus, not in the bible itself. To Him we should be “slaves”, not to the bible.

 

[byoby]

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.

Earlier in this passage he is also addressing the problem that we are dealing with today as for the claims that some try to brag because of who they are following (Paul, Cephas-Peter, Appolos, or Christ). These very arguments are still causing factions and posessiveness.

Are you saying that not going beyond what is written to avoid disputes is not applicable today?

 

[byoby]

It is completely wrong to be a slave of the bible. For the bible is not even a person. How can man, a rational being, be a slave of a non-person? He can be slave of God, yes! But never of a book. Jesus is the Word of God, no question about that. The bible teaches us where life is; it teaches us that life is in Jesus, not in the bible itself. To Him we should be “slaves”, not to the bible.

Are you suggesting that me or anyone else worships the pages, ink, binding, or cover of our Bible? I appologize in advance if this question is taken as an offense to your intellect but your above response begs the question.

 

[guanophore]

I now see how Jesus would say that Peter is part of that foundation. My question now is who succeded Peter and did this successor have more authority then any other living Apostles at the time(If there were any)? I do not know the sequence of which these men died.

This is a mischaracterization of the unity of Apostolic Authority. All the Apostles understood the necessity of unity.

Where are we promised in scripture Apostolic Succesion?

Matthew 16:18
“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”

Jesus did not say “churches”; he said, “church” – singular. We also see in this passage that the Church will never be defeated by Satan.

Matthew 28:18-19
“Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’”

John 14:16-17
"And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.”

ACTs 14:23
Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.

Acts 20:28
Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

1 Corinthians 12:27-31
And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets?

Ephesians 2:19-21
Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

Ephesians 4:11-13
It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

1 Timothy 3:1-13
Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.

“Overseer” was traditionally understood to mean “bishop”.

1 Timothy 4:13-14
Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching. Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you.

1 Timothy 5:17-22
The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.

2 Timothy 2:1-2

You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

There are five generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1. Those who came before Paul and instructed him, 2. Paul himself, 3. Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 4. Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 5. Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach.

The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you."Titus 1:5

Apostolic Succession is illustrated here as Paul had appointed Titus and left him in charge of appointing elders in the Cretan church.

Sorry for my many questions.

Not to be sorry! You are why we are all here!

 

[guanophore]

Earlier in this passage he is also addressing the problem that we are dealing with today as for the claims that some try to brag because of who they are following (Paul, Cephas-Peter, Appolos, or Christ). These very arguments are still causing factions and posessiveness.

Are you saying that not going beyond what is written to avoid disputes is not applicable today?

No, it is certainly most applicable in a timeless manner, as is all scripture. However, no one is “trying to brag” about which faction to which they belong. Those who are “in Christ” are those who are under the Apostolic Authority that He appointed. He founded a Church. Not “churches”, but ONE church. He built it upon ONE rock. All who are part of that building are grafted into that Rock.

 

[agangbern]

My question now is who succeded Peter and did this successor have more authority then any other living Apostles at the time(If there were any)? I do not know the sequence of which these men died.

I hope this would create the link. I simply have not yet learned how to make links:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: List of Popes
The successor naturally do not inherit a power greater than that of the person he succeeds. This is a very obvious fact.

Where are we promised in scripture Apostolic Succesion?

Apostolic Succession is a teaching of the Holy Spirit to the Church, who, according to 1 Tim 3:15 is the pillar and mainstay of the truth. Jesus guaranteed the teaching power of the Holy Spirit, saying: "Many things yet I have to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will teach you all the truth. For he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he will hear he will speak, and the things that are to come he will declare to you." (John 16:12-13)

Who is the 12th Apostle named on the foundation since Judas Isc. obviously did not make the cut? Mathias who was appointed by Peter and other Apostles in Acts or Paul who was appointed by Jesus?

You have read the answer in Acts 1:24-26, yet you seem to doubt it. It is already your problem if you still do not believe in what you have read.

 

[byoby]

“You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.” John 5:38-41.

The purpose of the scripture is to lead the reader to the Living Word…

I believe your statement entirely. I think the point in this passage is that if they truly new and understood the scriptures they would recognize that the Christ was among them, but they did not. I underlined the key phrase in this passage.

" Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these **are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, **the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name." John 20:30-31.

Again I think this passage reinforces my view. I underlined the key phrase here as well.

you have an error in logic, byoby. The Bible is not a teacher. Jesus is our Teacher, and those authorities that He appointed. this is why the Jews still read the same scriptures that Jesus did, and do not find Him…

I will explain my logic. The Bible is a collection of the Holy Spirit, Son, and the Father’s Word written down for us through the Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles of His choosing. I agree and fully recognize that the Holy Spirit is our teacher.

However, I agree with you, that if you are devoted to the Bible, then you can find your way to Christ. Be aware, that Christ is not separate from His Church…

I agree completely

Knowing this, find Him in those whom He appointed to be the custodians of His word, the Apostles.

I only know what I know about Him from the writings of the Apostles who were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[byoby]

I hope this would create the link. I simply have not yet learned how to make links:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: List of Popes
The successor naturally do not inherit a power greater than that of the person he succeeds. This is a very obvious fact.

I will look at the site you have recommended. Does the Successor succeed all of the Apostles or only Peter?

Apostolic Succession is a teaching of the Holy Spirit to the Church, who, according to 1 Tim 3:15 is the pillar and mainstay of the truth. Jesus guaranteed the teaching power of the Holy Spirit, saying: "Many things yet I have to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will teach you all the truth. For he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he will hear he will speak, and the things that are to come he will declare to you." (John 16:12-13)

I think that all New Testament Books were written after the time of Pentecost, therefore they could and I believe do contain all Truth for Salvation and doctrine.

You have read the answer in Acts 1:24-26, yet you seem to doubt it. It is already your problem if you still do not believe in what you have read.

My question is this: Who is the 12th Apostle named in the foundation of the new Jeruselum?
Paul or Mathias?

 

[po18guy]

I personally know a devout Orthodox Christian who experienced a vision or a glimpse if you will that would disagree with you vehimately.

That is known as a “private revelation”. It has value ONLY for that individual, to lead them to the truth. To apply it to anyone else, or as a teaching, is to mislead.

 

[po18guy]

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

You can be a slave to man, or a slave to sin, but the Lord frees you. If you are a slave to the bible, your faith appears disordered.

 

[byoby]

You can be a slave to man, or a slave to sin, but the Lord frees you. If you are a slave to the bible, your faith appears disordered.

It is disordered to submit to my Master who is God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)?

 

[po18guy]

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

Christ is the stone the builders rejected-Who became the cornerstone. Peter was the Cepha. Christ said so. The others deferred to him. He is in scripture 195 times. The next is John at 29 times.

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

We ARE the body of Christ. Stop baiting.

I am not trying to twist scripture (HA!) 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.

You have no interest in the “papacy” except to bash it. All the while you run to your pope (pastor) and receive your interpretation from him or her. And what authority does he/she have to interpret scripture, and who gave it to him/her?

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?

The KJV has over 2,600 translation errors, that’s why.

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

Our view goes back 1,974 years. How far back does your view go?

Excuse me, but you use several common anti-Catholic buzz words in your questions that might just indicate your true position. From the verbiage and tenor of your posts it appears that your are certainly NOT searching. If you really want to know the teaching of the Catholic Church, get a catechism and read it.

 

[byoby]

Christ is the stone the builders rejected-Who became the cornerstone. Peter was the Cepha. Christ said so. The others deferred to him. He is in scripture 195 times. The next is John at 29 times.

We ARE the body of Christ. Stop baiting.

You have no interest in the “papacy” except to bash it. All the while you run to your pope (pastor) and receive your interpretation from him or her. And what authority does he/she have to interpret scripture, and who gave it to him/her?

The KJV has over 2,600 translation errors, that’s why.

Our view goes back 1,974 years. How far back does your view go?

Excuse me, but you use several common anti-Catholic buzz words in your questions that might just indicate your true position. From the verbiage and tenor of your posts it appears that your are certainly NOT searching. If you really want to know the teaching of the Catholic Church, get a catechism and read it.

It is just quite baffling to me that I find myself trying to defend the Word of God written down in the bible on a Christian site to show the way I believe. It seems that the arguments against my point have to debase the Bible by saying that its revelations are incomplete or full of errors. I am not a Catholic and some of my questions do question Tradition. Honestly at this point in my life I would much rather be defending the Bible over Tradition. If I can be shown otherwise then I must change.

If the Bible has errors as you claim then is it possible that Catholic Traditions might have errors as well?

What authority do I have to interpret the Catechism?

I am searching only for the reason that the Catholic Church makes the claim of being the True Church and if this is true I do not want to be left out. I believe I have legitimate questions and I want to see what you (Catholics) believe and hold to be true.

Also the question in this thread is addressed to “Protestants”.

 

[byoby]

I cannot speak for anyone else so I will say my view goes back about 15 years, when I decided to believe what I was reading about Jesus.

 

[BrianH]

The KJV has over 2,600 translation errors, that’s why.

Based upon…
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus? And how many times do they disagree with one another?

 

[po18guy]

It is disordered to submit to my Master who is God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)?

It appears you unintentionally transposed the first two words in your post. My reply considers that. Answer: No. But, the bible, for all it’s inspiration, is a BOOK. We don’t worship a mere book. We have more than just a book. We have more than the Cliffs Notes version of the life of Christ. The bible itself says it is incomplete (John 21:25). Where’s the rest? The tradition that Paul admonished us to hold fast to. Tradition and scripture-the left and right hands of faith. If you lack one or the other, you have only 50% of Christianity.

Christ’s peace be with you.

 

[byoby]

No, it is certainly most applicable in a timeless manner, as is all scripture. However, no one is “trying to brag” about which faction to which they belong. Those who are “in Christ” are those who are under the Apostolic Authority that He appointed. He founded a Church. Not “churches”, but ONE church. He built it upon ONE rock. All who are part of that building are grafted into that Rock.

So all are under Peter?

 

[byoby]

It appears you unintentionally transposed the first two words in your post. My reply considers that. Answer: No. But, the bible, for all it’s inspiration, is a BOOK. We don’t worship a mere book. We have more than just a book. We have more than the Cliffs Notes version of the life of Christ. The bible itself says it is incomplete (John 21:25). Where’s the rest? The tradition that Paul admonished us to hold fast to. Tradition and scripture-the left and right hands of faith. If you lack one or the other, you have only 50% of Christianity.

Christ’s peace be with you.

I do not worship a book either, but the one its words point to. If the Bible contains the Word of God, and Jesus is the Living Word then hopefully you can see what I mean.

I do not believe that your use of John 21:25 can be used to make your point. It does nat say that the Bible is incomplete, only that Jesus did many other things. I understand this to be other works of miracles and such, not every single example of Christ displaying his Divinity is recorded in this Gospel. The ones described are enough for John to make his point. Does the Catholic Church have records of these many other things?

I guess the real question here is can this 50% that you speak of contained in the Bible be enough for Salvation? If so then why practice the traditions?

I have more than a book as well, I believe that I have Christ interceeding for me to the Father, my local Church, the teachings of the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles and the Holy Spirit as promised by God in the Bible. Do I need more?