G
guanophore
Guest
Inquire as to if, perhaps, they are offering to share their source of it with you?
seriously, such personal questions are against the forum rules.
SPLIT: What did Christ teach that wasn't written,and if it wasn't written how can you be sure He taught it?
- Status
seriously, such personal questions are against the forum rules.
N
n2thelight
Guest
John 2:18-21
18 Then the Jews demanded of him, “What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”
19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
20 The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?”
21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body.
I include the above Scripture passage to illustrate an interesting point: Jesus said “Destroy THIS temple”. The Jews thought He was refering to the Jewish temple, but instead, Jesus was using a play on words. Now, compare these two verses:
John 2:19
Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Compare the phrases “this temple” and “this rock”. We know that the first phrase was a play on words…Jesus used the opportunity to compare Himself to the Jewish temple, but the Scripture clearly teaches that “the temple he had spoken of was his body.” (verse 21). Now the question is this: If the Bible did not include verse 21, would you understand “this temple” to mean Jesus’ body, and not the Jewish temple? Of course you would! And this example of play on words uses the same general structure as Matthew 16:18. Allow me to break it down:
Object of comparison: Peter. Phrase used: “this rock”.
Object of comparison: Temple. Phrase used: “this temple”.
Now, we know in the John passage that Jesus did not mean the Jewish temple when He said “this temple”, so why should we insist that He means Peter when He says “this rock”? The answer is that we should not understand the Matthew passage to be any less a play on words than the John passage. Allow us to delve deeper, shall we?
Matthew 16:16-19
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
The Catholic church insists that the “rock” that Jesus refers to is Simon Peter, who they say was the first pope. They claim that when Christ gave Peter the “keys to the kingdom”, He was giving him authority and leadership over the Church. My position is that the Catholic interpretation of this verse is a wrong interpretation.
Though not considered by many to be a valid arguement, due to the fact that Christ spoke in Aramaic, the examination of the Greek reveals this:
The “rock” which Christ refers to is what Peter said, namely, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This truth is the basis of all Christianity. Furthermore, Christ calls Peter by name because the name Peter, in Greek (petros), means “a small rock cleaved from a larger rock”. The word for “rock” in Greek is “petra”. Peter is a smaller rock that comes from the larger rock, which is Christ. Critics argue that the Greek has two words for rock (Petra and Petros), but that the Aramaic has only one word for rock, and hence, this interpretation is not valid. So, the Greek reveals this word play but the word play is not based on the Greek. But having only one word only strengthens the effect of the word play. But regardless of the language used, there are other reasons for believing that this interpretation (that Christ is the Rock, and that Peter, and likewise all Christians holding the faith of Peter, are “smaller” rocks cleaved from the lager Rock, which is Christ).
First, notice the fact that Christ say, “YOU are Peter, and on THIS rock I will build my church.” This denotes a “shift” of some sort. As I have shown by citing John, Christ has indeed used a play on words using the word “this”, so to automatically rule out the notion that Christ is using a play on words in the Matthew passage would be to ingore the fact that it is used elsewhere by Christ Himself!
Does the Bible say anything more about “the rock”? Yes it does. Fortunately, we have the inspired writings of Peter himself from which to draw. Does Peter shed any light on the subject of the “rock”? Yes he does, and plenty of it:
1 Peter 2:4-8
4 As you come to him, the living Stone–rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him–
5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
6 For in Scripture it says:
“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.”
7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
"The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone, "
8 and,
“A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.”
It is clear that Peter himself regards Christ to be the “rock”, and himself to be a stone among other stones. Stones are merely any Christian…just like the early Church fathers say!
1 Peter 5:1-4
1 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed:
2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers–not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve;
3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.
4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.
To quote John DeVito, “Seems that Peter didn’t make such a distinction, and in fact admonished church leaders not to claim the lordship over the church [verse 3], and to be an example with their personal lives.”
The Apostle Paul comments further on this topic, leaving no room for the notion that Peter is the rock:
1 Corinthians 10:3-4
3 …They all ate the same spiritual food
4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
Ephesians 2:19-20
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household,
20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
1 Corinthians 3:11
No one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
Christ is the head, the foundation, and the Rock. One must completely alter, ignore, or misinterpret the Bible and history in order to come to the conclusion that the modern Roman Catholic teaching of papal primacy is Christian.
geocities.com/apologeticsrepo/Roman_Catholicism/4Catholic.html
18 Then the Jews demanded of him, “What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”
19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
20 The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?”
21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body.
I include the above Scripture passage to illustrate an interesting point: Jesus said “Destroy THIS temple”. The Jews thought He was refering to the Jewish temple, but instead, Jesus was using a play on words. Now, compare these two verses:
John 2:19
Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Compare the phrases “this temple” and “this rock”. We know that the first phrase was a play on words…Jesus used the opportunity to compare Himself to the Jewish temple, but the Scripture clearly teaches that “the temple he had spoken of was his body.” (verse 21). Now the question is this: If the Bible did not include verse 21, would you understand “this temple” to mean Jesus’ body, and not the Jewish temple? Of course you would! And this example of play on words uses the same general structure as Matthew 16:18. Allow me to break it down:
Object of comparison: Peter. Phrase used: “this rock”.
Object of comparison: Temple. Phrase used: “this temple”.
Now, we know in the John passage that Jesus did not mean the Jewish temple when He said “this temple”, so why should we insist that He means Peter when He says “this rock”? The answer is that we should not understand the Matthew passage to be any less a play on words than the John passage. Allow us to delve deeper, shall we?
Matthew 16:16-19
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
The Catholic church insists that the “rock” that Jesus refers to is Simon Peter, who they say was the first pope. They claim that when Christ gave Peter the “keys to the kingdom”, He was giving him authority and leadership over the Church. My position is that the Catholic interpretation of this verse is a wrong interpretation.
Though not considered by many to be a valid arguement, due to the fact that Christ spoke in Aramaic, the examination of the Greek reveals this:
The “rock” which Christ refers to is what Peter said, namely, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This truth is the basis of all Christianity. Furthermore, Christ calls Peter by name because the name Peter, in Greek (petros), means “a small rock cleaved from a larger rock”. The word for “rock” in Greek is “petra”. Peter is a smaller rock that comes from the larger rock, which is Christ. Critics argue that the Greek has two words for rock (Petra and Petros), but that the Aramaic has only one word for rock, and hence, this interpretation is not valid. So, the Greek reveals this word play but the word play is not based on the Greek. But having only one word only strengthens the effect of the word play. But regardless of the language used, there are other reasons for believing that this interpretation (that Christ is the Rock, and that Peter, and likewise all Christians holding the faith of Peter, are “smaller” rocks cleaved from the lager Rock, which is Christ).
First, notice the fact that Christ say, “YOU are Peter, and on THIS rock I will build my church.” This denotes a “shift” of some sort. As I have shown by citing John, Christ has indeed used a play on words using the word “this”, so to automatically rule out the notion that Christ is using a play on words in the Matthew passage would be to ingore the fact that it is used elsewhere by Christ Himself!
Does the Bible say anything more about “the rock”? Yes it does. Fortunately, we have the inspired writings of Peter himself from which to draw. Does Peter shed any light on the subject of the “rock”? Yes he does, and plenty of it:
1 Peter 2:4-8
4 As you come to him, the living Stone–rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him–
5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
6 For in Scripture it says:
“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.”
7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
"The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone, "
8 and,
“A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.”
It is clear that Peter himself regards Christ to be the “rock”, and himself to be a stone among other stones. Stones are merely any Christian…just like the early Church fathers say!
1 Peter 5:1-4
1 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed:
2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers–not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve;
3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.
4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.
To quote John DeVito, “Seems that Peter didn’t make such a distinction, and in fact admonished church leaders not to claim the lordship over the church [verse 3], and to be an example with their personal lives.”
The Apostle Paul comments further on this topic, leaving no room for the notion that Peter is the rock:
1 Corinthians 10:3-4
3 …They all ate the same spiritual food
4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
Ephesians 2:19-20
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household,
20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
1 Corinthians 3:11
No one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
Christ is the head, the foundation, and the Rock. One must completely alter, ignore, or misinterpret the Bible and history in order to come to the conclusion that the modern Roman Catholic teaching of papal primacy is Christian.
geocities.com/apologeticsrepo/Roman_Catholicism/4Catholic.html
N
NotWorthy
Guest
There’s one small problem with this scholarship. It’s wrong. Nowhere does Jesus precede “Destroy this Temple” with “Do you see THAT Temple”. The Jewish Temple was never mentioned, so "Destroy THIS Temple" could mean “the Temple which is Jesus” or the easily mistaken context “Destroy the Jewish Temple”. *This *simply had no article to point to.
But in Matthew, *This *has an article that, according to Greek Grammar rules, it MUST point to, which is “You are Rock”.
You’re trying to fit a square peg into a round hole in order to justify a pre-conceived theory that “Peter can not be the Rock that the Church of Jesus Christ was built on”.
To further disprove your “putting the cart before the horse” theory, the Sacred Author in John’s Gospel felt the need to explain what “This” pointed to. The Sacred Author of Matthew did not have to do this.
po18guy
Well-known member
I omitted all of your scripture citations, because they are uniformly misinterpreted (by you) out of context, and used with premeditated anger against Christ’s church. I will not allow such abuse of sacred scripture.
We have all of this scripture, and more. Plus, we have the teaching authority of the church to avoid warping and twisting it. You do not. I don’t get your point, except that you are incapable, in your present spiritual condition, of understanding theology that is more than paper thin. It appears (only appears) that you assume to be wiser, more educated, more profoundly spiritual, more enlightened, and more guided by the Holy Spirit than each and every theologian and biblical scholar over the past 2,000 years?!?
Wow! is all I can say. Your Evangelical/Fundamentalist background has unwittingly set you in direct opposition to the church Christ founded. What is your authority for such proclamations? The same as ours, which is, none.
I much admire your fire and apparent dedication, but you spend 50% of your time being anti-Catholic and 50% loving Christ. Catholics love Christ 100% of the time, and pray for all others, including you.
We are a faith of denial of the self, of taking up our cross daily, and of following Christ through those souls He left in charge. All the best on your faith journey, as I pray that you are enlightened by the Holy Spirit to the fulness of truth.
L
LittleDeb
Guest
I was just about to say this, but you beat me to it. And you said it so well!
And to further expand: the theory put forth by n2thelight is actually a strength of the Church’s position. The play on words is there. It is just exactly opposite of what his source suggests.
Jesus names Himself ‘Temple’ in the play on words in John. * Jesus names Simon* ‘Rock’ in the play on words in Matthew. One thing I have learned from years of reading Scripture through the clears eyes of the Church is the significance of name changes. A wise Catholic Scripture Scholar taught me a profound lesson: Whenever you see a name change in Scripture, take note. Something big is about to happen!
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Why, thank you!I was just about to say this, but you beat me to it. And you said it so well!
Yeah, this is a funny interpretation of In2thelight’s.
to paraphrase Jesus’ words according to this interpretation: “Blessed are you, Simon BarJonah… You are Rock. But enough about you, let’s talk about Me”.
G
guanophore
Guest
I see two peculiarities with your interpretation. One is that Jesus gave Peter a new name “Rock”, then referred to “this rock”. Personally, I agree that Jesus is THE rock, and in that moment, He grafted Peter into his own “rock-ness”, and that Peter’s confession is also a solid rock upon which we can stand.
The second is that you will have to explain why all the Apostles misunderstood Jesus, and the whole generations after them whose writings attest to the Catholic interpretation. Even the Orthodox, who have no affection for the Roman Papacy understand Jesus’ words this way. How did all these people, especially those closest to the Apostles, misunderstand?
Actuallly, this cannot be discerned by the Gk, which is why we have so much dispute on this matter. The text is ambiguous.
Personally, I think this arguement has plenty of validity. I don’t think any of us can be part of Christ’s building unless he grafts us into it. It is not our doing, but His. For reasons of His own, Jesus chose Peter for a special role in His building. It is part and parcel of Peter’s identity in Christ, and cannot be separated from it.
I agree with this too. So, why is it so important to take away from Peter what Christ gave to him?
Only in the mind of anti-Catholics, I think.
The Fathers also have plenty to say about Peter being a rock. There is no need to separate the Rock that is Christ, from Peter, or either of them from the rocky statement made by Peter.
It is a Western imposition that the papacy somehow wields “lordship” over others. He is the servant of God’s servants.
No, Paul’s exegisis that Christ is the Rock takes nothing away from the Rockness that He gave to Peter. In fact, Paul refers to Peter by the name Christ gave him, using the Aramaic “Cephas”. If Paul left 'no room" for the notion that Peter is the Rock, why use that name?
Paul knows that Peters rock-ness does not in any way subtract or replace Christ’s.
Do you somehow imagine that all of us being stones of Christ’s building takes away from His rock-ness?
Please compare this to the verse you have above. If the only foundation is Christ, then how can the foundation also be the apostles and prophets?
It is very Catholic of you to say that!
It is clear that you have a very limited experience of your own Christian family history. It is alco clear that you have a limited understanding of the structure Christ set up for His Church.
And, you are still left with the problem that the teaching is not “Roman”, but is shared not only by the other 22 non-Roman Rites of the Catholic Church, but also everyone who has received Apostolic Teaching. Even those who are not currentlly in union with the bishop of Rome recognize the primacy of Peter, and his successors.
J
JesuXPIPassio
Guest
That’s a good observation. Furthermore, those two weren’t even the same Johns. Scholars tell us they were two completely different men who had the same name (it was common; the Baptist was named John, an Apostle was named John, “Jonah” who got trapped in a whale was a John, the father of Peter and Andrew was named John).
N
n2thelight
Guest
Matthew 23:9 “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”
So why do you all call the pope father in direct opposition to this verse?
Peter was not a pope,he would not had been called father
So why do you all call the pope father in direct opposition to this verse?
Peter was not a pope,he would not had been called father
L
LittleDeb
Guest
My other favorite part about that interpretation is the gestures that are projected onto Scripture. It’s like something out of a bad play.
Jesus: “You are Rock.” (gesture to Simon) “And on This Rock,” (gesture to self) “I will build my Church.”
I have read Scripture a lot. Somehow, even as an actress, I missed those stage directions.
L
LittleDeb
Guest
You are grasping at straws. You are trotting out yet another tired one. Again, you seem to be unfamiliar with Scripture AND history.
St. Paul calls *himself *Father to his community. Check your Bible again.
Throughout history most clergy (regardless of sect within Christianity) has been referred to as Father. In the early US many stopped using the term to distinguish themselves from Catholics. This complaint is another relatively new one from the very young Fundamentalist movement.
n2thelight: every one of your whoppers is refuted in a book that so many of us have read. It is an awesome book called Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians.” The author’s name might be familiar. It is Karl Keating.
Yeah, that Karl Keating, life-long Catholic, and president of Catholic Answers, host of the very forums you are visiting.
F
flyersfan1088
Guest
Whoah! New direction. I guess the old one wasn’t working the way you hoped it would. Good luck with this one.
G
Gamera
Guest
Like St. Paul did? “… For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the Gospel.” 1 Cor 4:15.
That is the sense in which Catholics call all priests (not just the pope) “father.”
J
JLongoria
Guest
Whoa! New direction indeed! Well, let’s see, N2. What do you call your father? Is that not the proper term for the male person whom donated his genetic material to your person?
You’ve misinterpreted Scripture here in a very simple way, my friend.
Let’s look at what’s really going on here:
As for you, do not be called ‘Rabbi.’ You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers. Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven. Do not be called ‘Master’; you have but one master, the Messiah.
Matthew 23:8-10
First, Jesus was addressing His disciples; that’s something that should be understood here. This lecture seems to indicate, quite literally, “do not use the title of Rabbi for yourself.”
Jesus goes on to say how hypocritical the Pharisees were in their pride after this, and to me, it seems better to say that Jesus was admonishing them to not boast as they did! He did not forbid the word “father” from being used, but He admonished them not to use the term as a symbol of boastful pride.
What does St. Paul say in I Corinthians?
I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For **I became your father in Christ Jesus **through the gospel.
I Corinthians 4:14-15
I suggest you actually take a time to look around the website we are presently on. You know what? Here is the link for you.
Good grief, man! You’re not the first non-Catholic to bring these arguments against us; keep them coming if you like. The Holy Spirit in Christ’s Church always has an answer!
G
guanophore
Guest
Catholics, who were called fathers, wrote this verse. There is nothing in this verse that contradicts Catholic faith and practice.
Here is a good link in response to your question.
N
n2thelight
Guest
Think this will be my final post on this subject,do know that I did’nt come here to disrespect you all in any way and I hope that I hav’nt,but merely to share my views as to why I feel you all are in error with your teachings.
Nowhere in Scripture is the “teaching Magisterium” or mastery of bishops taught and treated as of equal weight with Scripture. What history has shown is that when any other source of authority is treated as being of equal weight with Scripture, that second authority always ends up superseding Scripture (such is the case with the Mormons’ other accepted writings and the Jehovah Witnesses’ Watchtower). So, it is with the Roman Catholic Church. Repeatedly Catholic Catechisms state that many of their doctrines are not found or based in Scripture (Mary being Co-redemptress and Co-mediator, sinless, conceived without sin; her ascension; praying to saints and venerating them and images of them; etc.). For Roman Catholics, it is the “mother Church” that is the final authority, not Scripture, no matter that they say that the Magisterium is the “servant of Scripture.” Again, the Bible teaches that it is Scripture that is to be used as measuring stick to determine truth from error. In Galatians 1:8-9, Paul states that it is not WHO teaches but WHAT is being taught that is to be used to determine truth from error. And while the Roman Catholic Church continues to pronounce a curse to hell upon those who would reject the authority of the Pope, Scripture reserves that curse for those who would teach a different gospel than what had already been given and recorded in the New Testament (Galatians 1:8-9).
While the Roman Catholic Church sees apostolic succession and the infallible magisterium of the church as logically necessary in order for God to unerringly guide the Church, Scripture states that God has provided for His church through:
(a) infallible Scripture, (Acts 20:32; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; Acts 17:10-12; Isaiah 8:20; 40:8; etc.)
(b) Christ’s unending high-priesthood in heaven (Hebrews 7:22-28),
(c) the provision of the Holy Spirit Who guided the apostles into truth after Christ’s death (John 16:12-14), Who gifts believers for the work of the ministry, including teaching (Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11-16), and Who uses the written word as His chief tool (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17).
In summary, the Bible speaks of only one abiding, “tangible,” infallible guide left by God for His church. It is the written word of God, not an infallible leader (2 Timothy 3:15-17). And as He gave the Holy Spirit to bear holy men along in the writing of those Scriptures (2 Peter 1:19-21), so He has given His Holy Spirit to indwell, fill, guide, and gift members of His church today for the purpose of directing His church through the proper interpretation of that written word (1 Corinthians 12; 14; Ephesians 4:11-16). That there are schisms and false teachings today should be no surprise, for the Bible also warns us that there would be false teachers who would twist the written word (2 Peter 3:16) and that these false teachers would arise from within the churches (Acts 20:30). Therefore, the believers were to turn to God and the “word of His grace” for their guidance (Acts 20:32), determining the truth not by WHO said it, but by comparing it with the gospel already received by the early church, the gospel recorded for us in Scripture (Galatians 1:8-9; see also Acts 17:11).
gotquestions.org/papal-infallibility.html
Nowhere in Scripture is the “teaching Magisterium” or mastery of bishops taught and treated as of equal weight with Scripture. What history has shown is that when any other source of authority is treated as being of equal weight with Scripture, that second authority always ends up superseding Scripture (such is the case with the Mormons’ other accepted writings and the Jehovah Witnesses’ Watchtower). So, it is with the Roman Catholic Church. Repeatedly Catholic Catechisms state that many of their doctrines are not found or based in Scripture (Mary being Co-redemptress and Co-mediator, sinless, conceived without sin; her ascension; praying to saints and venerating them and images of them; etc.). For Roman Catholics, it is the “mother Church” that is the final authority, not Scripture, no matter that they say that the Magisterium is the “servant of Scripture.” Again, the Bible teaches that it is Scripture that is to be used as measuring stick to determine truth from error. In Galatians 1:8-9, Paul states that it is not WHO teaches but WHAT is being taught that is to be used to determine truth from error. And while the Roman Catholic Church continues to pronounce a curse to hell upon those who would reject the authority of the Pope, Scripture reserves that curse for those who would teach a different gospel than what had already been given and recorded in the New Testament (Galatians 1:8-9).
While the Roman Catholic Church sees apostolic succession and the infallible magisterium of the church as logically necessary in order for God to unerringly guide the Church, Scripture states that God has provided for His church through:
(a) infallible Scripture, (Acts 20:32; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; Acts 17:10-12; Isaiah 8:20; 40:8; etc.)
(b) Christ’s unending high-priesthood in heaven (Hebrews 7:22-28),
(c) the provision of the Holy Spirit Who guided the apostles into truth after Christ’s death (John 16:12-14), Who gifts believers for the work of the ministry, including teaching (Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11-16), and Who uses the written word as His chief tool (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17).
In summary, the Bible speaks of only one abiding, “tangible,” infallible guide left by God for His church. It is the written word of God, not an infallible leader (2 Timothy 3:15-17). And as He gave the Holy Spirit to bear holy men along in the writing of those Scriptures (2 Peter 1:19-21), so He has given His Holy Spirit to indwell, fill, guide, and gift members of His church today for the purpose of directing His church through the proper interpretation of that written word (1 Corinthians 12; 14; Ephesians 4:11-16). That there are schisms and false teachings today should be no surprise, for the Bible also warns us that there would be false teachers who would twist the written word (2 Peter 3:16) and that these false teachers would arise from within the churches (Acts 20:30). Therefore, the believers were to turn to God and the “word of His grace” for their guidance (Acts 20:32), determining the truth not by WHO said it, but by comparing it with the gospel already received by the early church, the gospel recorded for us in Scripture (Galatians 1:8-9; see also Acts 17:11).
gotquestions.org/papal-infallibility.html
J
JLongoria
Guest
Wow.
They were referring to the Old Testament in each of those verses you cited. Do you honestly think Timothy had a nice, hard copy of the New Testament?
Peter was referring to the prophecy in the Old Testament scriptures! Why would He refer to the New Testament about prophecies concerning Jesus as the Messiah!? All he is saying is, “pay attention to what we’re saying!”
The Jews in Beroea - they had the New Testament as well (Acts 17:11)? Come on, man!
The Gospel mentioned in Galatians was not a book, it was the “good news” of Jesus Christ and His plan for the salvation of mankind!
We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that unique declaration came to him from the majestic glory, “This is my Son, my beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain. Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.
2 Peter 1:16-21
Good Lord, grant me patience with knuckle-heads!
N2, may the peace of God be with you. You contributed next to nothing in this dialogue, instead coming in here and pasting anything and everything anti-Catholic that you could get your hands on.
And when we successfully refuted each one, you blatantly ignored each and every rebuttal.
:banghead:
L
LittleDeb
Guest
Another quote full of misrepresentations, misunderstandings and just plain missing the Truth. I think my favorite was the “ascension of Mary.” If that weren’t such an assault on our True beliefs it would be outright laughable. She was assumed into heaven…BIG difference.
n2thelight: I hope someday you will truly walk in the Light. God bless you in your earnestness. You are more than welcome to stay around here. If for no other reason than to share your Christianity with other Christians. I am sad that all of my attempts to discover why you believe what you believe were rebuffed. Your sources were disappointing in that they refuse correction…from anyone, not just a Catholic.
I answered your question, so I would like to leave you with one of my own.
If Sacred Scripture is the final authority why would the ONE Holy Spirit not protect it with ONE singular, original, transcript? After all the Bible you hold in your hands is just a copy of a copy, of a translation of a copy, of a whole bunch of separate books written in a bunch of different languages by a bunch of different people over a bunch of different eras.
If it is THE Authority, shouldn’t there be just ONE?
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
After reading all this, I find that n2thelight is referring to Got Questions website as his authority. I like to add that the only authority figure in the during the time of the Apostles is Jesus Christ and when Jesus left, the Church had authority. The Church had authority to interpret with the help of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
It is the Church that compiled all the books of the Bible both OT and NT. Jesus gave us an authoritative Church. He established this when he gave Peter the keys of the Kingdom to bind and loose, and to the rest of the Apostles the authority to bind and loose as well (though the rest of the Apostles were not given the keys). Jesus is also the head of the Church. So if the Church compiled the Bible in those early centuries, then the Church had the authority to interpret Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
The 27 Books of the NT came out from the oral Tradition of the Church and this Tradition did not die when the last Apostle die. This Tradition is a living Tradition as Fr. Corapi said.
I so dislike it when Non-Catholic Christians take the Bible out fo context. They are so out of touch with reality of what Divine Revelation is all about.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Again, this is further demonstrated in the same chapter of Matthew when:
- first, Jesus calls himself Jonah.
- second, Jesus calls Simon “BarJonah” (son of Jonah). Simon was son of John.
- Status