To Non-Catholics: Why Peter IS the Rock

[SteveG]

latisha1903:

I will give a summary of notes i have collected on why the Bible alone…and there is no more that i can give…

Thanks for sticking with us.
Now let me see if I can tread lightly and not attack or offend as I point some observations out regarding these references.

latisha1903:

The Word of God [Bible] has the power and authority of God unto salvation. [John 12:48]

** John 12:48 says…**
*** He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day.***
I am not sure if this is a misquote as to the passage you wanted to refer to, but I’ll assume not. In this verse our Savior says, the words I have ‘spoken’, not the words I have written. When he spoke this phrase, the bible hadn’t yet been written so I can’t see how his words mean the ‘bible’ only. Scripture elswhere indicates that Jesus did and said many things not in scripture, so his command in 12:48 would seem to apply to to ALL he spoke and did. Keeping in mind my original question, how does this verse show that ONLY the bible in authoritative? Could you explain in more detail?

latisha1903:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 [primary reference is the Old Testament, since not all the NT were written, some books of the NT were writen or material that would be in the NT, and were already considered equal in authority to the OT scripture.] this shows it is inspired by God, and has the ablitly to make man of God complete…
Throughly equipped for every good work [2 Tim. 3:17] every…not some…all.

** 2 Timothy 3:16: says…**
*** All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17: that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. ***

There are two question I have regarding this.

First, you admit above that at the time of writing, there were still some yet unwritten books of the NT, agreed? So in order for this to apply to the bible we hold in our hands today, we would need to know what books ‘scripture’ refers to. In the first few centuries after Christ there were many books floating around the Christian communities claiming to be scripture (the gospel of Thomas was one, but ther were many more). So how would a Christian know what books Paul meant by scripture? How would they know that the gospel of Mark shold be included in this instruction, but the gospel of Thomas shouldn’t be?

Second Question is, even if I grant the point that scripture equips the man o fGod for every/all good work, I am still confused as to how this means that ONLY the bible can equip a man for every good work. Maybe an anology will help explain my question. If my goal for today is to travel to my job, I might have two options to get there. Let’s say I own a car. The car fully equips me to get to work. Now, I might also have public transportation available to me. If I choose to take the bus, this will also fully equip me for the task at hand. Now, if I say to someone, the car I own fully equips me for getting to work, it doesn’t imply that is the ONLY way to get to work. It doesn’t exclude the bus as a method for getting there. It doesn’t even address the bus. It simply doesn’t speak to whether the car is the ONLY way, or one of many ways to achieve my objective. It says my car will fully equip me to get to work. This is true, but says only what it says and nothing more.

I think scripture does fully equip the man of God for every good work. See, we agree! What I fail to see is how this statement excludes all other methods, or proves that ONLY scripture can equip the man of God for every good work. Could you clarify this for me as well?
…continued…

 

[SteveG]

latisha1903:

2 Peter 1:20-21 [vs. 20- no prohecy of scripture arose from merely human interprettion of things] [vs. 21- God was the sole inspiration]

2 Peter 1:20-21says…
20: First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,21: because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Sorry if I am thick-headed, but this appears to me to only make a true statement about scripture that we both likely agree on, without even addressing the issue of scriptures authority. I still have to ask, how does this prove that scripture ALONE is authoritative?

latisha1903:

Jude 3 - having been given once for all gives us all we need

Apologies again, I am unsure of the verse you are referring to. I assume it is Verse 5…
5: Now I desire to remind you, though you were once for all fully informed, that he who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
But I can’t see that this references scripture. I read all of Jude and can’t see that scripture and it’s authoritative role are addressed anywhere in the letter. Could you stear me in the right direction on this?

latisha1903:

to believe in Jesus [john 20:30-31],

John 20:30-31 says…
30: 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.**
Beautiful and true. They were written for that purpose. But again, could you please clarify how this teaches the SOLE authority of scripture?

latisha1903:

fellowship w/ the Father, Son, and apostles I john 1:3]

**1 John 1:3 says…
*3: that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.***Scripture clearly states that all that was seen and heard was not written down, but that some was passed down via tradition. How does the above beautiful and true statement show that scripture is our SOLE Authority?

latisha1903:

have joy that is full I john 1:4]

How does the beautiful and true statement show that Scripture is our SOLE Authority?

latisha1903:

help when we sin I john 2:1]

ditto

latisha1903:

eternal life I john 5:13]

ditto

I am not trying to badger you or brow beat you, I promise. I have a very specific question I posed, and what you give above doesn’t seem to me to fully answer it. That is why I ask for clarification on your understanding of these things. I wholeheartedly agree that it is the inspired inerrant word of God. What I am asking for is proof from scripture that it and it ALONE is the authorty for faith and morality in the life of the Christian. According to your own belief system, everything you believe should be contained in the bible, correct? Which means, since you believe that the bible is your authority, that should be plainly stated in bible. Please help me understand this.

I’ll tackle the other part of your post where you discuss the history of the bible in a separate post as there is quite a bit you throw out and I want to seriously address it.

If I dont’ get to it before you return, thanks for bearing with me, and I hope you had a blessed weekend at home.

 

[SteveG]

latisha1903:

and history shows that the catholic church did not give us the Bible.

I fully understand that this is what you study has led you to believe, but my study tells me something different. Let’s see if we can work out some of the facts together.

latisha1903:

OT written by God’s inspired people the jews, and perserved by jewish scribes. NT written by Christian apostles.

Not too much I can disagree with here, except to note that not all of the NT was written by the apostles. The gospel of Mark was written by a disciple of Peter, and the Gospel of Luke was written by a disciple of Paul. Neither Luke, nor Mark are ‘apostles’ in the true sense of the word. No big deal, just want to keep the facts straight.

latisha1903:

this was two years before constantiens ‘conversion’.

Not sure what you mean by ‘this’ in the sentense above? Constantine converted in 312 A.D. What are you saying is before this? It’s unclear to me.

latisha1903:

early church did not have the NT as we know it. individuals and congregations had some of it. one or more of the gospels, and maybe acts and revelations.

Again, not much disagreement here, other than to say, it’s pretty clear that if anything that some Paul’s letters were fairly widespread.

latisha1903:

The catholic church changed the Bible in 1548 at the council of trent by adding the apocrypha. they were never in the hebrew Bible and jews didn’t reconize it to be inspired. at the council of trent catholics declared them inspired.

This is a fairly complex issue, but I’ll try to boil it down. Firstly, the date you meant to reference is 1546. It refers to the council of Trent at which the Catholic Church declared them for the first time officially to be canonical and necessary. They made this declaration in defense of the reformers questioning of their inclusion. They were definetely not ‘added’ at that point. They had always been in the ‘bible’ Christian prior to that time.

Further, it is a misunderstanding to say that the Jews didn’t recognize those books inspiration. Prior to Christianity, the Jews had not recognized bible or canon of there own. The closest thing they did have was a Greek translation called the Septuagint. The Septuagint DID include the ‘apochryphal’ books. In 90 A.D. in response to the growing threat of Christianity, Hebraic Jews (vs. Hellinistic Jews) met in the council of Jamnia. At that time they exluded from the Jewis canon, the ‘aprochryphal’ books. This was done mostly because they were accepted by Greek speaking Jews with whom they had great antipathy.

Nonetheless, these books were well known, however, to Jesus, his disciples and Paul and are sometimes alluded to in the New Testament. Since most early Christians were Greek speaking, and since those who were Jewish had been raised with these extra books, the question of their authority in the church did not arise at all in the first couple of centuries. Origen seems to be the first Christian to make a distinction between these books and the rest of scripture. Writing in the third century A. D. he accepted these books as scripture in his teaching but did not recognize them as canonical books of the Bible.

…continued…

 

[SteveG]

It was Jerome (early fifth century) who translated the Septuagint into a Latin translation known as the Vulgate, and Cyril of Jerusalem (late fourth century) who were the first to refer to these works as apocryphal, by which they meant non-canonical. Jerome taught that they should only be used for edification, and not for the establishment of any doctrine or dogma in the Church. Consistent, however, with Church usage of the time he did include them in the Vulgate. Augustine (who was also of the fifth century) accepted these books as canonical. So there was no universal agreement as to their status among the church fathers.

At the time of the Reformation, the status of these books was still being contested, though the books were mostly accepted by the Church. Martin Luther was influenced by the writing of Nicholas of Lyra, a Christian of Jewish decent, who wrote in the 14th century. Nicholas published, “A Treatise on the Difference between our Version [the Vulgate] and the Hebrew Truth.” Influenced by Nicholas and Jerome, Luther altered the arrangement of his German Bible to gather the apocrypha together separate from the rest of the Old Testament. They were published in his Bible between the Testaments with the title: “Apocrypha. These books are not held equal to the sacred scriptures, and yet are useful and good for reading.” At this time, this was not strictly speaking a Lutheran (or Protestant) issue. Some of Luther’s foes such as Cardinal Cajetan also made a distinction between these books and the rest of the bible, based on the writings of St. Jerome.

Because of the Protestant doctrine of “Scripture Alone” as the authority for all Church teaching, and because some of the contested Catholic doctrines were supported at least in part by the books of the Apocrypha, the issue became settled among the reformers that these books were not to be held on a par with the “Holy Scriptures.” In defense the Catholic Church declared them for the first time officially to be canonical and necessary at the Council of Trent in 1546.

It was not, however, until 1626 that the first Protestant Bibles (an edition of the King James Version) appeared without the inclusion of the Apocrypha. Apparently the Protestant attitude toward these books became increasingly hostile so that by 1827 the British and Foreign Bible Society and the American Bible Society agreed to stop including the Apocrypha in their English Bibles.

latisha1903:

the apocryphal books never claim to be the Word of God themselves.

Very few books in the bible actually ‘claim’ to be the word of God. The only way that this is a valid criticism is if each and every book in the bible you are using clearly ‘claims’ to be the word of God. Can you show that this is the case?

latisha1903:

and some have inaccuracies.

This charge is thrown out by non-Christians agains the bible in general. What inaccuracies? Could you be specific here?

latisha1903:

Bible could never owe its being here to the catholic church, but to God

Of course it’s thanks to God we have the bible. But couldn’t God have used the Catholic Church as the tool for bringing it together and preserving it?

latisha1903:

rcc was not fully developed until several years after the NT was written

What year was the RCC fully developed?

 

[SteveG]

latisha1903:

it cannont be proven that the council of hippo in 390 a.d was the same as the rcc today. example…no crucifixes [introduced in the 6th centry] and images [tradition that gradully developed]

It was actually 393 AD and it was a synod, not a council. Some of the Council’s more influential and famous attendees where Saint Augustine, Saint Jerome, and 90 othe Bishops. For anyone who has ever read either Saint Augustine’s works or Saint Jerome’s (I’ve read both), it is EXTREMELY clear that they are Catholic in the full sense, even recognizing the pope. The heiarchical structure of the Church in 390 is very well developed and is identical in nature to the current Catholic structure.

As to the use of images. This simply is untrue (not intentionally I assume). The catacombs in Rome from the earliest Christians who died as martyrs (1st and 2nd Century) show clear evidence of the use of images in their worship and in their prayers. This is not a later ‘invention’ by the Catholic Church. I’d only ask you to examine the evidence of this. There are pictures of these inscriptions and drawings available on-line.

latisha1903:

not until 4th session of the council of trent that high ‘authority’ in the rcc ‘officially’ cataloged the books they thought should be in the Bible [God did not give council the authority to select His sacred books, or wanted men to to His books because of councils]
catalouges of the books have been proven to have been given to early Christians
[326. athanasius a bishop at alexandria, mentions all the NT books…315-386 cyril a bishop at jerusalem gives a list of NT books except revelations]

I’ll simply ask how it is that you as an individual Christian know which books should be in the bible? You state above that Cyril (a Catholic bishop by the way) excludes revelations. Was he correct? Many of the books currently accepted today as canonical were in contention for almost the first 400 years. The catalog’s you cite above differ from each other in which books they recognize. Again, how did YOU decide which books are valid?

God Bless

 

[jimmy]

latisha1903:

and history shows that the catholic church did not give us the Bible.
OT written by God’s inspired people the jews, and perserved by jewish scribes. NT written by Christian apostles. none catholic, b/c there was no rcc at the time, this was two years before constantiens ‘conversion’. early church did not have the NT as we know it. individuals and congregations had some of it. one or more of the gospels, and maybe acts and revelations.

First of all Roman Catholic Church is not the correct term. The correct term is Catholic Church. Roman refers to the latin rite. The eastern Catholics would disagree with your terming.

Second, The Catholic church is much older than you think. In the year 107AD Ignatius of Antioch refers to it as the Catholic Church. This proves that the Catholic church was around from the beginning.

Chapter VIII.-Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution55 of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper56 Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.57
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans

To Be Continued

 

[jimmy]

In the middle of that same century Ireneous lists the first twelve popes in his books against the Heresies

1. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. 3,3,3 ibid
   Book III.

The fourth pope wrote an epistle in the year 96AD that you can access by clicking the following link.
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-05.htm#P171_20841

The fact that the early church did not have the NT is proof for the idea of tradition and spoken word.

To Be Continued

 

[jimmy]

latisha1903:

catholic church didn’t give us the Bible. but catholic monks may have perserved the it by copying it.
The catholic church changed the Bible in 1548 at the council of trent by adding the apocrypha. they were never in the hebrew Bible and jews didn’t reconize it to be inspired. at the council of trent catholics declared them inspired.

You are very wrong about this. The Canon for the Bible was decided in 382 in Rome and the it was confimed in the early fifth cenury. The Jews had a council in 95 AD where they decided the canon that they would follow. If you did not notice, this is after the death of Christ, so they had no authority over the Christian canon. However the Septuagint did have the seven books that you protestants took out(The Duetero-Canonicals, not called Apocrypha). The septuagint is the book or group of books that Christ quoted and taught from. Heres a link to a list of books in the books of the septuagint. The books that you protestants took out are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom,Eccesiasticus, and Baruch, I Macabees,and II Macabees.

ccel.org/bible/brenton/

the apocryphal books never claim to be the Word of God themselves. and some have inaccuracies.

There is nowhere where it is written that this is a requirement for a book to be canonical. But sice you brought it up, the book of Esther never claims to be inspired either. In fact it never even mentions God but it is included in your bible.
What inaccuracies do they contain? You make that statement on the assumption that they are not canonical. But they were considered canonical by Jesus.

rcc was not fully developed until several years after the NT was written, and the Bible could never owe its being here to the catholic church, but to God.

I answered this above by proving that the pope was there since the beginning.

it cannont be proven that the council of hippo in 390 a.d was the same as the rcc today. example…no crucifixes [introduced in the 6th centry] and images [tradition that gradully developed]
not until 4th session of the council of trent that high ‘authority’ in the rcc ‘officially’ cataloged the books they thought should be in the Bible [God did not give council the authority to select His sacred books, or wanted men to to His books because of councils]

The fact that the Eastern Orthodox use sacramentals and Holy images should be proof to you that we had them much earlier than the coucil of Trent. The eastern Orthodox broke from the Catholic church in the 11th century and the council of Trent was not until 1545, so you can not be correct. Another proof that you are wrong is that the fact that the rosary was first used in the 12th century, about 400 years before the council of Trent.
Even if they did not have sacramentals in the fourth century that does not mean that it is a different church. We still have the same beleifs they had when the Apostles taught. They followed the pope then and they still follow the pope.

 

[jimmy]

latisha1903:

catalouges of the books have been proven to have been given to early Christians
[326. athanasius a bishop at alexandria, mentions all the NT books…315-386 cyril a bishop at jerusalem gives a list of NT books except revelations]

i must go now…i won’t be spending the weekend at home…so i won’t be able to respond to probably sunday evening. good day to you all.

Well these peoples lists are not the canon that is used now.
Athanasus was a bishop in the year 373AD, just before the Catholic church decided the canon, so that wasn’t really passed down through time. Athanasius omitted Esther but he included Baruch.
Cyril was the same time. He died in 386 AD, just after the canon was decided. Cyril excluded revelations.
You could also say that Origen had a list of books he felt were canon. He felt that the LXX(Septuagint) was much more credible than the Jews to decide the canon. He included the duetero-Canonicals.
St. Augustine also included the Duetero-canonicals.
St. Cyprian quotes Tobit in testimonies along with the other books of scripture. He makes no destinction between them.
Heres a quote from St. Hippolytud supporting Macabees.

“Since, then, the angel Gabriel also recounted these things to the prophet, as they have been understood by us, as they have also taken place, and as they have been all clearly described in the books of the Maccabees.”

The book of wisdom was found in both lists of the NT and the OT.

The duetero-canonicals show many illusions to Christ in them and they were considered canonical. The fact that the Eastern Orthodox include these in the bible also, should be proof to you that they were canon before the council of Trent. The council of Trent did not decide what was canon, but they reaffirmed it.

 

[Andrew_Larkoski]

latisha1903:

I would suggest the book “Unabridged Christianity” by Fr. Mario Romero which Biblically proves that the modern Catholic Church is in fact the Church of the apostles. It is a good read, and it covers the history of the Bible, the sacrements, Mary, the papacy, and other very Catholic topics which are very much so in the Bible.

I am curious, where did you get your information about the history of the Bible? For 1000 years (until the Eastern Orthodox Churches schismed) there was but One Church: the Catholic Church. If not the Catholic Church, then who organized the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? and with what authority does the Catholic Church have to declare books “the Word of God”? This goes back to Matt. 16:18-19: And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

latisha1903, please look for this book and prayerfully read it, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, may your eyes be opened to the Truth.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

latisha1903:

"The Greek word translated ‘Peter’ is petros

meaning meaning pebble or small stone.

"The Greek word translated ‘rock’ is petra meaning a big rock or huge boulder.
Keep in mind that Jesus didn’t speak these word in Greek but in Aramaic. Jesus used the same word (kepha) in both cases.

The difference was necessary in the tranliteration from Aramaic to Greek. “Petra” is feminine. It couldn’t be used for a man’s name. For a man’s name the masculine (petros) was used.

“Peter was not even the chief apostle at Jerusalem. Read and study Acts 15:1-19. Here was a Ministerial Conference (verse 6). Peter rose up to make his point (verse 7). But it was James, the physical brother of Jesus Christ, who made the final decision (verses 13-19). James was the chief apostle, not Peter.”/ QUOTE]

I respectfully disagree with your reading of Acts here. Peter did not merely make a point. He put an end to the debate by declaring DOCTRINE (salvation by grace). It was Peter who made the “final decision”. James, on the other hand, AFTER Peter exercised his charism of infallibility, exercised HIS right to “bind and loose” in stating necessary behaviors for the new Christians (what the Church now refers to as “obligations”). James BOUND them to these behavior by declaring them NECESSARY.

 

[heliumspark]

I want to see what all the “Peter not the Rock” people say to the argument that Jesus was speaking Aramaic and not Greek. I saw the “Petra/Petros” argument, but it was very effectively refuted with the “Speaking Aramaic/He said ‘Cephas’” argument. What is the refutation to the “Speaking Aramaic/He said Cephas” argument? Either show that Jesus was speaking Greek or that He didn’t say Cephas, or maybe I haven’t thought of something, but please, if it is the truth, there has to be an answer!

Latisha? Maybe you can help here.

 

[latisha1903]

Andrew Larkoski:

latisha1903:

I would suggest the book “Unabridged Christianity” by Fr. Mario Romero which Biblically proves that the modern Catholic Church is in fact the Church of the apostles. It is a good read, and it covers the history of the Bible, the sacrements, Mary, the papacy, and other very Catholic topics which are very much so in the Bible.

I am curious, where did you get your information about the history of the Bible? For 1000 years (until the Eastern Orthodox Churches schismed) there was but One Church: the Catholic Church. If not the Catholic Church, then who organized the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? and with what authority does the Catholic Church have to declare books “the Word of God”? This goes back to Matt. 16:18-19: And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

latisha1903, please look for this book and prayerfully read it, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, may your eyes be opened to the Truth.

thebible.net/introchurch/

i share with you this ‘book’ online…also

 

[latisha1903]

steveG and jimmy

could you please post your specific questions below…so that i can see them plainly and be able to respond…it would just make it easier…thanks…

and i apoligize if i’m not able to answer ASAP…work…and in the process of helping a family member move…school orientation…and all that jazz…not too much time for getting online…

 

[SteveG]

heliumspark:

I want to see what all the “Peter not the Rock” people say to the argument that Jesus was speaking Aramaic and not Greek. I saw the “Petra/Petros” argument, but it was very effectively refuted with the “Speaking Aramaic/He said ‘Cephas’” argument. What is the refutation to the “Speaking Aramaic/He said Cephas” argument? Either show that Jesus was speaking Greek or that He didn’t say Cephas, or maybe I haven’t thought of something, but please, if it is the truth, there has to be an answer!

There is no answer to this. I once debated this with an extremely knowledgeable protestant who runs a professional apologetics organization. It literally stopped the converstation in it’s tracks. The final comment was, ‘I’ll have to check out my sources on that and get back to you.’ That was the end of that line of the conversation. Actually, this is not really in dispute amongst even Protestant bible scholars at this point. Most of the heavy weights have also concluded that indeed Peter is the rock in the statement. I even offered in this thread to prove from scripture itself that Christ spoke Aramaic, but wasn’t taken up on it, so I didn’t want to waste my breath.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

latisha1903:

I will give a summary of notes i have collected on why the Bible alone…and there is no more that i can give…

The Word of God [Bible] has the power and authority of God unto salvation. [John 12:48]

Please demonstrate, using the bible alone, that “Word of God” is always and only a reference to the Bible, as you seem to have indicated here by adding the word “bible” to John 12:48. If you cannot demonstrate it from the bible alone, that alone would seem to disprove your “bible alone” theory.

---

2 Timothy 3:16-17 [primary reference is the Old Testament, since not all the NT were written, some books of the NT were writen or material that would be in the NT, and were already considered equal in authority to the OT scripture.] this shows it is inspired by God, and has the ablitly to make man of God complete.
2 Peter 1:20-21 [vs. 20- no prohecy of scripture arose from merely human interprettion of things] [vs. 21- God was the sole inspiration]
**Throughly **

equipped for every good work [2 Tim. 3:17] every…not some…all.

Yes, thoroughly equipped for every “good work”. “Good works” are not synonymous with “salvation”. Would you agree? Why or why not?

---

---

Jude 3 - having been given once for all
gives us all we need
to believe in Jesus [john 20:30-31], fellowship w/ the Father, Son, and apostles I john 1:3], have joy that is full I john 1:4], help when we sin I john 2:1], eternal life I john 5:13] [just to name a few]

Jude 3 doesn’t mention the bible at all let alone the bible alone being sufficient for anything. I’m interested how you feel Jude 3 supports the bible alone theory.

---

---

and history shows that the catholic church did not give us the Bible.

History seems to support that it WAS a Church council who definitively declared the 27 books that we know today as the NT to be scripture. If not the Church, who, specifically, made the authoritative decision which books would and would not be included in the NT canon that would then be binding on all Christians for all time. Please cite your sources.

---

(continued…)

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

latisha1903:

I will give a summary of notes i have collected on why the Bible alone…and there is no more that i can give…

---

OT written by God’s inspired people the jews, and perserved by jewish scribes. NT written by Christian apostles. none catholic, b/c there was no rcc at the time, this was two years before constantiens ‘conversion’.

***I’m not clear on this. Is it your contention that the Catholic Church did not exist until 2 years before Constantine’s conversion? Which date are you using, the date that he gave Christians religious freedom (313 AD) or the date of his baptism (337AD)? ***

---

---

early church did not have the NT as we know it. individuals and congregations had some of it. one or more of the gospels, and maybe acts and revelations.

They also had many other writings that didn’t make the final cut.

---

catholic church didn’t give us the Bible. but catholic monks may have perserved the it by copying it.

Who did? Please be specific as opposed to just a general “Christians” as this does not exclude Catholics.

---

---

The catholic church changed the Bible in 1548 at the council of trent by adding the apocrypha. they were never in the hebrew Bible and jews didn’t reconize it to be inspired. at the council of trent catholics declared them inspired.

The Council of Trent was in 1546. The list of OT books stated there was identical to the list stated at the Council of Florence in 1442. No change took place in 1548. The canon of Scripture did not change until the Reformation when Luther opted to use the Hebrew Canon rather than the Septuagint which was in every Christian bible, without exception, until that time.

the apocryphal books never claim to be the Word of God themselves.

Which books in scripture DO claim to be the Word of God themselves? Please cite the chapters and verses.

and some have inaccuracies.

Who is authoritatively doing the deciding as to what is accurate and inaccuarate? Please be specific.

it cannont be proven that the council of hippo in 390 a.d was the same as the rcc today. example…no crucifixes [introduced in the 6th centry] and images [tradition that gradully developed]
not until 4th

Are you suggesting that the practices of the Church cannot change over time? This would mean that the 1st century church doesn’t exist anywhere today. Please provide the scripture which states that the way things are done cannot change over time. Those churches who practice altar calls and have praise and worship music (a couple of things that didn’t exist in the 1st century church) would be surprised to find that out.

session of the council of trent that high ‘authority’ in the rcc ‘officially’ cataloged the books they thought should be in the Bible [God did not give council the authority to select His sacred books, or wanted men to to His books because of councils]

To whom DID God give that authority? Please be specific.

 

[Peace-bwu]

latisha1903:

we are not nor ever will be in agreement that the catholic church is the church that Christ founded.

If you do not agree with this you do not only disagree with Catholic teaching you disagree with the Bible. You can’t take the bits and pieces you like and leave the rest behind, especially if you believe the Bible is the sole recipe for your faith. Shouldn’t you understand what the Scripture I quoted means? …Are you just going to “gloss over” it and say it is unimportant. To understand the context of Scripture, a person needs to know the Sacred Apostolic Tradition it came out of. There comes a time when a person must question whether they are closed to truth because of pride, especially when it is so clearly laid out. Pride can be a dangerous thing.

 

[latisha1903]

Peace-bwu:

If you do not agree with this you do not only disagree with Catholic teaching you disagree with the Bible. You can’t take the bits and pieces you like and leave the rest behind, especially if you believe the Bible is the sole recipe for your faith. Shouldn’t you understand what the Scripture I quoted means? …Are you just going to “gloss over” it and say it is unimportant. To understand the context of Scripture, a person needs to know the Sacred Apostolic Tradition it came out of. There comes a time when a person must question whether they are closed to truth because of pride, especially when it is so clearly laid out. Pride can be a dangerous thing.

has nothing to do with pride. and i feel the same way towards you, as you do me…

thebible.net/introchurch/
thebible.net/WhyMember/why.html

just for a better understanding…on why i believe in what i believe…convicted in our own beliefs and faith no doubt…but you shall call it what you will

 

[Andrew_Larkoski]

latisha1903:

from TheBible.net

“In Matthew 16:18 Jesus said to Simon Peter, “And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” From this passage it is very obvious that Christ is the builder or founder of the New Testament church and that he calls this church his church. Any church founded by someone other than Christ is not Christ’s church. David, in the Old Testament, announced a great truth when he said, “Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it” (Psalm 127:1). In the New Testament we learn that the “house of God is the church of the living God” (1 Timothy 3:15). If the Lord did not build the house (church) those who did build it labored in vain. Jesus declared, “Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up” (Matthew 15:13). No one should be a member of any spiritual household, religious plant, or church which man was responsible for starting. One should be a member of the church Christ established!”

Read Matt. 16:18 a bit more carefully. Peter DOES NOT say “I will build a church on ME.” Christ says “Thou art Peter, and upon THIS ROCK I will build MY church.” Christ built HIS CHURCH on the weak human Simon Peter. (He also gave Peter the power to bind and loose and gave him the keys to the kingdom of heaven. These powers that Christ gives to Peter make no sense if Christ builds His church on a confession and not on a human who can pass down Christ’s teachings.) Why? Because Christ is God and knows more than we do, and because, as Christ states later in the passage “From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.” For now it can be understood that for Christ’s Church to survive, it must be handed down through the apostles who will "make disciples of all nations . . . "

I read the following paragraph from The Church Was Founded By Jesus And On Him, and this argument is easily refuted with the changing of Simon’s name to Peter, which, in Aramaic, is, itself “Rock”, and thus the rock that Christ refers to is not Peter’s confession of Christ. By the way, does anyone know when this theory that the rock upon which Christ will build His Church on was Peter’s confession began?