Posted on 02/11/2015 12:02:36 PM PST by RnMomof7
Sola Scriptura ping
Where did Christ say his Church would be based on a Bible?
Where did the table of contents of the Bible come from?
Why is Philemon on the Bible?
Why did Luther remove Maccabees 1,500 years after Christ established His Church?
just a few questions.
I am a Catholic who puts the Bible FIRST.
Do you want answers or are you just intimating that there are no answers so Rome is the “true church”?
Let's have a discussion. I promise I won't bite.
How do you know?
How do you know they’re from the apostles, Paul in particular?
How do you know they’ve been passed down faithfully?
What is your source for verifying all of the above?
Please provide the sources for verification purposes.
Even in early Christian centuries they had both 1) The Old Testament which very much taught about the Messiah
2) The word, the memories and historical events of Jesus life, death and resurrection through the Apostles, and others who had witnessed (and sometimes personally experienced) the events with Jesus.
BEEP!
Where did Christ say He was going to establish a church as the source of truth?
Where did Christ say his Church would be based on a Bible?
Where did Christ say that the Bible would be based on the church? For that matter, where did Christ tell the CHURCH to make the Bible?
Why did the church decide to put it together?
Where did the table of contents of the Bible come from?
You list the books and put what page they're found on.
Did you pass high school English?
Now you can answer a few questions......
And where do we find out that Christ allegedly established the Catholic church from?
Please post the authoritative source.
Are you denying the authority of the Scripture that your church claims to have written?
On what do you based your truth claims then?
“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.” Mat 6:18
“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” John 16:12-13
“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” 1Tim 3:15
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." Mat 28:18-20
Fortunately, we have Christ’s promise that heresies will never prevail against the Church. They will arise, endure sometimes for centuries, like Protestantism, but we can be confident in Christ’s promise that the Church will always teach the Truth.
Bite all you like...there are real answers to Rome’s self-manufactured propaganda. And, I’ll call in some of the best to help. I don’t have time right now.
Forgot one of the more prolific writers...
This is interesting, thanks for posting it.
Interesting that Catholics can’t sell Catholicism on its own merits.
Trying to make the other guy look worse than you and then trying to convince people to join you because you’re not as bad as the other guy and its better than nothing, is no way to sell anything.
Agreed...but Rome has little else to offer. As you wrote earlier, just more bondage and man-made controls. The freedom in Jesus is unknown to them.
An impossible task I am sure.
Peter ≠ the rock on which the church is built. The Rock is Christ.
Peter – rock
Matthew 16:18 - http://bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm
Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.
Greek: 4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros (”small stone”) then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra (”cliff, boulder,” Abbott-Smith).
“4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff” (TDNT, 3, 100). “4074 (Pétros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (pétra), a projecting rock, cliff” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – “a mass of connected rock,” which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is “a detached stone or boulder” (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a “solid or native rock, rising up through the earth” (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.
4073 (petra) is “a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
It’s also a strange way to word the sentence that He would call Peter a rock and say that on this I will build my church instead of *on you* as would be grammatically correct in talking to a person.
There is no support from the original Greek that Peter was to be the rock on which Jesus said he would build His church. The nouns are not the same, one being masculine and the other being feminine. They denote different objects.
Also, here, Paul identifies who petra is, and that is Christ. This link takes you to the Greek.
http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/10-4.htm
1 Corinthians 10:1-4 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock (petra) that followed them, and the Rock (petra) was Christ.
http://biblehub.com/text/romans/9-33.htm
Romans 9:30-33 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written,“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
http://biblehub.com/text/1_peter/2-8.htm
1 Peter 2:1-8 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.
As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,”
and
“A stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense.”
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
All occurrences of *petra* in the Greek.
http://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_4073.htm
So are you saying that Paul was wrong when he told us in 1 Corinthians that Jesus was the *petra*?
Please show us in Scripture where Peter ever acknowledges that alleged role or where any other disciples made reference to it?
No one has taken me up on it yet.
Wouldn't it be more persuasive to address an actual argument?
Maybe from a Catholic source or from Catholic Church teaching on the subject?
And curiously, even though the author chooses the point he wants to critique he doesn't even address all his own points, but instead focuses on one (whether the Bible itself specifies sola sciptura) leaves out a couple (including whether the Church chose the books of Christian Scripture) and adds a new one that I've never heard before (that the disciples didn't consider the Hebrew Scriptures to be scriptures).
I guess I learned something from this article, but it wasn't what I was expecting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.