Posted on 06/28/2023 4:27:11 AM PDT by RaceBannon
Each time the word ROCK is used in the Bible in reference to any providing of the people, it is used as God being the one provided. Here is the first verse in the Bible in the KJV showing just that.
(Exo 17:6 KJV) Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.
Who pointed out where the ROCK was? God did. What came out of the ROCK? Water, water to drink. Who is referred to as LIVING WATER, water that must be drunk to live eternally? Jesus.
(John 7:38 KJV) He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. Each time the word ROCK is used, where God provides the ROCK, it is either a literal ROCK, like just above, where WATER came out of, water to allow the Isralites to live, it came from GOD, not a man.
The point you are missing is that what Acts 17:11 illustrates, and not by itself, is that of "sola prima," that even the veracity of apostles who - unless Catholic popes - could sometimes speak and write as wholly God-inspired in providing public revelation - was subject to testing by the established word of God. And thus (as other texts show) a body of wholly God-inspired writings (like as well as certain prophets) had been established before there even was a self-proclaimed one true church which taught that it was necessary to know what writings were of God.
Likewise it was only Scripture that the Lord invoked in establishing His Messianic fulfillment of the word of God, and it was Scripture that He opened the understanding of chosen men to. (Lk. 24:27,44)
Thus Acts 17:11 and related texts stand in opposition to the necessary alternative to SS, that of "sola ecclesia," that Rome alone is the sure, sufficient, and supreme standard for faith and morals, being effectively supreme to the Bible since only she can assuredly authoritatively tell us what Divine revelation consists of and means.
As for SS, that Scripture is the only supreme, sure, sufficient (by its formal and material providence), and supreme standard for faith and morals is evident by the very fact that it is the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative word of God ( public revelation), unless you can prove that your magisterium speaks as wholly God-inspired in providing public revelation.
For while God revealed His express (beyond nature and man's innate moral sense) revelation in a limited degree to a limited number of people, when God chose to reveal Himself to an entire nation, then God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;
And thus as abundantly evidenced , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
For Scripture provided the prophetic doctrinal and epistemological foundation, with miracles further attesting to it as part of Scriptural substantiation, (Mk. 16:20; Rm. 15:19) t
And then - as part of the parallelization btwn Christ and Mary, is Munificentissimus Deus, that of the assertion of an assumption, which provides an illustration of how the magi-sterium can declare something to be the word of God, even though lacking in testimony from where and when it would be found:
Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative... Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg¦had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the "apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.
But...subsequent "remembering" (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously ["caught sight of?" Because there was nothing to see in the earliest period where it should have been, before a fable developed] .." (Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), pp. 58-59; emp. mine).
For history, tradition and Scripture is only what Rome says it is in any conflict, which reasoning no less than Manning resorted to:
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity....Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. . — Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation, , pp. 227-228.
Often after the RC Mary it seems.
“The point you are missing is that what Acts 17:11 illustrates, and not by itself, is that of “sola prima,” that even the veracity of apostles who - unless Catholic popes - could sometimes speak and write as wholly God-inspired in providing public revelation - was subject to testing by the established word of God.”
You are begging the question.
Who says there is such a principle in the first place?
And, how do Jews checking up on (unspelled-out) predictions of Jesus in the Old Testament, suddenly lead to “Even the word of an Apostle must be verified against Scripture” ?
They went to Scriptures because Paul was making claims ABOUT the Scriptures.
You have yet to show that they verified everything by referring to Scripture; let alone that this is sufficient PROOF, Christians must do the same using the New Testament.
For that matter, even Jesus chided the Jews for missing Him in the Scriptures, John 5:39. And the Pharisees rejected Him because “study the Scriptures and you will see that no prophet arises out of Galilee”
So just studying the Scriptures, isn’t enough.
If you already have such a doctrine, you can use the Acts passage as an example.
But this passage by itself does not, merely by existing, form binding precedent.
“No replies”
But...OF COURSE
If you actually study the Bible with the intention of understanding, it will reveal itself as more true not less. Paul met James and Peter. They had many discussions and commiserated earnestly about Jesus’ teachings. I have ZERO doubt that Paul was exactly who he claimed he was and that he testified to his experience truthfully. Peter’s faith was the rock, not Peter. Everyone who believes and obeys God’s Word is the foundation.
This is the lesson- Read.
Yes. It’s not Peter the man that God built his church on. It’s faith, like the faith that Peter had/has. Ridiculous to think otherwise.
I suggest that you read scriptures with more discernment. Or you can just continue to believe what you’ve been told all your life.
Peter named a piece of a rock, a stone ... The ROCK Jesus was referring to was the truth Peter spoke of, that “Mt 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”(1) If it's true that petros refers to "the truth" of Peter's confession and not to his person, why does Jesus say, σὺ εἶ Πέτρος?
(2) If it's true that petros means a mere piece of rock, a stone or a pebble, why would Jesus call the all-important "truth" of confessing Jesus as the Christ with such a diminutive word?
No, that you would presume to know how the word *rock* would have been dealt with in another language.
The NT has been preserved by God in Greek and in Greek, the distinction is made between *petra* and *petros*.
To try to dismiss that as meaningless based on an assumption of what might have been expressed in another language is fool hardy.
It's interesting that your post references both Peter and the Holy Spirit. All the disciples were in fear following Jesus' crucifixion. What ultimately changed them? The same Peter who denies Christ and went back to fishing is the same Peter who 50 days after Jesus' death preached openly in Jerusalem where 3000 souls were saved. What changed? Peter and the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. - The Holy Spirit worked mightily through Peter. - Acts 2.
I agree there have been some bad popes just as there are bad Catholics everywhere. How does this differ from the Luther and Calvin errors?
The biggest problem with those errors is that they teach that anyone can interpret scripture. Because of that, anyone can interpret scripture to mean what they want it to mean. Hence, we have the mess we have today where some are trying to say that God is gay and even worse blasphemies.
Under its natural trend, soon Heaven and Hell, Death and Judgement, and Eternal Damnation will no longer be acknowledged.
Pick your poison. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
And who put the Bible together?
Wrong 397 Ad Council of Carthage decided what books were to be in the Bible period
And yet Jesus renamed Simon Cephas
Seems to me you are taking a very round-about way to explain the simple meaning of a short, eight-word sentence. The words aren’t even that big.
I will choose not to question The Lord’s name for Simon.
You are showing the Greek that was translated from Aramaic Cephas is Rock and in Aramaic there is no masculine feminine version of the word Cephas. It was only changed for translation
Wrong Peter is Cephas. There is no masculine or feminine version of Cephas in Aramaic.
Peter is the fallacy that the Catholic cult is built upon. RCC was founded by Rome. I am sure there are many Christians in the RCC, but the corporation is a hindrance. How many foreigners are flooding into the Western nations because of donations and the likely Trillions of dollars spent on making it happen?
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.