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.
Where in scripture does it say that Saint Peter’s mother wasn’t deceased at the time of the account?
Where in scripture does it say that Saint Peter’s wife wasn’t deceased at the time of the account?
Yep it’s only been around for 2000 years. Put together the Bible.
Invented Hospitals, Universities and does more charity than all countries combined
Oh my… strain and produce a gnat. Typical Pharisee wordsmithing.
No different from an Orthodox or Protestant religion.
Yep, I also agree leaving the interpretation of scripture to everyone and anyone creates very bad interpretations. Consider though, that can never be avoided in this life, no matter how much you try to pedigree your religious leaders all faiths have numerous examples of such malicious interpretations.
This is why a personal relationship with Christ is paramount and reading the scriptures and seeking the Spirit’s guidance and wisdom on a personal level is the best we have. I say this because it puts faith in God to see an honest believer receive wisdom and truth and prevents allowing an intermediary between you and Christ from deceiving you.
That is not to say we should not seek guidance from those who are closer to God. I am saying we should never abdicate our responsibility to verify their word against God’s. The only reliable place we can do that is in the Scriptures.
Ever wonder why our culture is trying so hard to rewrite the Bible, especially this current generation of “Pride?”
mine is held together by a rubber band
What’s your point?
Ooo...lemme guess...the RRC is your answer?
I would agree that deep, fervent prayer, along with a humble and contrite heart are paramount to receiving the Grace of God. Even though He offers His Grace to everyone, not everyone can receive it into their hearts as their hearts are unwilling to yield.
Peace, brother.
“Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?”
Mark 7:18ff
What do you think when you flush your toilet?
he didn’t and that was explained earlier
G4073 ἡ πέτρα, -ας (hē petra, -as) - a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively); Etymology: feminine of the same as G4074; KJV: rock. (Strong)
because of the intended use of changing the clear meaning of that to promote and support superiority and to use that same superiority to kill people who rightly believe the truth, and kill them for being against your religion that claims the error is fact.
you can’t undo mass murder and keep repeating the error.
G4073 ἡ πέτρα, -ας (hē petra, -as) - a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively); Etymology: feminine of the same as G4074; KJV: rock. (Strong)
I have NEVER met a born-again Christian, who denies miracles or prophecies documented in God’s Word.
I’m not calling you a liar.
What you said ( blah… blah “ …many Protties …”) isn’t true.
...σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ ...What do you make of the ταύτῃ between Πέτρος and πέτρᾳ?
How do you explain Matthew 18:6?
You author an entire thread devoted to explaining away 8 words that are inconvenient to your theological perspective, and you are not concerned that you might be leading others astray?
Why would Jesus tell Peter to ‘feed my sheep’?
Keep in mind that I can easily interpret that reference to mean that Jesus appointed Peter to become the shepherd of shepherds. And it would be just as logical and reasonable of an interpretation as anything you can contrive.
It is you who is begging the question with your premise that I was arguing that Acts 17:11 is sufficient PROOF that Christians must verified everything by referring to Scripture when that is not what I said, but that "what Acts 17:11 illustrates, and not by itself" was that of the primacy of Scripture, since "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 as said in a post above "the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11) and not vice versa."
Which was part of my argument against the implicit "begging the question alternative, that Acts 17:11 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 if the apostles speaking as wholly inspired of God somehow means that supports the presumption of Rome, by "infallibly" declaring she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula and presumes protection from at least salvific error in non-infallible magisterial teaching on faith and morals, is that sure, sufficient, and supreme standard for faith and morals.
But as regards the overall argument that for everything is to verified by referring to Scripture, you should agree that for assurance, ultimately everything should be verified by a supreme trust worthy source, and for which you either make wholly inspired Scripture that source, or your church. You choose.
For that matter, even Jesus chided the Jews for missing Him in the Scriptures, John 5:39.
And what kind of argument is that? Jesus reproving souls for ignorance of scriptures and challenging souls "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me" (John 5:39) is somehow an argument against searching the scriptures?
If anything, John 5:39 is an argument against ignorance and following leadership the way Rome historically required via many statements.
And the Pharisees rejected Him because “study the Scriptures and you will see that no prophet arises out of Galilee”
Again, what kind of argument is that? Leadership being ignorant of Isaiah 9:1,2 and its prophetic fulfillment is somehow an argument against searching Scripture? Car thieves not being able to find a police station is not an argument against the latter. The Lord Himself "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself " (Luke 24:27) which apostles failed to see but thus the Lord opened their mind to them.
So just studying the Scriptures, isn’t enough.
Non-sequitur. Ignorance of Scripture is not an argument against SS, but which does not mean it supplies the ability to reason, or read, or that is excludes teachers and the church. Again, see 14 questions as regards sola scriptura versus sola ecclesia
Do you think SS means all will find in Scripture what is necessary, or "can" via due use of ordinary means, and diligence? Perhaps you think SS missionaries required everyone to be able to read and have a Bible in order to be saved.
The primacy of Scripture is manifestly evident, while its sufficiency includes what is materially provides for, which includes the establishment of a canon.
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.
What part of "not by itself" is so hard to understand, besides actually defining what I referred to SS meaning? It was I who actually reproved the isolationist eisegesis of RCs in regards to Mt. 19:18.
May God grant you “repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” (2 Timothy 2:25)
“Sorry you just made an appeal to authority, do you honestly expect to quote a bunch of books as proving your point yet provide not a specific statement or reference demonstrating such.”
I didn’t quote any books at all. If you’re going to attack me, at least attack me for something I did and not your imaginings.
“It is poor form to claim a book proves something wrong expecting the other person to read all your books forts to refute a point you are unwilling to make a definitive statement.”
You just accused me of doing something I didn’t do (quoting books). Is making false accusations poor form? Is hypocrisy poor form - because that’s the form you’re showing right now.
“Please give me the scripture or scriptures that show Peter’s authority is conferred down through the ages to each pope and why a pope is considers, under special circumstances, to be infallible.”
Read the books. I’ve been through this rodeo before. The books are right and you’re wrong. I’m not going to type out the books. I’ve read attacks on the papacy going back to Salmon’s time. I’ve collected and read dozens of anti-Catholic books. But you find it too hard to read two books I suggested? Maybe you should be in another thread, one less taxing.
How is that an indication of me altering anything in my prior post?
I fully acknowledged the Greek translation of the original distinguishes between Petra and Petros, and that Petra is feminine.
But Jesus didn’t speak in Greek. He spoke in Aramaic. In both instances, he spoke “Kepha”.
Kepha is a masculine noun in the original Aramaic.
But when translating the Gospel to Greek, the equivalent of Kepha — Petra — all of a sudden becomes feminine. Peter, as a man, would not likewise be called by a feminine noun, so the masculine form was used.
If by "assuming" you mean utilizing the available dictionaries and translations and scholarly commentaries available to us, then sure.
The NT has been preserved by God in Greek and in Greek, the distinction is made between *petra* and *petros*.
Now you're making the claim that certain "translations" are inspired, when even available historical citations from the likes of Eusebius and Irenaeus of Lyons validate that Matthew originally penned his gospel in Aramaic, not Greek.
Claiming that the original authors were Divinely Inspired is one thing; claiming (as you are) that **translations** of their original Scriptures share the same degree of inspiration is another altogether.
So where is the written text to validate your claims?
What claim are you specifically referring to?
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.