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.
Let’s talk for the record, Catholic Teaching (courtesy of The Question Box by Rev. Bertrand Conway):
Tertullian:
“Peter, who is called the rock wherein the Church was to be built, and who obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”
St. Cyprian:
“Peter, whom the Lord choose first, and upon whom He built His Church….” and again “[Peter is] the rock and foundation after Christ.”
The summation being that Christ was the Divine Founder of the Church, its Rock primarily; Peter was the rock secondarily, by divine appointment.
(This is in line with my previous statements that Christ is the Cornerstone and Peter is the foundation.)
“… on this rock I will build my church ….” Why would you do that? Why do you find those simple words to be problematic?
"The Catholic Church is the ONLY answer."
I'd have to just guess the question - kinda like Jeopardy - putting my answer in the form of a question.
Of all the religions that call themself "Christian" which one is leading more people to hell than any other?
Ding-Ding!
I'll take "Satan is a roaring lion for $200."
While...
Catholics get carried away with the bold claim: "Only the Roman Catholic Church can Interpret Scripture”
If they do that, they'll turn away from Rome (providing they understand).
They have been 'taught' for YEARS that Rome's 'interpretation' is correct.
Any other teaching is going to be as repellant as Dracula coming face-to-face with some Holy Water!
Perhaps you should go back and reread your post, you literally tell me you did not quote any books (posting a link to books is quoting them) then you go on to tell me to read the books for my answer to the question I posed.
See the problem there?
You miss one very important detail:
Where in scripture does it say that the scripture as presented is the inspired word of God and how would any notations such as John’s notation in Revelation be able to encompass the remainder of the New Testament?
Reality is that scripture is based upon oral tradition. Hence solo scripture cannot logically exist.
Where did THAT crazy idea come from?
Here we have it straight from the Authority itself!!
422 'But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.'1 This is 'the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God':'2 God has visited his people. He has fulfilled the promise he made to Abraham and his descendants. He acted far beyond all expectation - he has sent his own 'beloved Son'.3
423 We believe and confess that Jesus of Nazareth, born a Jew of a daughter of Israel at Bethlehem at the time of King Herod the Great and the emperor Caesar Augustus, a carpenter by trade, who died crucified in Jerusalem under the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of the emperor Tiberius, is the eternal Son of God made man. He 'came from God',4 'descended from heaven',5 and 'came in the flesh'.6 For 'the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father. . . And from his fullness have we all received, grace upon grace.'7
424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'8 On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.9
"To preach. . . the unsearchable riches of Christ"10
425 The transmission of the Christian faith consists primarily in proclaiming Jesus Christ in order to lead others to faith in him. From the beginning, the first disciples burned with the desire to proclaim Christ: "We cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard."'11 It And they invite people of every era to enter into the joy of their communion with Christ:
At the heart of catechesis: Christ
426 "At the heart of catechesis we find, in essence, a Person, the Person of Jesus of Nazareth, the only Son from the Father. . .who suffered and died for us and who now, after rising, is living with us forever."13 To catechize is "to reveal in the Person of Christ the whole of God's eternal design reaching fulfillment in that Person. It is to seek to understand the meaning of Christ's actions and words and of the signs worked by him."'14 Catechesis aims at putting "people . . . in communion . . . with Jesus Christ: only he can lead us to the love of the Father in the Spirit and make us share in the life of the Holy Trinity."15
427 In catechesis "Christ, the Incarnate Word and Son of God,. . . is taught - everything else is taught with reference to him - and it is Christ alone who teaches - anyone else teaches to the extent that he is Christ's spokesman, enabling Christ to teach with his lips. . . Every catechist should be able to apply to himself the mysterious words of Jesus: 'My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.'"16
428 Whoever is called "to teach Christ" must first seek "the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus"; he must suffer "the loss of all things. . ." in order to "gain Christ and be found in him", and "to know him and the power of his resurrection, and [to] share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that if possible [he] may attain the resurrection from the dead".17
429 From this loving knowledge of Christ springs the desire to proclaim him, to "evangelize", and to lead others to the "yes" of faith in Jesus Christ. But at the same time the need to know this faith better makes itself felt. To this end, following the order of the Creed, Jesus' principal titles - "Christ", "Son of God", and "Lord" (article 2) - will be presented. The Creed next confesses the chief mysteries of his life - those of his Incarnation (article 3), Paschal mystery (articles 4 and 5) and glorification (articles 6 and 7).
So have we; Vlad. So have we.
You claim needles in your 'book' haystack?
Save us a little time - PLEASE!
That’s what this thread needs: More shiny objects.
You must have skipped over #184 and #186.
Go back, and, after reading them, get back to me.
Where HAVE all the flowers gone?
So; are you trying to show disagreement between church fathers?
I just HATE it when I do that!
Augustine (De bono viduitatis)
For as Jesus said...."the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you".....
WHAT!?!?! Not the Roman Catholic Church???
By discounting the Magisterium and relying on Solo Scriptura, Luther and Calvin opened a Pandora’s box that would allow much of the error we see today enter into Christendom.
Please enlighten me if you think my idea is crazy: who would Luther and Calvin refer to for an accurate interpretation of the gospel?
By what authority would a person have 1500+ years after the fact to determine what was meant by a specific phrase that was written by a person who heard a story told by someone else who was recalling a memory from 30 years prior?
Remember that St. John is the only apostle that is a confirmed gospel writer. Tradition holds that Matthew was also written by St. Matthew the apostle, but there is room for debate on that. Mark was likely a pupil of St. Peter and Luke was a pupil of St. Paul. Hence St. John may have been the only writer actually there … and he didn’t write it down for over 60 years!
Didn’t you ever play that game in school where the teacher would share a secret that was then passed to everyone in the room?
And one more thing: The concept of scripture being the inspired Word of God is based upon tradition … not scripture.
prove/disprove a negative??
seems like I remember something from a college Logic class about that
Couple of comments here:
1) Which writers were Paul talking about when he said, “everything” and “all scripture”? Was he also referring to the Gospel of Thomas that tradition said was not inspired? Would he have included the four gospels that were not yet written by the time he wrote those letters?
2) You keep quoting Augustine. I don’t recall a book in scripture from Augustine. Are you admitting that solo scriptura doesn’t work?
Jesus is the Rock. Peter built his life on Jesus, the Rock. We build our life on Jesus, the Rock of our Salvation. Papal succession from Peter is a Constantinian Lie. James led the original Church in Jerusalem. Antioch was considered the headquarters of Christianity after the fall of Jerusalem.
As I said, “born again” Christian.
Not whack jobs.
There are lots of Protestant churches filled with nut bags headed for hell.
And OBVIOUSLY, there are lots of RCC churches filled with lost people, led by lost people.
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.