Peter is NOT the Rock of Matthew 16

self | 6/28/23 | self

[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.

[daniel1212]

And scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon for Roman Catholics - after the death of Luther in 1546. .

Wrong 397 Ad Council of Carthage decided what books were to be in the Bible period

Wrong. Period. Neither the 397 Ad Council of Carthage nor any other before 1546 provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon for Roman Catholic. Thus scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent. If you dared follow the link you would see that documented.

Decrees by non-ecumenical early councils such as Hippo, Carthage and Florence were not infallible, and thus doubts and disputes among scholars continued right into Trent. The decision of Trent in 1546 was the first “infallible” indisputable and final definition of the Roman Catholic canon, (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent: Rockford: Tan, 1978), Fourth Session, Footnote #4, p. 17, and see below) apparently after an informal vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) as to whether to affirm it as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the New Testament, (1917), states (emphasis mine throughout the proceeding),

► “The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm)

► "The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal. ” (Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm;

► “Catholic hold that the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church.” “The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the OT Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic University of America , 2003, Vol. 3, pp. 20,26.

► The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. RG27: "The final definitive list of biblical books (including the seven additional Old Testament books) was only drawn up at the council of Trent in 1546. “Most Christians had followed St. Augustine and included the 'Apocrypha' in the canon, but St. Jerome, who excluded them, had always had his defenders." (Joseph Lienhard, The Bible, The Church, And Authority [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1995], p. 59)

► "...an official, definitive list of inspired writings did not exist in the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent (Yves Congar, French Dominican cardinal and theologian, in Tradition and Traditions" [New York: Macmillan, 1966], p. 38).

► As Catholic Church historian and recognized authority on Trent (2400 page history, and author of over 700 books, etc.), Hubert Jedin (1900-1980) observes, it also put a full stop to the 1000-year-old development of the biblical canon (History of the Council of Trent [London, 1961] 91, quoted by Raymond Edward Brown, American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar, in The New Jerome biblical commentary, p. 1168)

►The question of the “deutero-canonical” books will not be settled before the sixteenth century. As late as the second half of the thirteenth, St Bonaventure used as canonical the third book of Esdras and the prayer of Manasses, whereas St Albert the Great and St Thomas doubted their canonical value. (George H. Tavard, Holy Writ or Holy Church: The Crisis of the Protestant Reformation (London: Burns & Oates, 1959), pp. 16-17)

►It may be a surprise to some to know that the “canon,” or official list of books of the Bible, was not explicitly defined by the Church until the 16th century though there was a clear listing as early as the fourth century. (Leonard Foley, O.F.M., Believing in Jesus: A Popular Overview of the Catholic Faith, rev. ed. (St. Anthony Messenger Press, 1985, p. 21)

► "For the first fifteen centuries of Christianity, no Christian Church put forth a definitive list of biblical books. Most Christians had followed St. Augustine and included the 'Apocrypha' in the canon, but St. Jerome, who excluded them, had always had his defenders." (Joseph Lienhard, S.J., A.B., classics, Fordham University, “The Bible, The Church, And Authority;” [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1995], p. 59)

► "in the fifth century a more or less final consensus [on the New Testament canon] was reached and shared by East and West. It is worth noting that no ecumenical council in the ancient church ever ruled for the church as a whole on the question of the contents of the canon." (Harry Gamble, in Lee McDonald and James Sanders, edd., The Canon Debate [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002], p. 291) ^

▀ Prior lists were by councils that were not ecumenical/infallible.

► “...at the present day, and for many centuries in the past, only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense...” (The Catholic encyclopedia, http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6099)

► “Neither Catholics nor the Orthodox recognize Rome or Carthage or Hippo as Ecumenical in their list.” http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm http://orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_Councils#List_of_the_Seven_Ecumenical_Councils.

► “The Council of Florence (1442) contains a complete list of the books received by the Church as inspired, but omits, perhaps advisedly, the terms canon and canonical. The Council of Florence therefore taught the inspiration of all the Scriptures, but did not formally pass on their canonicity.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

► “The seventh Ecumenical Council officially accepted the Trullan Canons as part of the sixth Ecumenical Council. The importance of this is underscored by canon II of Trullo which officially authorized the decrees of Carthage, thereby elevating them to a place of ecumenical authority. However, the Council also sanctioned were the canons of Athanasius and Amphilochius that had to do with the canon and both of these fathers rejected the major books of the Apocrypha. In addition, the Council sanctioned the Apostolical canons which, in canon eighty-five, gave a list of canonical books which included 3 Maccabees, a book never accepted as canonical in the West.101 Furthermore, the Apostolical canons were condemned and rejected as apocryphal in the decrees of Popes Gelasius and Hormisdas.102 Thus indicating that the approval given was not specific but general.” (http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocrypha3.html)

The claim that the Council of Rome (382) approved an infallible canon is contrary to Roman Catholic statements which point to Trent, and depends upon the Decretum Gelasianum, the authority of which is disputed (among RC's themselves), based upon evidence that it was pseudepigraphical, being a sixth century compilation put together in northern Italy or southern France at the beginning of the 6th cent. In addition the Council of Rome found many opponents in Africa.” More: http://www.tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm

The Catholic Encyclopedia also states as regards the Middle Ages,

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

Again, read here .

[daniel1212]

And who put the Bible together?

Meaning your premise is that:

► Catholics wrote the Bible?
Wrong, and if they did they were very negligent seeing - as has already been said in this thread - distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed (esp. Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).

► Only Catholicism provided the settled definitively settled canon of Scripture.
Wrong, for as has already been shown in this thread, even scholarly Catholic source have affirmed that its OT canon is not the most ancient, while the EO's hold to a slightly larger canon, while Rome's canon was not definitively settled until after the death of Luther.

► By recognizing and affirming writings as Scripture then Catholicism provided the Bible, if not all hold to her larger (or smaller) canon, and thus all who esteem Scripture should submit to her other magisterial judgments.
Wrong, for as already been expressed, an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") "even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 18:28, etc.)

And since those who sat in the seat of Moses were the authoritative body which affirmed (among other issues) what was Scripture (and never manifestly made that an issue with Christ or the apostles - even when Christ reproved them for their ignorance of it), then according the logic of the aforementioned Catholic argument, 1st century souls should have submitted to the judgments of this magisterium as to who true prophets of God were.

Yet church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, to whom conditional obedience was enjoined, (Mt. 23:2; cf. Dt. 17:8-13) which judgments included which men and writings were of God and which were not, (Mk. 11:27-33) as the historical magisterial head over Israel which was the historical instrument and steward of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2, 3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33, 34; Jer. 7:23)

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27, 44; Jn. 5:36, 39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and which the Messiah reproved, based upon Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27, 44; Jn. 5:36, 39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

For an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") "even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 18:28, etc.) For the Hebrew Scriptures testify to Jesus being the promised scapegoat and perfect atonement, (https://peacebyjesuscom.blogspot.com/2022/05/why-should-of-jewish-faith-believe-in.html) And thus Scripture provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the NT church.

For 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. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture. (Acts 17:11) .

Moreover, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither of popes and councils claim to do. Thus the written word is the assured infallible word of God. And the establishment of an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings by the time of Christ also shows that both men and writings of God could be recognized without an infallible magisterium - contrary to the premise of Catholicism.

[daniel1212]

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

Please enlighten me who 1st century souls should have trusted in an accurate interpretation of the OT, esp. as concerns who a true prophet in their midst was?

Please enlighten me how the NT itself began: by full submission to the historical magisterium or by following an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, but who established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power? Please enlighten me what living magisterium all - including the body of TradCaths on FR- should submit to now?

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?

Which is actually an argument against oral tradition, which is supremely vulnerable to undetectable corruption, in contrast to writing. For as told you and ignored, 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. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11) and not vice versa.

And one more thing: The concept of scripture being the inspired Word of God is based upon tradition … not scripture.

Misleading. Most of the NT was written directly as Scripture, and is not oral tradition, while the recognition of what is of God flows from the consensus of what was overall traditionally recognized as being of God, which - as with men of God - establishment was essentially due to their Divine qualities and attestation.

But what is based upon tradition … not scripture is the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults). For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares, and presumes protection from at least salvific error in non-infallible magisterial teaching on faith and morals.

[daniel1212]

Peter’s wife wasn’t deceased
prove/disprove a negative?? seems like I remember something from a college Logic class about that

Mine answer to them that do examine me is this, Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? (1 Corinthians 9:3-5)

Peter's wife could have passed, and he remarried, but it remains that of all the name apostles, all were married except for two, and who were not under vows not to marry, while being married is to be the normative state as it was in the NT church, though being celibate and continent has its advantages.

See here on development.

[daniel1212]

1) Which writers were Paul talking about when he said, “everything” and “all scripture”?

The OT. For as told you, an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") "even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 18:28, etc.)

Which 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. Which negates your argument.

2) You keep quoting Augustine. I don’t recall a book in scripture from Augustine. Are you admitting that solo scriptura doesn’t work?

Again, as usual, you are arguing from a perverse understanding of SS, as if that was contrary to the commentaries that abound among SS evangelicals. Unless you prefer ignorance, see here.

[Wpin]

All the Apostles were human, that has zero to do with the fact that St Peter was the first leader of the Catholic Church. Perhaps try reading the true history of Christianity. It will open your eyes. That’s what happened with me and millions of others.

[Wpin]

And God put together the Bible...not the artificially shortened one you use but the complete Bible and preserved the authentic Bible through His holy Catholic Church.

[Elsie]

The concept of scripture being the inspired Word of God is based upon tradition … not scripture.

I'm sure you'll get up to #215 and thus change your mind.

[Elsie]

You keep quoting Augustine.

If you keep dismissing Augustine's teaching, folks will think you're not a very good Catholic.

[Elsie]

Perhaps try reading the true history of Christianity.

The way Rome has recorded it?

[metmom]

It’s obvious you are missing the point of what I am saying.

I am not arguing whether Matthew wrote his gospel originally in Hebrew or Aramaic.

My contention is that NOBODY can know what exactly he wrote and claiming that *because it’s _______, means he must have used these words*, IOW, they are assuming with no proof what he wrote, is pointless. It does not support your contention about how he worded what he wrote in the least.

That the valid point still remains that God saw fit to preserve the NT in Greek where the distinction IS made. And it does wreck the flimsy argument about Peter than Catholics have concocted to support the papacy and claim that authority.

[metmom]

The Catholic Church is the ONLY answer

Wrong on so many levels.

JESUS is the only answer.

[Elsie]

...and preserved the authentic Bible through His holy Catholic Church.

I think the Jews managed to preserve 2/3s of it.

BTW; why doesn't Rome list the OT books the way Jerusalem does?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible

[Elsie]

...they are assuming with no proof ...

If they buy all the Mary stuff; why not everything else Rome puts forth?

[metmom]

The fella Jesus called "Satan"?

And all his successors who acted like Satan.

I have on my home computer the *Ten worst popes* lists, and the lists aren't even in agreement, which means that there are more than ten.

And Frankie wasn't even on the scene to be added at the time those lists were made.

[Elsie]

And God put together the Bible...

Why?

If tradition is the ONLY way to understand it?

---

...the Scripture (Gen. 15:6) was fulfilled which says, 'And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,' and he was called the friend of God.
James 2:24

[Elsie]

Well, Francis hasn’t dug up anyone and whacked off their fingers - so he’s got that going for him.

[Elsie]

History!

Ya just gotta love it!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod

[LeonardFMason]

Thanks. I already read the Bible and the NEW Testament. That’s the history that matter.

Tell me today about the Catholic Church and the fiendish and destructive leader known as Pope Francis the Worst. His mission seems to ignore the teachings of Christ and institute all manner of liberal nonsense. Why would God and Christ allow the evil he teaches?

[Wpin]

The source is the Bible...and you can bet Thomas understood the Eucharist. Read Mathew with fresh eyes...Jesus lost many followers over this issue. But, he did not recant...indeed he doubled down confirming in a most deliberate manner the the Eucharist is His body and blood. Look up the numerous Eucharistic miracles...like the Shroud of Turin and the clothing from Our Lady of Guadeloupe with our Holy Mothers image on it are miraculous in the present as well as when they occurred. It’s fascinating to learn how deep and rich our Christian history is. And, that is for all Christians, including Protestants. It’s part of your true heritage.