Is the Bible God's Word? (Do you believe the Bible is the only word of God?)

It's His only published history book and guide to life.

How do you know it's His only published history book and guide to life? What's the reason behind this statement?

Well, you will be closer to "true Christianity" at UTLM..

In the same sense that the Inquisition was loving thy neighbor.

At the judgment bar of God, anyone that supports UTLM is guaranteed to hear:

Mark 7:6
6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

Nothing good comes from UTLM and that should be your first clue.

There is a clear and overwhelming consensus that Peter in Matt. 16:19 is the rock in question.

Elsie is correct. God does not put His trust in man. How can Peter be the rock that church would be built upon when he's a mortal that will die?

There are a couple principles contained in that scripture that make more sense in the eternal realm.
1. Jesus is the Christ.
2. Revelation from Father in Heaven through the Holy Ghost.

Either one of those truths is eternal and the Church can be said to be built upon.

The Sacred Rites in the mormon temple...

“Can’t be of much worth if no one is willing to talk about it.”

I 'know' that is ewhat your church believes, and by leaving out the PREVIOUS verse someone could be fooled into accepting it.

The problem is that you left out the SUBSEQUENT verse, which clearly shows that Christ is offering Peter the keys to the Kingdom. He is, in other words, passing His authority to Peter. Put that together with the quotations from the Early Church Fathers -- I am still waiting for a single quote from anyone in the early church that contradicts Peter's authority -- along with the other passages which establish Peter's role of authority in the Church, and the conclusion is plain and obvious. But more on this later, because you post comments on this elsewhere, and I will address this issue in response to that post.

You've provided 'proof' in all the writings of men explaining your organizations position.

If you study Biblical history, the canonization of the Bible was based in large part on a validation of those Scriptures, and much of that validation involved comparing Scripture to the writings of the Early Church Fathers -- those patriarchs who lived closest in time, proximity and culture to the Apostles. They carry a certain authority when the meaning of the Scriptures are in doubt, as is in the case here. We are in disagreement on the meaning of Scripture, and we can turn to the Early Church Fathers to resolve that ambiguity. They clearly and overwhelmingly favor the Catholic interpretation.

If a reading of Scripture cannot convince you that the REVELATION that "Jesus of Nazareth is the CHRIST" is the 'rock' upon which the church is to be built; instead of PETER, then what more can be said?

I have addressed your interpretation of Scripture, although initially I did not see your post with the quotes from Scripture on the Lord as the rock. But I addressed that post last night and I again addressed the issue in an earlier post. None of your quotations refutes what we witness in the gospel of Matthew--which is plainly and clearly Christ's passing of authority from Himself to Peter. Focusing on whether Peter was called Peter prior to this point in scripture is a red herring, and demonstrates nothing. The important point is the passing of the keys to the Kingdom, which follows Peter's designation as "rock." And, again, this is not the only Scripture that validates Peter's authority -- as I showed in a long list of Scripture I posted yesterday.

So, again, we are both looking at the same Scripture, and sincerely believe we each have the right interpretation. Who is correct? What is your authority in your claims to truth in your particular interpretation of this passage? Mine is the Sacred Tradition of the Church, with Apostolic Authority going back to Peter, who was granted the keys to the Kingdom by Christ. What is your authority?

You have no guarantee that your particular interpretation is not in error -- and, based on Scripture, an error in interpretation could lead to your "destruction" (2 Peter 3:16), which is the cost of heresy.

If you look at the history of the early Church, you will see that it continually struggled against heresies and those who promoted them. We also see the Church responding to those threats again and again by convening councils and turning to Rome to settle disputes in matters of doctrine and discipline.

For example, Pope Clement intervened in a controversy in the Church at Corinth at the end of the 1st century and put an end to a schism there. In the 2nd century, Pope Victor threatened to excommunicate a large portion of the Church in the East because of a dispute about when Easter should be celebrated. In the earlier part of the 3rd century, Pope Callistus pronounced the condemnation of the Sabellian heresy. This was all before the canonization of Scripture, by the way -- so the same infallible Church that canonized infallible Scripture is also stamping out heresy.

In the case of these heresies and/or conflicts in discipline that would arise, the people involved would defend their erroneous beliefs by their respective interpretations of Scripture, apart from Sacred Tradition and the teaching Magisterium of the Church. A good illustration of this point is the case of Arius, the 4th-century priest who declared that the Son of God was a creature and was not co-equal with the Father.

Arius and those who followed him quoted verses from the Bible to "prove" their claims. The disputes and controversies which arose over his teachings became so great that the first Ecumenical Council was convened in Nicaea in 325 A.D. to settle them. The Council, under the authority of the Pope, declared Arius' teachings to be heretical and made some decisive declarations about the person of Christ, and it did so based on what Sacred Tradition had to say regarding the Scripture verses in question.

Here we see the teaching authority of the Church being used as the final say in an extremely important doctrinal matter. If there had been no teaching authority to appeal to, then Arius' error could have overtaken the Church. As it is, a majority of the bishops at that time fell for the Arian heresy. Even though Arius had based his arguments on the Bible and probably "compared Scripture with Scripture," the fact is that he arrived at a heretical conclusion. It was the teaching authority of the Church--hierarchically constituted--which stepped in and declared he was wrong.

The application is obvious. Do you believe Arius was correct in his belief that the Son was created? Of course not, right? Well then, take note that Arius presumnably "compared Scripture with Scripture," but nontheless arrived at an erroneous conclusion. If this were true for Arius, what guarantee do you have, as a Protestant, that it is not also true for your interpretation of a given Bible passage?

The very fact that you know (or I assume you know) that Arius' interpretations were heretical implies that an objectively true or "right" interpretation exists for the Biblical passages he used. The issue, then, becomes a question of how we can know what that true interpretation is. The only possible answer is that there must be, out of necessity, an infallible authority to tell us. That infallible authority, the Catholic Church, declared Arius heretical. Had the Catholic Church not been both infallible and authoritative in its declaration, then believers would have had no reason whatsoever to reject Arius' tachings, and the whole of Christianity today might have been comprised of modern-day Arians.

It is evident, then, that using the Bible alone is not a guarantee of arriving at doctrinal truth. The above-described result ws that happens when the erroneous doctrine of Sola Scriptura is used as a guiding principle, and the history of the Church and the numerous heresies it has had to address are undeniable testimony to this fact.

Do the writings of the "church fathers" trump or impugn the Holy Word of G-d ?

Matthew. 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this Rock I will build my church,

One method of Hermeneutical understanding of Matthew 16:18
is to do a word study of all the scriptures which were then known
as the Holy Word of G-d when Yah'shua spoke these words.

This will allow one to understand that all of the Holy Word of G-d
was inspired by YHvH; the whole counsel of G-d.

The only conclusion that one can come to unless you are
predisposed to believe in man's tradition over the Holy Word of G-d
is that Yah'shua was speaking of himself as the "Rock "
e.g.

Genesis 49:24 But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed
[Or archers will attack...will shoot...will remain...will stay] supple,
because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob,
because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel,

Deuteronomy 32:3 I will proclaim the name of the LORD. Oh, praise the greatness of our God!

Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock , his works are perfect, and all his ways are
just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.

Deuteronomy 32:15 ..... He abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Saviour.

Deuteronomy 32:30 How could one man chase a thousand, or two put ten
thousand to flight, unless their Rock had sold them, unless
the LORD had given them up?

Deuteronomy 32:31 For their rock is not like our Rock , as even our enemies concede

Deuteronomy 32:32 Their vine comes from the vine of Sodom and from the fields of Gomorrah.
Their grapes are filled with poison, and their clusters with bitterness.

1 Samuel 2:2 "There is no-one holy [Or no Holy One] like the LORD;
there is no-one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.

2 Samuel 22:2 He said: "The LORD is my Rock , my fortress and my deliverer;

2 Samuel 22:3 my God is my Rock , in whom I take refuge, my shield and the
horn [Horn here symbolises strength.] of my salvation.
He is my stronghold, my refuge and my saviour — from violent men you save me.

2 Samuel 22:32 For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?

2 Samuel 22:47 "The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock ! Exalted be God, the Rock , my Saviour!

2 Samuel 23:3 The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me:
'When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God,

Psalm 18:31 For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?

Psalm 18:46 The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock ! Exalted be God my Saviour!

Psalm 19:14 May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer.

Psalm 42:9 I say to God my Rock , "Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?"

Psalm 78:35 They remembered that God was their Rock , that God Most High was their Redeemer.

Psalm 89:26 He will call out to me, `You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Saviour.'

Psalm 92:15 ..... "YHvH is upright; he is my Rock , and there is no wickedness in him."

Psalm 95:1 Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation.

Psalm 144:1 Praise be to the LORD my Rock , who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.

Habakkuk 1:12 O LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy
One, we will not die. O LORD, you have appointed them to
execute judgment; O Rock , you have ordained them to punish.

Peter himself refers to Yah'shua as the "rock" in
1 Peter 2:1-10
NAsbU 1 Peter 2:
1 Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander,

2 like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation,

3 if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.

4 And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God,

5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices
acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

6 For this is contained in Scripture: "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone,
AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."

7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, "THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED,
THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone,"

8 and, "A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word,
and to this doom they were also appointed.

9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION,
so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

10 for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY,
but now you have RECEIVED MERCY.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

Mine is the Sacred Tradition of the Church, with Apostolic Authority going back to Peter, who was granted the keys to the Kingdom by Christ. What is your authority?
__________________________________________

Have you ever ask the mormons that ????

This thread was started to refute the sole authority of The Bible...

and to give creedance to the bom...

Let's start with how a Jewish, yearly REMINDER of GOD's saving providence, celebrated ONCE a year, in accordance to the RULES GOD set in place got tranmorgrified into an 'every time you enter the doors' ritual.

That's an easy one: because Christ Himself instituted it.

This thread was started to refute the sole authority of The Bible...

Yes. My arguments have been disputing Sola Scriptura from a Catholic perspective.

The Mormons cannot claim an unbroken chain of authority going back to the Apostles.

The Mormons cannot claim an unbroken chain of authority going back to the Apostles.
_______________________________________

Dont tell me...

Tell the mormons...

They claim that Peter the Apostle gave those keys to Joseph Smith...

If that’s not “claim(ing) an unbroken chain of authority going back to the Apostles”...

Then what is ????

Joseph Smith didn’t live at the time of the Apostles. There is no historical or achaeological basis for that claim. There is no Biblical basis for that claim. There is no authoritative basis for that claim among the Early Church Fathers. Clearly it’s heresy. Simple as that.

Do the writings of the "church fathers" trump or impugn the Holy Word of G-d?

NO! They are consistent with the Holy Word. That's my point. But let's consider the passages from the Bible you cite, which have already been addressed above. But I will repeat that argument again here, for your benefit:

If we look at the passages of Scripture you cite, they do state in various ways, and from various parts of Scripture, that the Lord is Our rock. And indeed He is! But this does not contradict the Lord's passing of his authority along to Peter, because by calling Peter rock, the Lord was doing precisely that -- endowing Peter with His authority to teach the Word on the earth after his ascension into heaven -- in order to found the Church that will represent Him on earth.

The Lord is the original rock, and by calling Peter the rock, He is passing that solid foundation of authority to Peter, which in turn He has passed down through the Church in history. And this Church forms the Mystical Body of Christ -- indeed, an unshakeable and firm foundation. The rock.

This idea that the Church is the mystical body of Christ, and that all its members are guided and directed by Christ as the head, is set forth by St. Paul in various passages, more especially in Ephesians 4:4-13 (cf. John 15:5-8). The doctrine may be summarized as follows:

The members of the Church are bound together by a supernatural life communicated to them by Christ through the sacraments (John 15:5). Christ is the center and source of life to Whom all are united, and Who endows each one with gifts fitting him for his position in the body (John 15:7-12). These graces, through which each is equipped for his work, form it into an organized whole, whose parts are knit together as though by a system of ligaments and joints (John 15:16); Colossians 2:19).

Through them, too, the Church has its growth and increase, growing in extension as it spreads through the world, and intensively as the individual Christian develops in himself the likeness of Christ (John 15:13-15).

In virtue of this union the Church is the fulness or complement (pleroma) of Christ (Ephesians 1:23). It forms one whole with Him; and the Apostle even speaks of the Church as "Christ" (1 Corinthians 12:12).

This union between head and members is conserved and nourished by the Holy Eucharist. Though this sacrament our incorporation into the Body of Christ is alike outwardly symbolized and inwardly actualized: "We being many are one bread, one body; for we all partake of the one bread" (1 Corinthians 10:17).

So, you see, it is not an either/or issue. You are creating a false choice by saying that either the Lord is the rock OR Peter is the rock. But the valid interpretation is that the Lord is the rock, and by the authority of the Lord, so too Peter becomes the rock. And by way of Peter, via the Lord's command, all Christians in the Church form the Mystical Body of Christ, and so also come to participate in the rock of the Lord.

How do we know that Peter is given this authority. Read the passage in Matthew again:

Matthew 16: 13-17

13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[b] the Son of the living God."

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

Looking at this passage in context, we can see plainly and clearly that, by referencing Peter's name, which means "rock," he says that He will make Peter the rock or foundation of His Church. While Protestants may claim there may be ambiguity regarding who is referred to by "this rock," the ambiguity is resolved in the subsequent passage, where Christ clearly gives Peter the keys to the Kingdom -- an obvious gesture by which Our Lord passed along His authority to Peter.

But, with that all said, Matthew 16:18 is not the only verse in Scripture which supports the doctrine of Petrine Primacy.

It is very important to realize that none of these verses explicitly say “The doctrine of Petrine Primacy is true” or that “Peter was the first pope and the Catholics are right”. However, when taken as whole, all of these verses clearly show that Peter enjoyed a special place among the Apostles, and that it was him Jesus looked to to lead and and strengthen them.

Peter speaks for all of the Apostles

In several places in the Scriptures, Peter speaks for all of the Apostles – the others are not consulted, or they simply assumed to agree with Peter. This shows that Peter was the leader of the group.

Matthew 19:27, Mark 8:29, Luke 8:45, 12:41, John 6:69

“Peter and his companions”

When describing the Apostles, the Gospel writers often chose not to list them individually by name or even write something like “the followers of Jesus” but rather wrote “Peter and his companions”. Clearly, one does not describe a group of followers of another man as “Peter and his companions” unless Peter is the leader.

Luke 9:32, Mark 16:7, Acts 3:37

Peter heads every list

When the Gospel writers do give a list of the Apostles by name, Peter's name heads every single list. This is far more than just a co-incidence, especially when taken with all the other evidence.

Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13

Peter leads the meeting to replace Judas

When the Apostles decide to replace Judas in Acts 1:13-26 it is Peter who is clearly “in charge” and leading or chairing the meeting.

Peter's name outnumbers any other Apostle's

The names of all the Apostles appear in Scripture – what many people do not realize is that Peter's name appears 195 times in Scripture, which is more than all the rest put together. If Peter is no more important than them, why is his name mentioned so many times more?

The Keys of the Kingdom

In Matthew 16:19 (immediately after the “On this rock” verse) Jesus gives Peter the keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and loose. This is an example of typology – the type being referenced here is the prime minister of the old Judaic Kingdom (referenced in Isaiah 19:20-22.) The keys to the kingdom were a symbolic representation of the authority to make pronouncements and judgments in the King's name (the authority to “bind and loose”). The fact the same phrase is used in both passages of Scripture makes the comparison clear. Peter is being appointed as the prime minister of the new Kingdom – an office which has the authority to speak for the King (Jesus). It is necessary to understand that the Petrine office of the prime minister of the kingdom does not give him authority to “dictate” to Heaven – the authority itself remains with God, but it is exercised on earth through the office of the pope. And while the pope in theory has the authority to do anything, he is protected from error by the infallibility of his office.

Jesus prays for Peter so that he may strengthen others

In Luke 22:32 Jesus says that He has prayed for Peter so that Peter may be able to support the other Apostles – He does not pray for them as separate individuals. This clearly shows that Peter is viewed by Jesus as the head of the Apostles, and as representing the entire Church.

Peter is appointed shepherd of Christ's flock

In John 21:17 Jesus tells Peter to feed his sheep – appointing him shepherd of His flock. This is a command given specifically to Peter, and not the rest of the Apostles. We are all required to carry out spiritual and corporal works of mercy, but the Jesus' words make it very clear that Peter had a specific and special responsibility.

The angel specifically mentions Peter

When Mary Magdalena goes to the tomb on Easter Sunday morning, she sees an angel who tells her to go and tell Jesus' followers that He is risen. In Mark 16:7 the angel makes a very special point of telling Mary to inform Peter; his name is the only name mentioned.

Jesus appears to Peter

In Luke 24:34 the Apostles say that Jesus has appeared to Simon [Peter] – they do not mention any other appearances, nor that they have seen Him themselves. Either the appearance to Peter was the only one which they were aware of, or they recognized that it was the only one worth mentioning. In either case, the importance of Peter is clear.

Peter leads the early Church

In the book of Acts there are many instances of Peter taking the initiative and being the first person to undertake a number of tasks or responsibilities. While individuals might take the initiative here and there, only the recognized and authentic leader of the Church would undertake all of these “firsts”;

Acts 2:14 – Peter leads the Apostles in preaching on Pentecost

Acts 2:41 – Peter received the first converts

Acts 3:6-7 – Peter performed the first miracle at Pentecost

Acts 5:1-11 – Peter inflicted the first punishment (Ananias & Saphira)

Acts 8:21 – Peter excommunicated the first heretic, Simon Magnus

Acts 15:7 – Peter led the first council in Jerusalem

Acts 15:9 – Peter pronounces the first dogmatic decision

Peter is given divine revelation

Peter is given divine revelation – and not just any revelation, but the revelation that Gentiles are to be allowed into the Church – in Acts 10:44-46. This is such a significant and important aspect of Christianity – its universal scope – that it underscores Peter's authority.

Saint Paul visits Peter

In Galatians 1:18 Saint Paul writes that he visited Cephas [Peter] when he was in Jerusalem – why would he do this if Peter did not have some sort of authority? He specifically says that he saw no other Apostles, except James the brother of the Lord (who was the Bishop of Jerusalem – so it would be logical for him, as a matter of courtesy, to visit him). But why does Paul meet specifically with Peter and no-one else? The logical answer is that Peter has an authority which the other Apostles do not.

Very solid Biblical evidence. Put these together with the passages from the Early Church Fathers, and it is an air tight case for Petrine Primacy.

Mine is the Sacred Tradition of the Church, with Apostolic Authority going back to Peter, who was granted the keys to the Kingdom by Christ. What is your authority? .

NAsbU Matthew 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven;
and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven,
and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."
When is the kingdom of heaven ?
Then, now or some time in the future ?
The verb is future tense.
So Has Yah'shua given anyone the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven ?

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

Psalm 78:35 And they remembered that God was their ROCK,
And the Most High God their Redeemer.
The Rock is also our redeemer.
Peter was a Jew who was sent to bring the
Good News of Yah'shua to the disbursed Jews.
The largest population of Jews was in Babylon.
That is where Peter was sent. Sent to the disbursed Jews.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

disbursed => dispersed

Elsie is correct. God does not put His trust in man. How can Peter be the rock that church would be built upon when he's a mortal that will die?

Jesus Christ died. He was as fully human as he was fully Divine. That doesn't discount Him from being the rock, according to your logic. The Lord does what He pleases, and makes all things possible -- including taking a fallen man and working through Him to create an infallible Church. The Lord works through Peter, who is given the keys of the Kingdom, in order to assure infallibility. Peter the man is fallen. But the Lord always works salvation history through fallen men. Look at Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, for example. All of them fallen, flawed men, and yet God's plan was revealed through their actions, in spite of those human flaws. The same with Peter. The Scripture is clear on this: Peter is given the keys to the Kingdom by Christ Himself.

Joseph Smith didn’t live at the time of the Apostles. There is no historical or achaeological basis for that claim.
_________________________________________

Nor did Pope Benedict XVI...

But again...

Dont tell me ...

tell the mormons...

They claim that Peter, James and John visited Joseph Smith...

If that’s not “liv(ing) at the time of the Apostles”, what would be ???

When is the kingdom of heaven ?

I thought you Protestants went with the logic that the Scripture should be interpreted in the most plain, obvious and literal way. Seems to me this stuff about temporality is very ad hoc. The Kingdom of Heaven is eternal, my friend. Always existed, always will. There is no past, present, or future in heaven. Eternity has no duration in the same sense as mortal time. But this is getting very abstract. The Scripture is plain, clear and obvious:

Christ says to Peter, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

But, it may help to interpret this passage in its proper Biblical context.

Take a look at Isaiah 22, in which "the key of the house of David" is conferred upon Eliacim, the son of Helcias, as the symbol of plenary authority in the Kingdom of Juda. When understood in this context, Christ by employing this expression in His words to Peter clearly designed to signify his intention to confer on Peter the supreme authority over His Church.

Nor did Pope Benedict XVI...

Pope Benedict XVI is part of that unbroken chain of authority going back to the Apostles.

But again...

Dont tell me ...

tell the mormons...

I don't know any Mormons, but if I were in conversation with them, I'd certainly convey the same sentiments. Joseph Smith lived in the 19th century. There is no indepedent evidence -- Scripture or otherwise -- that validates any of his claims, unlike St. Peter's claims to authority. There's just no comparison.

bdeaner - I don’t know any Mormons
__________________________________

Nana - A mormon posted this thread...