Posted on 01/25/2007 10:49:26 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
And He HIMSELF is THE MOST AND TRULY ONLY SOLID ETERNALLY SOLID FOUNDATION . . . for anything.
This is absolutely the main point to be grasped, IMHO. For this ROCK is the Logos, and the Alpha and Omega, of all creation. To not stand on this ROCK is to be suspended in mid-air, subject to the vagaries of blowing winds (e.g., "opinions") that carry us hither and yon to ultimate destruction.
Matt 7:24-25 says it better:
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
The world is as it is because of its foundation in this ROCK; we are as we are likewise because of our foundation in this ROCK. To reject this ROCK is a consummate act of sheer ingratitude, and perilous to ourselves; for everything scatters in the end, save what stands firmly on this ROCK.
My two-cents' worth -- hardly up to Alamo-Girl's astonishing eloquence, but my very humble testimony nonetheless.
Thanks so much for writing, Quix!
May God ever bless you, my dearest sister in Christ!
Thanks for your kind words.
Indeed you are, as usual, greatly correct.
I believe, as Scripture indicates . . . by Holy Spirit's ongoing sustaining power . . . creation remains . . . structured vs disintegrated. I suspect it's at the subatomic level or beyond our comprehension--the level.
Hi Quix! It is a very ancient insight, predating the Incarnation by some five centuries, that for there to be a universe, there needs to be two things (or rather, two underlying principles): that which stays ever the same, and that which is capable of changing. The insight is as old as Heracitus, the great Greek philosopher of permanence and flux. The insight is directly analogous to the first and second laws of thermodynamics: i.e., (1) the conservation of matter/energy, and (2) the law of (increasing) entropy.
What does not change in our universe is the Logos: the Alpha and Omega -- the beginning of all that there is; and its teleology, or end, purpose or goal. Other than that, everything changes; evolution under law can be accommodated. Which is why I do not accept that evolution is a "random" process. What is under law cannot be said to be developed randomly.
I'm not sure I've expressed this very well. If not, I'll hear from people I'm pretty sure!
Thanks so much for writing, Quix!
Thanks for the ancient perspective and insights.
I think the popular notion of Darwinian evolution is bankrupt wholesale but that's another issue, topic.
I think that the FOUNDATION/substrate/fabric of reality
THAT GOD IS
IS ABSOLUTELY necessary for the diversity and the changes in diversity that we observe. Otherwise, diversity would be too diverse to collect into recognizable clusters of anything.
Kind of like on another thread . . . infants need the stable security of parents and being held lots by parents . . . in order to explore and expand, GROW in diverse ways.
Matthew 16 is really pretty clear. Christ says, speaking to Peter, "You are "Rock" (Petros in Greek; Kepha in Aramaic) and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven ...")
Except for the brief digression whose subject is the church, the subject of the whole sentence is Peter, Cephas, "rocky". If Christ wanted to emphasize in this passage that he himself is the rock to the exclusion of all others, he picked a rather strange time to rename Peter, "rock", and a rather strange mode of speech which left that concept not only unspoken, but not even vaguely implied.
And no, he was not renaming Simon "pebble". He was speaking Aramaic, where Simon's new name was Kepha, "rock". And even if you (against all available historical evidence) think that two first century Palestinian Jews would have spoken Greek to each other, "Petros" is merely "petra" ("rock") switched to a masculine declension.
I think that the descriptive "rock" for God (or anyone else) is intended to emphasize God's utter dependability and trustworthiness, two qualities which Jesus was attempting to encourage Peter to embrace ... ultimately with success.
And I would further say that the position of Peter within Christianity is not that of Abraham in Judaism. It's considerably less, closer to the position of Aaron in Judaism, even down to becoming a temporary traitor in a time of crisis.
I so agree, Quix! Sheer randomness without a guide to the system would play out as maximum entropy -- or heat death -- of the system. With a guide to the system, randomness is constrained to produce the kinds of actual living entities that we observe all around us. Things change, but purposefully.
My view FWIW. Thanks so much for writing!
Truly it thrills me that God has used so many flawed people to serve His will - whether Abraham, Moses, David, Peter, Paul - even a little "no name" like me gets to be a part of the body of Christ!
The Spiritual leaning I have is that that too is a message to us: to God be the glory!
That's a keeper!
Thank you oh so very much for all of your encouragements and especially your blessing! May God bless you in all ways.
I am curious to know the Catholic view of the importance of a Name for God vis-à-vis the Jewish view.
I am also curious to know why the name “God is the Rock” was omitted in the Vulgate (Deuteronomy 32:4)
I’d greatly appreciate it if you could share anything you have on those points as well.
Example Deut 32:4
Only 3 translations [all paraphrase bibles] use "The Lord" or "God". All the other OT Translations including the KJ use "The Rock." These include NASB [the one you will given upon entering heaven, just kidding], NIV, and the Message.
This article seems to be sayings that only the KJV gets it right as "The Rock."
It is called fact checking vs omitting the truth to teach something. Too bad as "The Rock" is a wonderful Name of God.
I was only checking the KJV on the other thread, looking at the oldest translations, trying to figure out how the Name for God got lost in translation. We traced it back to the Septuagint - but I failed to mention that there are many faithful translations that retain the name, God is the Rock.
Thank you so very much for your encouragements and especially for sharing your testimony and research!
Thanks for your kind words.
I agree with your analysis of the 'system.'
Amen.
To God be the glory.
John doesn't record the incident at all, but attests to Petrine primacy in a different way (John 21:15ff). Luke also has a passage attesting to Petrine primacy (Luke 22:31-32).
Mark has none. Tradition indicates that Mark was closely associated with Peter. It is likely that his gospel was closely based on Peter's recollections, and would not have made anything special of Peter out of Peter's own modesty.
Of course we know of the immense respect that our Jewish forebearers have for the Holy Name of God. I'd say we probably make a bigger deal out of the name we know that God took when he came to redeem us through his death: Jesus.
I am also curious to know why the name "God is the Rock" was omitted in the Vulgate (Deuteronomy 32:4)
Probably the most dependable suggestion is to wait until you get to heaven and ask St. Jerome yourself. :-)
What does the Septuagint say, and are there any variant meanings for the Hebrew words in the Masoretic?
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.