Posted on 07/03/2012 9:31:36 AM PDT by Teófilo
Numbers 13:16 When Moses changed Hoshea(salvation) Name
to Yah'shua(Joshua = YHvH is my salvation) or Jesus in English.
I published this study on FreeRepublic about the "Rock" over eight years ago.
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,shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
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.
Peter himself refers to Yah'shua as the "rock" in
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 YHvH. 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
YHvH 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 YHvH;
there is no-one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.
2 Samuel 22:2 He said: "YHvH 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 YHvH? And who is the Rock except our God?
2 Samuel 22:47 "YHvH 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 YHvH? And who is the Rock except our God?
Psalm 18:46 YHvH 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 YHvH; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation.
Psalm 144:1 Praise be to YHvH my Rock , who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.
Habakkuk 1:12 Oh YHvH, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy
One, we will not die. Oh YHvH, you have appointed them to
execute judgment; O Rock , you have ordained them to punish.
1 Peter 2:1-10NAsbU 1 Peter 2:It is patently clear from the Holy Word of G-d
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 YHvH.
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.
that the NAME "Rock" is a NAME that describes YHvH,
the creator of the universe.To assign YHvH's NAME to a mere mortal,
a created being, seeks to impugn and
deny the Holy Word of G-d.It also grieves the Holy Spirit.
Matthew 20:16 So the last shall be first; and the first last.
Matthew16:18 "And I say unto thee, thou art Peter (Cephas meaning stone), and upon this ROCK (pointing to Himself) I will build my Church; and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it"
The comparison of the little stone (Peter) versus the Rock of Ages (Christ)was a known speech practice then. The gates of Hell did prevail against Peter when he denied his Lord three times. Jesus is continually referred to as the "cornerstone" the builders (church elders past and present) reject as the head of the Church.
The Bible also doesn’t contain the word “Bible”. Oops!
Scripture, and Scripture alone, is my final authority.
Then why aren’t you a muslim or a mormon?
............
The Mormons have their own book and the Muslim rewrote the OT, added scripture of their own and took on many of their beliefs about Christianity from Arian Christianity—whose books were in the nag hammadi scrolls.
It’s amusing that Catholics so often try to defend their extra-biblical traditions by falsely claiming that Roman Catholics gave us the Bible. Try that on a Protestant who hasn’t studied both history and the Roman Catholic religion.
Folks who pretend they believe in Scripture Alone really only believe in a subset of Scripture and interpret that subset any way they like to fit their personal agenda and preferences.
The subset they do accept is what Luther couldn't get away with throwing out to avoid what the Church had taught for over fifteen hundred years. The only reason Luther didn't insist that Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation, and other portions of the NT had to be throw out is because his buddy Phil reminded him they were going to have to defend their point of view before the German nobility. Luther knew he'd never convince the nobles to accept his throwing out parts of the New Testament.
If someone really believes in the doctrine of Scripture Alone they should be honest enough to reincorporate the portion of the Old Testament Luther threw out or to throw out the portions of the New Testament Luther said were worthless. Otherwise they, like Luther, are just making up whatever sort of interpretation it takes to twist Scripture into agreeing with what they've decided they want believe instead of honestly trying to align what they believe with Scripture. If that were not the case then the Luther originated hokum about his just agreeing with a Jewish council from the around the year 100 would be seen for the diversion and it really is. Someone who rejected the centuries old Christian canon to align themselves with Jewish survivors of the revolt against Rome, survivors who were dedicated to stamping out Christianity and murdering Christians, and who eliminated those Scripture because they so clearly supported what the Christians were teaching, isn't the sort of person people should be relying on as the highest authority on their faith. And yes, no matter how people shout and wave their arms, the entire Scripture Alone crowd accepts Luther as their highest authority in matters of Faith, not Jesus Christ who never once mentioned that there was anything wrong with the Septuagint that the was the guide for what should be in the Old Testament.
If the Scripture Alone folks didn't hold Luther in higher regard than Christ in matters of Faith they'd still be using the entire Old Testament rather than a subset of it. If they even really believed in the doctrine of Scripture Alone rather than believing it's a good smokescreen they'd preach that since Scripture is their only authority, and Scripture in no way points to Luther coming along, but Scripture does indicate that the Holy Spirit protects His Word, Luther must be a heretic for wanting to throw out portions of the Old Testament. Since that would make the personal interpretations of the sort that rationalize ordaining queers and whatever else some folks want to do much more difficult, though, they just ignore Scripture Alone when it's convenient to do so which just shows that the whole ball of wax is a smokescreen to keep from facing the Truth.
An awful lot of people who think they're good Christians are going to find out that they've been a party to removing and denying the truth of a portion of His Word. They'll be finding that out right before they hear, "I never knew you" from the very Jesus Christ they deny was capable of defending and keeping the Scriptures intact without the help of Luther who waddled in fifteen hundred years later and straightened out what Christ couldn't straighten out.
have a nice day
Sorry, not even close. The NT is full of references to oral teaching of the apostles that we have no reason to believe was written by them. The NT endorses and relies upon the authenticity of a spoken sacred tradition. You’re stuck with it.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 is pretty clear: "stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter."
The individual churches didn't wait for an edict from on high to share their letters. They were commanded to follow Apostolic tradition, which was spoken AND written.
It was Tradition that established the need for the Bible and established the Canon, not the other way around.
Tradition? Apostolic tradition is the foundation of our faith. Apostolic tradition was spoken by the Apostles and written by the Apostles. To some how twist the word tradition to mean Apostolic succession is a misrepresentation. To some how equate the written words of the Apostles with the spoken words of someone who can trace their roots back to the Apostles is putting faith in the institutions of man.
“If you insist that Peter was the first pope, and that Jesus established a hierarchy of popes, cardinals, priests, etc., how do you deal with the historical fact that some of the popes were evil men and could hardly be called “vicars of Christ”?”
Two comments to buttress your post:
1) There is ZERO biblical evidence that Peter ever stepped foot in Rome.
2) No man should ever be called “Vicar of Christ.” That is a usurpation of the office of the Holy Spirit. Because there is a direct connection between the redemption of Christ and the ministry of the Holy Spirit, it is a soul damning error to mistake the work of the Holy Spirit as Vicar of Christ with the position or work of any man.
OR. Not "and". Read your bible.
It differs in that one can argue for the Trinity without limiting the scope of one's arguments by stating that only explicit Scriptural assertions have authority.
The distinct nature of the sola Scriptura argument is that only things which are explicit in or directly inferred from explicit statements in the Bible have authority.
Colossians 1:18 And he (Christ)is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
I Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church...
Christ is indeed the Rock upon which the church was built.
Additionally, each and every Catholic Bible that I've ever owned contains the Book of Revelations.
When I see such strange arguments, I really wonder if you are smoking something mind-altering. Because the areguments you just made are unfounded and so easily refutable as to boggle that the mind that anyone would try to make them.
That doesn’t answer anything. Muslims have a book claiming to be an authentic revelation. So do the Mormons. Why don’t you accept one of those?
How about you go ahead and quote the proliferation of verses condemning those who adhere to tradition over scripture?
How about addressing the _ninety-five_ points Martin Luther made about how tradition was subverting scripture in reprehensible ways? (That’s one good notable list just for starters. We can get into historical particulars of notably evil leaders later.)
And then, instead of cherry-picking, resolve all three categories.
Thanks for the comments.
The logical failure is on the part of the sola-scripturists, I'm afraid.
You make several assumptions based on generalities.
The proliferation of “zombie” insults does not lend perceptions of credibility nor sincerity to the author.
Appeals to reason? The ultimate fall back of the Catholic apologist. A reasonable argument is not a tenet of faith.
The same lame argument is needed to support Apostolic succession as well.
Show me a promise or show me a command. Saying something makes sense to human understanding doesn't mean squat.
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.