1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christian: Sola Scriptura

Discussion in 'Same Faith Debates' started by Uncertaindrummer, Jul 6, 2005.

  1. Uncertaindrummer

    Uncertaindrummer Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    308
    Ratings:
    +31
    Umm, HELLO, you put in parantheses "Referrign to 16". That is not in there obviosuyl. The line says you are Rock and on this Rock I will build my Church. Care to tell me how you get anything out of that other than that Peter is the Rock? And please don't tell me about the Greek. PLEASE.
     
  2. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,667
    Ratings:
    +2,656
    LOL, Drummer. You don't know me very well. Only those who wrest Scripture use the 'original Hebrew and Greek'. We mature AVphiles don't need to. You'll NEVER see me stoop so low as to use another language to support our English Bible.

    Anyway, moving on, Catholics LOVE to think that "the Rock" mentioned is Peter. It's the only way they can get Peter as the 1st Pope. That and change "Babylon" to "Rome" in 1 Peter 1:13. You see, Peter never was in Rome that we know of. And even if so, he never mentioned it in scripture.

    And no, the line doesn't say, "you are Rock and on this Rock I will build my Church". Here's what it says:

    AND I SAY UNTO THEE, THOU ART PETER, AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH; AND THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT. --- (Matthew 16:18)

    What was "the Rock" mentioned? It was Jesus, Himself.

    ...AND THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST - 1 Corinthians 10:4

    Almost every time Scripture is misquoted, it is to support some heresy somewhere.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. James the Persian

    James the Persian Dreptcredincios Crestin

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,416
    Ratings:
    +654
    Well, shock horror, I actually agree with AV on this one and so would many many Church Fathers, as I'm sure you're aware. When that one phrase is not ripped out of context but the entire NT considered it's quite clear that words like rock and cornerstone are used to describe Christ and faith in Him, not Peter. Even if, for the sake of argument, the RC interpretation of that passage were correct (and I do dispute that), it still would not help the Papal claims as you're still left having to explain how the Pope is the rather than a successor to Peter and to show that any prerogatives pertaining to Peter were to be inherited by his successors.

    Not sure what any of this has to do with sola scriptura, however, but I just thought I ought to answer to prove to your accusers that those who argue against sola scriptura are not all RCs and nor are we in any way in favour of domination by the RCC.

    James
     
  4. Uncertaindrummer

    Uncertaindrummer Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    308
    Ratings:
    +31
    First, we do not rely the entire case on this verse, but it is certainly a strong one.

    Hey guess what: Peter means rock. In fact, Jesus spoke Aramaic, and so the passage would read like this: "Thou art Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church". NOWHERE does it imply that this is Christ.



    No, actually, the "Rock" is Peter. That's why he says you are "rock". Peter and rock are different in the English language. They are NOT in Aramic, or heck, even French. Speaking of which, I am still curious as to how French speaking people are supposed to read the Bible when the ONLY good version is written in English.

    ...AND THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST - 1 Corinthians 10:4

    Well its a good thing I didn't misquote it then. Just so happens that your beloved English translation is somewhat deficient here, because "Peter" and "Rock" are different words in English. Not so when Jesus was actually uttering them.
     
  5. Uncertaindrummer

    Uncertaindrummer Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    308
    Ratings:
    +31
    Actually, I haven't seen a singel Church father ever who said that the Rock reffered to here was Christ. Granted, many did say it was Peter's faith and not necessarily Peter, but then again there is also plenty of early Church writings which speak of Mary being blameless and withotu sin, yet you still say she wasn't.

    Ripped out of context? It's CONTEXT is that Jesus is building a Church and He is building it ON something. He jsut so happens to build it ON Rock, or Peter.

    :rolleyes: You act as if no one has thought of these things before. Not only does Jesus say "You are Peter (Rock) and upon this Rock I will build my Church", but He then goes onto say that Peter has the keys to the kingdom of Heaven and the power to bind and loose.

    You believe in Apostolic succession, what is so hard about believeing in Papal succession?

    Domination. Because the Orthodox Church doesn't "dominate". Wonderful.
     
  6. James the Persian

    James the Persian Dreptcredincios Crestin

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,416
    Ratings:
    +654
    Firstly, I didn't say the Rock referred to here was considered to be Christ by any Church Fathers - faith in Him, yes. It's the other places in the NT where the Rock clearly refers to Christ. Secondly, we do believe that the Theotokkos was sinless, whatever makes you think otherwise?


    That's the context of the passage but I was referring to the wider context of the NT as a whole.

    And you assume these promises were to Peter alone rather than Peter first, whereas the Patristic Concensus contradicts this view.

    Nothing, but how do I know who is the successor to Peter and why should it be the Pope of Rome? The Patriarch of Antioch and Pope of Alexandria have equally good and prior claims to succession from Peter.

    Did you somehow miss ND's use of that word. I didn't come up with it. He basically accused you of arguing against sola scriptura so that the RCC could dominate Christendom. I was trying to help you out here but as usual you get offended. Does my refutation of Papal Supremacy really cause you that much pain? I'm sorry if it does (though it does not change my beliefs at all), but could we please get back to the question of sola scriptura?

    James
     
  7. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,667
    Ratings:
    +2,656
    Assuming you were referring to Matthew 16:18, my reply is: That's true. You also mistranslate 1 Peter 5:13 to fit your heresy.

    Hey guess what: Peter means pebble. In fact, the translators spoke English, and so the passage would read like this: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." NOWHERE does it imply that this is Peter.[/quote]
    No kidding!

    Try Hebrew. I'm sure his mother didn't give him a Greek name.

    I thought I answered that. They use the AV1611 in their own language. They even call it the King James Bible --- only they say it in French.

    You weren't there, and as far as I know, you don't have a time machine, either. So don't try to act like some kind of Bible translator. Believe me, they're a dime a dozen with nine cents change. But I do know Someone Who was there, and He says otherwise.
     
  8. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,667
    Ratings:
    +2,656
    Here's the word picture:
    --------------------------------------------
    Individual Members --- Superstructure
    --------------------------------------------
    Apostles and Prophets --- Foundation
    --------------------------------------------
    Jesus Christ --- Cornerstone
    --------------------------------------------
     
  9. Uncertaindrummer

    Uncertaindrummer Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    308
    Ratings:
    +31
    Thetokkos? Sorry you will have to enlighten me, I am somewhat ignorant on that. Anyway I could have sworn you arguing agaisnt the IC a long tiemn ago. Sorry if I misunderstood you.



    Yes, I know, and I also agree takign the whole Bible into account is important. But I don't see interpreting "you are Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my Church" as taking it out of context to say Kepha is what the Church is being built on.


    What on Earth in the text supports a view that someone besides Peter was given the keys?


    That is a different argumen,t but all I was trying to say is that Papal Succession would certainly make sense--sure it wouldn't have to be in Rome without looking at further evidence, but it is not a huge leap to say "There are Apostles, and we believe in Apostolic succession, so if there was a Pope, Papal succession would follow", that was all I was attemptign to get across.


    Hmmm.... I must have missed that. Sorry. I seem to be sayign that a lot. I am invovled in so many threads on so many boards right now that I am getting really confused, lol
     
  10. Uncertaindrummer

    Uncertaindrummer Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    308
    Ratings:
    +31
    In what language?

    So? Your heretical Arian Gothic translators mean nothing to me. They are not Apostles inspired to correctly translate the word of God.

    I dont' care what the English says. JESUS DIDN'T SPEAK ENGLISH.

    Even in English it is obvious that it is Peter. Much less in the original languages.

    His mother gave him the name of Simon, which is totally irrelavent


    And yet in French the word for rock is the same as the name, so a French Bible would be "Thou art (Rock) and upon this (Rock) I will build my Church". What kind of anglo-saxon ego-maniac are you? You think God only made the Bible for English speaking peoples?


    No He doesn't, YOU say otherwise. Your wonderful KJV translators who were born 1500 years after Revelation ended have no mroe claim to inspiration than me, and your reliance on the KJV as the only correct Bible is so faulty misguided and without base that it is downright laughable.
     
  11. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,667
    Ratings:
    +2,656
    I've never said they claimed inspiration. And while you're laughing, YOU tell ME then, if it's not the King James, then which is it? That's all I hear on this website, It aint the KJ, It aint the KJ; but no one, but No One, but NO ONE, tells me which one it IS. That's because you don't know, and you're not man or woman enough to say so. So until you can tell me which IS THE RIGHT ONE, don't tell me WHICH IS THE WRONG ONE. Fair enough?

    I am ABSOLUTELY NOT INTERESTED in your websites, your dictionaries, your NIV's, NASB, or HIV's; and if you want me to even think about giving those Satan-supporting, mistranslations a modicum of respect, THEN RESPECT MINE!
     
  12. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,544
    Ratings:
    +6,183
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    I, for one, never said, "It aint the KJ." As a matter of fact, I use the KJV. But you have given me the distinct impression that my KJV isn't as good as your KJV. (You never have told me why, though.)
     
  13. Uncertaindrummer

    Uncertaindrummer Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    308
    Ratings:
    +31
    First off, the KJV is as good as any other protestant version. Missing seven books, but other than that its fine. So calm down.

    Second, why don't you give me an example of where the Douay version or the NAB support Satan? Oh, you can't? Figures.
     
  14. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +953
    Hey gang... let's try to remember we're all Christian men and women here...
     
  15. James the Persian

    James the Persian Dreptcredincios Crestin

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,416
    Ratings:
    +654
    Sorry, there was a typo there, it should have read Theotokos. That's the title we almost invariably use for Mary and is Greek for God bearer (bearer as in bearing a child) which is what you usually translate (though it's not quite 100% accurate - good enough, though) as Mother of God.

    You're right that I argue against the Immaculate Conception, but seeing as we do not believe in inherited sin (which is surely what the IC is all about) it doesn't follow from refusal to accept that doctrine that we also believe the Theotokos to be sinful.

    Seeing as neither of us are sola scripturalists I find this rather a perplexing question. I find my answer to this in Holy Tradition and, above all, in the Fathers. You know as well as I do that you cannot argue a positive doctrine from the mere absence of something in Scripture. Otherwise, why do we both disagree so with people like the Baptists when they argue against infant baptism?

    No problem. It happens to all of us. I'm just happy if we can get back on track and forget about this.

    James
     
  16. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,667
    Ratings:
    +2,656
    Neither do I. Since the Sin Nature comes from the seed of the man (Romans 5:12), it was necessary to bypass this. Thus Jesus was not born from the seed of man, lest He too would be in need of a Saviour. He was conceived instead from the Holy Ghost.

    The reason given for Mary's sinless state is that in Luke 1:42, Elizabeth, being filled with the Holy Ghost, says to Mary:

    BLESSED ART THOU AMONG WOMEN, AND BLESSED IS THE FRUIT OF THY WOMB.

    Thus linking Mary to Jesus by some common denominator, viz. being sinless.

    But, this is poor Hermeneutics, for two reasons:
    1. It assumes that Mary didn't inherit the Sin Nature from her father. Thus one would have to either re-interpret Romans 5:12, or assume that Mary was exempted from it by an act of God, Who is not a respecter of persons.
    2. Blessings were bestowed by God on a person apart from their sinful state as evidenced by Jesus Himself when He said to Peter: BLESSED ART THOU, SIMON BARJONA: in Matthew 16:17. Peter wasn't sinless.
     
  17. chlotilde

    chlotilde Madame Curie

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    276
    Ratings:
    +50
    Religion:
    Roamin' Catholic
    Wow, I just checked my profile and it's been awhile since I've been here, the topics are still the same though. :)
    So I've been rock hunting lately ( literally that is-it's a hobby) but I'm feeling a need to defend Matthew 16:18 at the moment. And having just finished a book by Chesterton, I'm feeling punny...his (paradoxical) thinking leaves me in stitches.


    Let's try this from another angle as to what it means to the Catholic...
    I'm assuming that you do believe Jesus is the Messiah as foretold by the OT, right?
    And we know that he is the One because he fulfilled all the OT prophecies, right?
    We know him by his actions...so What OT prophesy is being fulfilled in Matt. 16:17-18?

    To me, the question here...is not whatever Simon-Peter's name is or isn't.
    The question is, Why did God change his name? (Hey...who does this Jesus guy think he is that he can go about changing people's names at a whim...like his parent's didn't know what they were doing when they named him Simon:) )

    And... it is really quite convenient that the OT lists a few times where God decides to just change people's name...but it is not on a whim. God gaves his reasons. God has purpose, God IS purpose.
    Who were these OT people in relation to the Church (since we do seem to be trying to establish why in one sentence in Matthew, Jesus changes Simon's name and decides to go build a Church.)?

    Chloe
     
  18. Linus

    Linus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,211
    Ratings:
    +132
    This thread has gone on for a while, and I haven't read most of it. So here is my 2 cents really quick, in response to the original question.
    2 Timothy 3: 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work

    According to this verse, thee Bible itself claims that all you need are the scriptures. It is sufficient for our salvation because it says it is.
     
  19. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +953
    Bless you Linus... this thread and those like it don't do much to promote the Gospel... while I may not agree with your reading of 2Tim, I just want to make it clear that the most important thing is that you have faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior... how you come to salvation is secondary to my happiness that you will be saved!:jiggy:

    Blessings,
    Scott
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,667
    Ratings:
    +2,656
    I must admit that I find threads that deal with the trivia of nit-picking of prove or disprove a point do not help foster any positive attitudes.:(
     
Loading...