Hi TJ3,

Correct if I'm wrong:

As I understand, you believe in a doctrine called Sola Scriptura? Would you define the doctrine and show me where it is in Scripture?

Sincerely,

De Maria


In the meantime, I find the three prong Catholic Tradition is confirmed in Scripture:

First we are instructed to listen to the Church:

Matthew 18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.


Two, we are instructed that the Word of God is passed on orally:
1 Thessalonians 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

As well as by Scripture, and therefore it follows; three, that we keep traditions by word and scripture.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Perhaps we could analyze these Scriptures to see whether they contradict the notion that Scripture is the only standard for Christian doctrine.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

listen to the Church

---

Which Church?

Quote:

---

the Word of God is passed on orally

---

By whom?

Quote:

---

keep traditions by word and scripture

---

Whose traditions?

The early church was the only church, this church is what became both the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. They were both together until @ 1100 AD but both retained most of the same doctrine at the time of their split.

So I would say few could argue ( of course I am sure some here will) that the idea and term Church is normally referral to those group of Christians that developed into that group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Which Church?

---

The Church established by Jesus Christ.

Quote:

---

By whom?

---

The same Church.

Quote:

---

Whose traditions?

---

The traditions established by Jesus Christ.

Sincerely,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

The Church established by Jesus Christ.

---

He didn't establish one.

Quote:

---

The traditions established by Jesus Christ.

---

Please list at least five.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

He didn't establish one.

---

Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Quote:

---

Please list at least five.

---

The Mass
1 Corinthians 11 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

The Eucharist
John 6 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

Preaching the Word
Matthew 10 27 That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light: and that which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the housetops.

Penance or Repentance
Matthew 4 17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say: Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

The Magisterium or Teaching Church
Matthew 28 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

I hope that helps.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Ah! Protestants don't accept the Matthew passage as proof that Jesus started the church with Peter as the first pope.

Protestants do not acknowledge the "traditions" that you listed as any kind of traditions.

Apparently this will be a Catholic thread. I gather Catholics do not acknowledge Sola Scripture. The discussion will come to naught. There is no possibility of agreement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maria

As I understand, you believe in a doctrine called Sola Scriptura? Would you define the doctrine and show me where it is in Scripture?

---

Sola Scriptura is the is the belief that the Bible is self-authenticating, clear to the rational reader, its own interpreter and the final authority of Christian doctrine.

This idea is not taught in scripture.

More here and here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Ah! Protestants don't accept the Matthew passage as proof that Jesus started the church with Peter as the first pope.

Protestants do not acknowledge the "traditions" that you listed as any kind of traditions.

Apparently this will be a Catholic thread. I gather Catholics do not acknowledge Sola Scripture. The discussion will come to naught. There is no possibility of agreement.

---

I didn't ask for agreement. Just explanation. I showed the Catholic doctrine and where it is confirmed in Scripture.

What is the definition of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and where is it confirmed in Scripture?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

I didn't ask for agreement. Just explanation. I showed the Catholic doctrine and where it is confirmed in Scripture.

What is the definition of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and where is it confirmed in Scripture?

Sincerely,

De Maria

---

Actually, what you gave was a denominational position which is contrary to what scripture says.

Matt 16:13-19
13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?" 14 So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
NKJV

What do we see here?

- Jesus was speaking to his disciples as a group
- The topic was "who is Jesus"
- Peter answered that he is the Messiah, son of the living God.
- Jesus does not immediately refer to Peter, but rather the fact that the revelation of the truth came from God the father.

The word Peter here is Petros, which means stone or a piece of a rock, and then Jesus refers to the "rock" which is the revelation of who he is, and states that His church shall be built upon this revelation that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. The word "rock" here is Petra, which means rock, or a mass of rock. We do not build a building upon a piece of a rock or a stone, but rather upon a rock that is massive enough to provide a solid foundation. Jesus' choice of words made it clear which should be the foundation of His church. This is confirmed in Paul's letter to the church at Corinth:

1 Cor 3:11
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
NKJV

Matt 16:13-19
18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.


The greek word in 18 was Peters name Petrus, which just means Rock, just as in the others names, including jesus name all has a meaning, there is no reason to beelive it was not merely his name being used, in fact since it is the same name used in other verses it would not be reasonable to believe in this one verse Peters name was meaning something other than his name.

The term for rock is petra, and that is the word used for rock in the verse.
And even if the term petros was used, it was used The term petra means a larger rock or mass of rock something large, it is compared to the term
( or comes from the term) lithos, which is merely a stone

So he was speaking to Peter ( whose name means rock) that upon this large mass of rock, he would build his church.

The term for Peter was always shown as a literal meaning, while the term petra has been used figurtively as well as literal. In the Greek it is often the usage of the word that helps determine its meaning.

Also understand that in the early greek not all pronouns and grammar was used as we use it today, so there are "added words" to make it work in english. So instead of actually saying And I say also into thee
It really reads in greek more And also ( which is many readers idea of a break) but there are also other word ideas that can be used insteadof the word also, the greek word used is lega, which can have several meanings
, used for a individual expressoin, perhaps after talking to a group, he would turn and talk to Peter more in private. It can also be used to mean where as or even a added random though. Each of those meanings can well change the idea of what the meaning can or could be.

But in all of them it would appear that it is very obvoius that Peter is being talked to and that he would be a large part of the start of the church.

I do have to laugh, in one side so many Protestants want solo scripture, where it is obvoius and plain what the bible says and is all that is needed.
But when the bible is very clear on what it is saying, then it is not really what it is saying but a more figure meaning

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Matt 16:13-19
18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

The greek word in 18 was Peters name Petrus, which just means Rock, just as in the others names, including jesus name all has a meaning, there is no reason to beelive it was not merely his name being used, in fact since it is the same name used in other verses it would not be reasonable to believe in this one verse Peters name was meaning something other than his name.

---

I know of no credible source which would agree with you, including the Bible:

John 1:42
42 And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is translated, A Stone).
NKJV

Quote:

---

But in all of them it would appear that it is very obvoius that Peter is being talked to and that he would be a large part of the start of the church.

---

Not so obvious to others.

Quote:

---

I do have to laugh, in one side so many Protestants want solo scripture, where it is obvoius and plain what the bible says and is all that is needed.
But when the bible is very clear on what it is saying, then it is not really what it is saying but a more figure meaning

---

Like when Paul says that the foundation is not Peter, but Jesus?

1 Cor 3:11
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
NKJV

BTW, I am not a Protestant.

How about Strongs dictionary and lexical aids to the bible
And perhaps the bible in greek

And there is a difference between a mass of rock ( or a large part of forming it) and the foundation.

One fact exampel Mat 16:16, same greek work used for Peter,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

How about Strongs dictionary and lexical aids to the bible
And perhaps the bible in greek

And there is a difference between a mass of rock ( or a large part of forming it) and the foundation.

---

NT:4074
Petros (pet'-ros); apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than NT:3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)


And what is a piece of a rock??

Yes, as a name, it is Peters name, not referring to anything but calling Peter specifcly by name, Jesus was talking to Peter,

Rock has various sizes, we have grades in today's english, chat, gravel, stone, and they had the words for various size of stone, rock, piece , mass and so on. But the usage lets us know ti was obvous a name.
Since of course it was the same word used throughout Mathew for Peter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Like when Paul says that the foundation is not Peter, but Jesus?

1 Cor 3:11
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
NKJV

---

Of course Jesus is the ultimate head of the church. That does not mean then, that Jesus did not leave a visible head. That visible head was Peter. Again this is not an ether/or. It is not just ether Jesus is the foundation, or Peter is the foundation. And of course, even if Peter wasn't the visible head of the church, that would not point to a sola scriptura approach to scripture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wangdoodle

Of corse Jesus is the ultimate head of the church. That does not mean then, that Jesus did not leave a visible head. That visible head was Peter.

---

That is a denominational claim which, as shown, is not in concert with scripture, but we see in scripture that Peter was not given that recognition even in practice in scripture. For example, when Paul rebuked Peter on a doctrinal matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

yes, as a name, it is Peters name, not referring to anything but calling Peter specifcly by name, Jesus was talking to Peter,

---

As I said, maybe obvious to you, but the grammar itself does not even suggest that it is Peter that he was speaking to. And to me that is obvious.

Quote:

---

rock has various sizes, we have grades in today's english, chat, gravel, stone, and they had the words for various size of stone, rock, piece , mass and so on. But the usage lets us know ti was obvous a name.
Since of course it was the same word used throughout Mathew for Peter.

---

Bottom line - Peter was not called a rock, and Strong's agrees.

Actually it is, if you will note that Paul went to see Peter about the issues of spreading the Gospel to the Gentiles to basically "get his permission"

I am not going to look the verse up tonight, time for bed,

I did not think anyone acutally doubted that Peter was the head of the early church, only the fact if he was considered a Pope as the catholic church claim, the claims that he was obviosly the early church leader seems fairly well proven by scripture

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

As I said, maybe obvious to you, but the grammar itself does not even suggest that it is Peter that he was speaking to. And to me that is obvious.



Bottom line - Peter was not called a rock, and Strong's agrees.

---

Not called a rock?? Your own quote showed it was used for an apostles name?

It is obvious that you are just not wanting to accept black and white, in black and white from your own posting. The term was used throughout Mathew for Peter, it is just the greek word used, straight out of the greek bible strongs dictionary, greek condordance, and exegetical notes coded directly from strongs greek. If this was just a one time use of the term, one could perhaps wonder, but since it is not a one time use of the word it is then a obvous use by the author.