"bible Is The Basis Of All Doctrine" - T Or F?

[the lumberjack]

[quote]while he is still a human being and susceptable (sp?) to temptations of the devil and sometimes thinking too much like men think and not like God thinks in his actions[/quote]

thats fine and dandy...but Christ didn't say he was LIKE the devil...He called Peter SATAN...how much more clear can that be?

[Aloysius]

[quote name='mulls' date='May 20 2004, 12:14 PM'] or a construct of any kind [/quote]
yep.. the Word of God, the Truth about God and morals, can't be FULLY put into a construct of any kind (except of course when for love of us He brings His full presence Body Blood Soul and Divinity but that's different, we're talkin about the Truth about Him) not a book, not a Church. But that book is a channel through which God speaks His word... He doesn't fully explain it through the book and the entirety of it is not contained within that book. So His word comes through the Church also, and while everything taught by the Church is the Word of God, the teachings of the Church can't possibly fully account for every working of His Infinite mind, it just presents the words God wants us to hear.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='May 20 2004, 12:21 PM']
thats fine and dandy...but Christ didn't say he was LIKE the devil...He called Peter SATAN...how much more clear can that be? [/quote]
if your hand causes you to sin, do you go out into the garage and get a chainsaw?

He's a Jewish Rabbi, He uses hyperboles. When Satan tricked Peter into thinking like men think and not like God thinks, Jesus said "Get behind me, Satan!"

Are you seriously telling me you take that literally, in that Peter is somehow an incarnation of the ancient serpent or something like that? I'm sure you'd agree a statement like that is rediculous, correct? then where exactly are you going with this 'satan' thing?

[the lumberjack]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='May 20 2004, 11:25 AM'] Are you seriously telling me you take that literally, in that Peter is somehow an incarnation of the ancient serpent or something like that? I'm sure you'd agree a statement like that is rediculous, correct? then where exactly are you going with this 'satan' thing? [/quote]
are you seriously telling me that you take what Christ said to Peter as if He were talking directly to Peter and not Peter's confession of who Christ is?

and I never said that Peter was the devil incarnate...

[Brother Adam]

Peter's decision to cut the ear off the soldier was influenced by evil, that is, it was not the Father's will. It in no way makes Peter satanic, or satan incarnate. It simply means he was a human susceptable to sin. All metaphors and parables speak some kind of truth.

Likewise, we did not put Peter on the ground and build a physical church on top of him (ouch). It is through his leadership and the leadership of the Apostles that the Church formed and grew.

[Aloysius]

hehe,, if St. Francis had been one of the Apostels... who knows what they might've tried to do! :yikes:

anyway> the greek clearly indicates that the "this" of "this Rock" refers to a person, so whoever was rewriting this in greek believed the rock was personally St. Peter.


i'm sorry, but these verses are clearly explanations of what the Pope can and cannot be wrong about. Jesus RENAMES simon (grain of sand) to KEPHA (massive stone). When GOD renames someone, it's big, real big. He's changing their role, telling them they're gonna be important in His plan. Abraham... Israel... Peter...

He never renames Peter Satan... he doesn't say 'you shall be called satan' he says at that specific moment in time, more than likely directed to the Devil himself who is clearly doing what he's done for centuries by tempting the pope and getting him to sin so more people will reject Christ's Church. The Devil's been doin that since St. Peter to many popes through the centuries. So Jesus was rebuking the Devil and Peter who had fallen into the devil's trap. The two situations are clearly different.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='May 20 2004, 12:32 PM']are you seriously telling me that you take what Christ said to Peter as if He were talking directly to Peter and not Peter's confession of who Christ is?

[/quote]
Yes, Lumberjack, that's what we're telling you. And that's what the experts in the biblical languages of Koine Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic -- the translators of the Protestant RSV -- are telling you. Most Protestant scholars now have conceded that the Catholic understanding of Mt 16:18-19 was right.

[b]Mt. 16:18 - RSV Footnote: QUOTE:[/b] The Greek text involves a play on two words, [i]Petros[/i] ("Peter") and [i]petra[/i] ("rock"). Palestinian Aramaic, which Jesus usually spoke, used the same word for both proper name and common noun. "You are [i]Kepha[/i] [Cephas; compare 1 Cor. 15.5, Gal. 2.9] and on this [i]kepha[/i] I will build ... [b]END QUOTE[/b]

[b]Mt. 16:19 - RSV Footnote: QUOTE: [/b] [i]The keys of the kingdom of heaven[/i] are a symbol of Peter's power as the head of the Church. [i]Bind[/i] and [i]loose[/i] are technical rabbinic terms meaning "forbid" and "permit" some action about which some question had arisen. Later the authority of "binding" and "loosing" was also conferred upon all the apostles (18.18). [b]END QUOTE [/b]

[b]John 1:40 RSV - QUOTE:[/b] One of the two who heard John [the Baptist] speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first found his brother Simon and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which means Christ). He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter).
[b]END QUOTE[/b]

Simon was renamed Rock and he is the Rock upon which Christ built His Church, and the powers of death (RSV) or the gates of hell (KJV) have not prevailed against it.

JMJ Likos

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Katholikos' date='May 19 2004, 03:54 PM'] Lumberjack, this was a two-part question based on your own statement:

1. Please provide the proofs [u]from the Bible[/u] that the Bible is the basis of all doctrine. (It has been established, from the Bible itself, that the New Testament does not contain the entire teaching of Christ and the apostles.)

2. Please provide the God-given list of the table of contents upon which you rely in order to be certain that the collection of separate writings contained in your "Bible' -- [i]ta Biblia[/i] -- is complete.

You know, of course, that when a Catholic and a Protestant say "Bible," they're not referring to the same book! Ours has 73 writings; yours has only 66.

Which of these Bibles is "the basis of all doctrine"?

Please answer. Thank you. [/quote]
lumberjack,

you still haven't responded to these requests, which are the foundation of this thread.

thanks,
phatcatholic

[Katholikos]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='May 20 2004, 12:21 PM']
thats fine and dandy...but Christ didn't say he was LIKE the devil...He called Peter SATAN...how much more clear can that be? [/quote]
When Jesus called certain ppl a "brood of vipers" we'd better take Him literally (Mt 3:7, 12:34, 23:33, Lk 3:7).

He didn't say they were LIKE a brood of vipers. Seems pretty clear, huh? He was talking to snakes.

[the lumberjack]

hey, I'm just following the example set forth likos...I don't seem to know when to take it literal or not...well, at least I did.

I know what it means...but its funny how Christ would call simon peter "rock" and then continue on to call him satan 5 verses later...

thats all.

[Aloysius]

the difference is he NAMES him rock then just CALLS him Satan.

When you make something someone's name, you're saying that's what he'll be his entire life. When you call someone something at a specific moment in time, your commenting on their actions.

If we didn't have "you will be [i]called [/i]Cephas" and so many references to Cephas and Peter as his NAME, your argument would be valid.

Pax Amorque Christi

[TheMissionary]

Yeah the Jews believed a name defined a person, it was also prophetic.

[saintwannab7]

maybe I missed it. but what about TRADITION with a capital T? I guess that was included somewhat in the analogy of the brain surgery book. But I thought it needed to be said. Christ established His Church (our Catholic Church!!!) on Peter, the rock not satan, and "the gates of hell will not prevail against it." So Doctrine comes from the Catholic Church. but there is a difference between teachings and Doctrine. Doctrine is infallible, but when teachings are not "from the seat of Peter" they are not given the infallible status. So I think that is not going to clear anything up for those who don't believe the Church has been given authority by Christ and is being guided by the Holy Spirit. But it is my $.02

[Katholikos]

[quote name='saintwannab7' date='May 22 2004, 10:46 AM'] So Doctrine comes from the Catholic Church. but there is a difference between teachings and Doctrine. Doctrine is infallible, but when teachings are not "from the seat of Peter" they are not given the infallible status. [/quote]
The Church herself is infallible insofar as she preserves and propounds the deposit of revelation entrusted to her by Christ ([i]Lumen Gentium[/i], N. 25, Vatican II).

The Pope is infallible when (1) he exercises his office as Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, and (2) when he speaks of faith and morals, and (3) when he indicates that the doctrine must be held by the universal Church ([i]Pastor Aeternus[/i], n. 4, Vatican I).

The bishops of the Church are infallible as well, either as a college or as a council. As a college, they are infallible if they are in communion with the Pope, speak of faith or morals, and agree that a doctrine must be held by the universal Church.

An infallible but ordinary Magisterium [teaching authority] covers the teachings of the Church.

Reference: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Rev. Peter M.J. Stravinskas, editor.

JMJ Likos

[Anna]

Clearly, the Apostles didn't think Peter was Satan.

After Christ's Crucifixion and Resurrection, it was clearly Peter who led the other Apostles.

Peter is the spokesperson for the newborn Church at Pentecost. Peter is the first to enter the tomb of the Risen Lord on Easter. Peter's shadow heals the sick. Peter is almost always listed first when the Apostles are listed in the Sacred Scriptures.

Must be the Apostles didn't understand Jesus correctly, that Peter was Satan. So, from the get-go, the early Christians were really Satanists.

Lucky thing God sent Lumberjack to interpret the Scriptures for us, and set the record straight.

And what about the original questions that are still unanswered?

[i]Where are the proofs [b]from the Bible [/b]that the Bible is the basis for all doctrine?

Where does the Bible list its contents, so that we may know which version is the authentic version from God?

Which Bible is the basis for all doctrine: the one compiled in the fourth century, or the one compiled in the 16th century?[/i]

Inquiring minds want to know...

Pax Christi. <><