Posted on 12/01/2017 6:05:11 PM PST by sparklite2
And yet...
As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the following Early Church Fathers promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1:
• Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:
'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.
• Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:
You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. — 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].
• Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:
'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. — Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455
• Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:
Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)
• Cyril of Alexandria:
When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.
• Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):
“For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'
“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” — Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)
• Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II):
Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.
L: According to whom?
If they were canon, they would have been included 2,000 years ago.
"Prots" come under fire regularly for (which is a false accusation BTW) for claiming to have truth the church didn't have for 1500 years and making stuff up.
And now these writings are suddenly supposed to be canon 2,000 year later?
They weren't considered canon or Scripture at the time of their writing. If someone wants to consider them canon now, the burden of proof is on THEM to demonstrate that they should have been considered canon all along.
Now our FRMormons have a slightly different view of the bible...
The Articles of Faith outline 13 basic points of belief of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The Prophet Joseph Smith first wrote them in a letter to John Wentworth, a newspaper editor,
in response to Mr. Wentworth's request to know what members of the Church believed.
They were subsequently published in Church periodicals.
They are now regarded as scripture and included in the Pearl of Great Price.
|
THE ARTICLES OF FAITH
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS History of the Church, Vol. 4, pp. 535—541
Joseph Smith |
But it STILL gets printed in every Quad that rolls off of the presses.
Matthew IS Scripture.
The only things that need to be supported by Scripture are claims of things NOT found in Scripture.
Since Matthew IS Scripture, that demand for being supported by Scripture does not apply.
o.........k............
And away we go!
I see what you did here!
Pretty much any translation is inexact, to one degree or another. It’s just hard to translate idioms or, as inn this case, words that might have multiple meanings (or at least multiple shades of meaning.)
That being the case, why commit suicide??
The Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas are perfectly nice pieces of Christian literature. They just didn’t make the cut to become part of the NT.
You can't really "tell" very much, can you? You won't find any discussion of "physical objects" imbued with magical power in the catechism. The "keys" are a symbol of dynastic authority taken straight from Isaiah 22:22, not a physical object.
***There is virtually no reference of them or manuscripts prior to the late second or early third century.***
I have read that one or more of the anti-Christian emperors ordered the destruction of all Christian bibles and scriptures. So, the Christians hid their real scriptures and turned in their fake “gospels” for destruction, but a few of the fakes, such as the Nag Hamidi, must have survived.
After a new emperor came to power, the real scriptures were brought out of hiding. That is the ones in the Bible.
They are still in the old Catholic Reims-Douay Bible in their original places. The RSV Catholic Bible has them, as well. The Ignatius and Oxford editions of the RSV have them. They are not banned, nor are they "hidden knowledge." They are simply books of the Bible that were removed at some point in the much more recent past.
Try this: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
What being the case?
Maybe I am missing the point but I thought
He was doing it because of unbelief.
Rather than by agreement, seems the reaction would be different
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.