Search results

See my post above. Why do you think that Anglicans and Lutherans exist in the first place? (Hint: Anglicanism has virtually nothing to do with old King Harry in reality.) It is because, amongst other things, we hold to a different soteriology from that of the RCC and, whilst recognising the role...

I mean in particular contrast to the ahistorical nonsense spouted by the Trail of Blood people and my some here eg: referring to Jesus founding the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem:laugh: Wrong again. You seem to treat this as some kind of zero-sum game -"My way or the RCC way" - but it isn't...

Er...no. Some in the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England have swum the Tiber over the ordination of women and now women bishops. Those of us at the more evangelical end of the spectrum have no such intention.

:rolleyes: Yes, we know all that. Our position is not that we are 'pro-Roman Catholic'* but that we do not wish to rely on the relativistic "Me, Jesus and my Bible" approach to Biblical interpretation advocated by you and others here which leads only to multiple 'truths' and thus epistemological...

The writing of 'another epistle by Paul after 2 Tim is irrelevant'; I never said that Paul wrote anything after that so you are positing a straw man. Reputable NT scholars date the Synoptics in the 70s; the more liberal in the 90s.

That doesn't answer my question.

Rather strange then that most of the Catholics I know have a strong and vibrant relationship with the Lord.

So, which ones stayed and which ones 'joined Rome'? And when?

So which ones were the 'NT congregations' and which were the 'apostate ones that broke away and followed Rome'? Names or at least addresses, please.

Er...false yourself! Peter and Paul's martyrdom occurred c 66AD. The Synoptic Gospels were written in the 70s, John's in the 80s or 90s and John's letters and Revelation in the 90s.

Likewise in our Church of England...and the Orthodox, Lutherans, Copts etc...We see this Scripture worked out in practice this way in the was Christ commanded it.

The clear contextual data here is that He is addressing the Apostles. No-one else is present here and therefore no-one else is meant by 'you'.

Does that matter?

Er...no: Jesus is addressing the Apostles here, not 'all church members', since there was at that time no church and therefore there could be no membership at that point. What is happening here is that the power of the keys that is firstly (primarily) given to Peter is now extended to include...

'Zackly! :thumbs:

Or Peter's confession of faith is the Rock. You see, we have come up with three different interpretations between all of us on just one verse! Taking us full circle then to the OP, this alone demonstrates that sola Scriptura simply cannot work. QED, people.

If there is a candidate who presents a viable alternative in real terms. And if there isn't, if you have enough $millions to stand as a viable candidate yourself. One way perhaps to address the latter would be to have a cap on the amount of $s a candidate can speand on campaigning.

Er...I think you're addressing TS here, not me: TS was the one who brought up Peter's name; I've been talking about qahal-adta-ekklesia

OK, I'll concede that point: v3 says "ὁ δὲ θεός μου εὐλογήσαι σε καὶ αὐξήσαι σε καὶ πληθύναι σε καὶ ἔσῃ εἰς συναγωγὰς ἐθνῶν", but, if anything, this further muddies the waters because synagogue is used in the LXX typically to translate the more local usage of qahal, and yet here it is applied...

The issue of what was spoken is very important on the matter of understanding such inspired Scripture