Dualhunter
New Member
Not the most flattering of comparisons, usually it's the non-Catholics that call the Catholic church pharisees, but if you insist, so be it
. You have not shown at this applies to the New Testament Church however.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Can anybody prove?
- Thread starter Chemnitz
- Start date
. You have not shown at this applies to the New Testament Church however.SolaScriptura
New Member
(Mat 23:2-5 NNAS) saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; {3} therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. {4} "They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. {5} "But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments.
Jesus must have been very sarcastic in verse 2 because right after telling the people "do what the Pharisees say", he says "don't do what they say."
</font>
(2) They had no authority! If they did, then Jesus would not have called them "BLIND GUIDES"! Surely you aren't saying that the spiritually blind men can teach the truth infallibly? Does God appoint BLIND MEN to be guides? I dare say that only a stupid god would do that! My God who is the Almighty God, Eternal and Self-Existent, certainly would not. (By the way, if you are asserting that your priests are as blind as the Pharisees, I agree with you on that.) I never read of Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, etc. being called blind guides - you cannot be blind and have authority!
(3) "[Jesus] taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." (Mat 7:29) The scribes and Pharisees had no authority and therefore did not teach like one with authority. Jesus, who being the very incarnate Word of God had all authority in heaven and in earth taught different than them because HE HAD IT and THEY DIDN'T!
[ August 06, 2002, 03:39 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura ]
Jesus must have been very sarcastic in verse 2 because right after telling the people "do what the Pharisees say", he says "don't do what they say."
</font>
- vs 8 "do not be called Rabbi" - wouldn't the Pharisees tell a 'rabbi' to be called 'Rabbi'? Yes, but Jesus says not to, even though they sat themselves down in Moses seat!</font>
- vs 9 "Do not call anyone on earth your father" - the Pharisees taught the people to call them 'father' but Jesus says not to, even though they sat themselves down in Moses seat!</font>
- vs 16 'Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated.' - the Pharisees taught this, and Jesus said "they are wrong," even though they sat themselves down in Moses seat!</font>
- vs 18 'Whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering on it, he is obligated.' - the Pharisees taught this, and Jesus said "they are wrong," even though they sat themselves down in Moses seat!</font>
(1) The Pharisees had no God-given authority. They sat themselves in Moses seat, God did not sit them there.
(2) They had no authority! If they did, then Jesus would not have called them "BLIND GUIDES"! Surely you aren't saying that the spiritually blind men can teach the truth infallibly? Does God appoint BLIND MEN to be guides? I dare say that only a stupid god would do that! My God who is the Almighty God, Eternal and Self-Existent, certainly would not. (By the way, if you are asserting that your priests are as blind as the Pharisees, I agree with you on that.) I never read of Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, etc. being called blind guides - you cannot be blind and have authority!
(3) "[Jesus] taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." (Mat 7:29) The scribes and Pharisees had no authority and therefore did not teach like one with authority. Jesus, who being the very incarnate Word of God had all authority in heaven and in earth taught different than them because HE HAD IT and THEY DIDN'T!
[ August 06, 2002, 03:39 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura ]
I paraphrased your response to adress these parts of your system. I hope you don't mind.
You left out verse 19, of Matt 16. This verse says the same thing as Matt 18:18, Jesus is talking to all the disciples. Viewing Peter as the "pope" is in clear violation of Ephesians 5:23-25 and Christ simply would not do that. Comparing scripture with scripture wipes out Peter as the first pope. I believe Jesus was making a play on words, with the rock comments, but at any rate, Christ is the head of the church, not Peter.
I don't know what magisterium means so I'll leave that one alone.
But as far as tradition goes, you have again taken one verse out of the Bible and used it out of context. Remember, Jesus severely rebuked the Pharisees for putting tradition over the word of God.(Matthew 15:1-9)
I don't expect this to be any great revelation to you, but I just had to put it down here.
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Curtis,
I paraphrased your response to adress these parts of your system. I hope you don't mind.
Of course I don't mind.
You left out verse 19, of Matt 16.
As well as verses 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25. I also left out chapters 17, 18, and 19. To say, "you left out such and such a verse" is to imply that I'm "hiding" Scripture to advance unbiblical claims by taking Scripture out of its immediate context. This is to be disgenerous to me. It would be better to point out what verse 19 says and how it plays into the discussion *without* mentioning how I "left it out". In addition to this, I never quoted Scripture to begin with. I gave a reference.
This verse says the same thing as Matt 18:18, Jesus is talking to all the disciples.
You are incorrect. Mt 16:19 does not say the "same thing" as Mt 18:18.
Mt 16:19 - "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be found in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
"[Y]ou" is in Gk. "soi" - a second person singular pronoun.
Let us compare this to Mt 18:18:
"Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven," which Jesus addresses to "the disciples" who "approached Jesus" (18:1).
"[Y]ou" is in Gk. "humin" - a second person plural pronoun.
In the first instance, Jesus is speaking to Peter alone, to whom he alone gives the "keys to the kingdom of heaven". In the second instance, Jesus is speaking to the disciples, to whom he gives not the keys to the kingdom of heaven, but the power to bind and loose.
In the former scenario, Jesus is mirroring the only Old Testament witness to an event that involves the transferral of these symbolic keys followed with the imagery of binding and loosing.
This can be found in Isaiah 22, where Isaiah prophesies to Shebnah and Eliakin. Shebnah will be replaced with Eliakin as King David's Prime Minister in the Davidic Kingdom. Jesus, the New King of the Kingdom of Heaven, appoints Peter as his Prime Minister to manage the affairs of his Heavenly Kingdom on Earth while he is governing from the right hand of the Father in heaven.. much like how Shebnah and Eliakim governed for David while David still sat upon the throne.
Solomon (the wise man) built God's house, the Jerusalem temple, upon the stone of foundation, which is currently in the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem - a Muslim shrine. Jesus, the new Solomon (Wisdom Incarnate), builds the New Temple (the Church) upon the New Stone of Foundation: Kepha (Cf. Jn 1:42) or Petros.
Viewing Peter as the "pope" is in clear violation of Ephesians 5:23-25 and Christ simply would not do that. Comparing scripture with scripture wipes out Peter as the first pope. I believe Jesus was making a play on words, with the rock comments, but at any rate, Christ is the head of the church, not Peter.
Christ's appointment of Peter as his Vicar does not contradict what St. Paul states in the 5th chapter of Ephesians:
"For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her."
When Shebnah and Eliakim governed for David, David was still over the House of Israel as King. Every subject of the kingdom was still subject to the head of the kingdom, who David remained to be - even while having ministers to manage particular affairs within the kingdom.
I don't know what magisterium means so I'll leave that one alone.
It translates to "teaching authority". All of the bishops together in union with the See (Seat) of Peter (the current bishop of Rome - Peter was the first) constitute the Church's Magisterium.
But as far as tradition goes, you have again taken one verse out of the Bible and used it out of context.
Then, it is your responsibility to demonstrate how I have done so.
Remember, Jesus severely rebuked the Pharisees for putting tradition over the word of God.(Matthew 15:1-9)
Yes, but these traditions were "traditions of man". Jesus is addressing corrupt traditions that stem from man, not authentic tradition that transmits the teachings of the divine revelation that were once and for all handed to the Church by Christ when he was living among us. I reject the former and accept the latter.
God bless,
Carson
I paraphrased your response to adress these parts of your system. I hope you don't mind.
Of course I don't mind.
You left out verse 19, of Matt 16.
As well as verses 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25. I also left out chapters 17, 18, and 19. To say, "you left out such and such a verse" is to imply that I'm "hiding" Scripture to advance unbiblical claims by taking Scripture out of its immediate context. This is to be disgenerous to me. It would be better to point out what verse 19 says and how it plays into the discussion *without* mentioning how I "left it out". In addition to this, I never quoted Scripture to begin with. I gave a reference.
This verse says the same thing as Matt 18:18, Jesus is talking to all the disciples.
You are incorrect. Mt 16:19 does not say the "same thing" as Mt 18:18.
Mt 16:19 - "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be found in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
"[Y]ou" is in Gk. "soi" - a second person singular pronoun.
Let us compare this to Mt 18:18:
"Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven," which Jesus addresses to "the disciples" who "approached Jesus" (18:1).
"[Y]ou" is in Gk. "humin" - a second person plural pronoun.
In the first instance, Jesus is speaking to Peter alone, to whom he alone gives the "keys to the kingdom of heaven". In the second instance, Jesus is speaking to the disciples, to whom he gives not the keys to the kingdom of heaven, but the power to bind and loose.
In the former scenario, Jesus is mirroring the only Old Testament witness to an event that involves the transferral of these symbolic keys followed with the imagery of binding and loosing.
This can be found in Isaiah 22, where Isaiah prophesies to Shebnah and Eliakin. Shebnah will be replaced with Eliakin as King David's Prime Minister in the Davidic Kingdom. Jesus, the New King of the Kingdom of Heaven, appoints Peter as his Prime Minister to manage the affairs of his Heavenly Kingdom on Earth while he is governing from the right hand of the Father in heaven.. much like how Shebnah and Eliakim governed for David while David still sat upon the throne.
Solomon (the wise man) built God's house, the Jerusalem temple, upon the stone of foundation, which is currently in the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem - a Muslim shrine. Jesus, the new Solomon (Wisdom Incarnate), builds the New Temple (the Church) upon the New Stone of Foundation: Kepha (Cf. Jn 1:42) or Petros.
Viewing Peter as the "pope" is in clear violation of Ephesians 5:23-25 and Christ simply would not do that. Comparing scripture with scripture wipes out Peter as the first pope. I believe Jesus was making a play on words, with the rock comments, but at any rate, Christ is the head of the church, not Peter.
Christ's appointment of Peter as his Vicar does not contradict what St. Paul states in the 5th chapter of Ephesians:
"For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her."
When Shebnah and Eliakim governed for David, David was still over the House of Israel as King. Every subject of the kingdom was still subject to the head of the kingdom, who David remained to be - even while having ministers to manage particular affairs within the kingdom.
I don't know what magisterium means so I'll leave that one alone.
It translates to "teaching authority". All of the bishops together in union with the See (Seat) of Peter (the current bishop of Rome - Peter was the first) constitute the Church's Magisterium.
But as far as tradition goes, you have again taken one verse out of the Bible and used it out of context.
Then, it is your responsibility to demonstrate how I have done so.
Remember, Jesus severely rebuked the Pharisees for putting tradition over the word of God.(Matthew 15:1-9)
Yes, but these traditions were "traditions of man". Jesus is addressing corrupt traditions that stem from man, not authentic tradition that transmits the teachings of the divine revelation that were once and for all handed to the Church by Christ when he was living among us. I reject the former and accept the latter.
God bless,
Carson
Carson:
You have done no such thing. One must refute and argument with evidence ,not ones on thinking. You have produced NO INSPIRED SCRIPTURE TO REFUTE MY POSTS ABOUT II PET.
As for your scriptural posts for the pope. Mat. 16:18,19. Where does it declare,provide the example or by the totality of all the evidence prove such? The scriptures actually teach that all the apostles were given the keys Mat. 18:18. They would receive ALL TRUTH. John 16:13. They all stood at Pentecost. Acts 2:48. Paul said he was not one whit behind the chiefest apostle. He was an equal with Peter. Gal. 2:8,9. There are 12 thrones in heaven for the apostles where is the pope going to sit to judge? Mat. 19:28. By the way, this is called a refutation. It is done with scriptutal evidence, not the questioning of evidence presented. If evidence is not accurate as is claimed one must refute with scripture to PROVE IT! Iraneous,Tertullian and Augustine are not INSPIRED and do not meet the standards of the New Testament nor it's writers.
2. Mat. 18:18 does not authorize a magisterium. It authorized the 12 to teach all things commanded by the authority of Christ. Mat. 28;18-20. Context of the chapter please. Christ is talking to the 12, not others. If this were so,one could find SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THIS OFFICE. It is absent in the pages of inspiration.
The Bible plainly teaches that the church of AD 33,not 605, contiunued steadfastly in the APOSTLES doctrine, not the magisterium. Acts 2:42.
3. II Thes. 2:15 requires one to keep the traditons delivered by US OUR ( APOSTLES) whether by word or epistle. The following should suffice to futher establish apostolicity. I Cor. 11:1,2 Phil. 3:16,I Cor. 1:10,11, II Tim. 1:13, ITim. 1:3,18-20, Titus 2:2, II Tim. 2:2, Mk. 16:17-20, II Cor. 12:12. John 20:30 31.
Finally,I have been direct, not unkind. I have contended for the faith once delivered to the saints. Jude 3. I am sorry if you do not like my direct manner. I have nothing against you personally. It is your doctrine that has you messed up.
By the way, George Washington, humm, lived after the days of inspiration. Therefore, it would be quit impossible to find an inspired man to verify him as president. This being the case one may still prove his authenticity by content comparison of documents and witnesses. The same way one knows the Bible is inspired.
You have done no such thing. One must refute and argument with evidence ,not ones on thinking. You have produced NO INSPIRED SCRIPTURE TO REFUTE MY POSTS ABOUT II PET.
As for your scriptural posts for the pope. Mat. 16:18,19. Where does it declare,provide the example or by the totality of all the evidence prove such? The scriptures actually teach that all the apostles were given the keys Mat. 18:18. They would receive ALL TRUTH. John 16:13. They all stood at Pentecost. Acts 2:48. Paul said he was not one whit behind the chiefest apostle. He was an equal with Peter. Gal. 2:8,9. There are 12 thrones in heaven for the apostles where is the pope going to sit to judge? Mat. 19:28. By the way, this is called a refutation. It is done with scriptutal evidence, not the questioning of evidence presented. If evidence is not accurate as is claimed one must refute with scripture to PROVE IT! Iraneous,Tertullian and Augustine are not INSPIRED and do not meet the standards of the New Testament nor it's writers.
2. Mat. 18:18 does not authorize a magisterium. It authorized the 12 to teach all things commanded by the authority of Christ. Mat. 28;18-20. Context of the chapter please. Christ is talking to the 12, not others. If this were so,one could find SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THIS OFFICE. It is absent in the pages of inspiration.
The Bible plainly teaches that the church of AD 33,not 605, contiunued steadfastly in the APOSTLES doctrine, not the magisterium. Acts 2:42.
3. II Thes. 2:15 requires one to keep the traditons delivered by US OUR ( APOSTLES) whether by word or epistle. The following should suffice to futher establish apostolicity. I Cor. 11:1,2 Phil. 3:16,I Cor. 1:10,11, II Tim. 1:13, ITim. 1:3,18-20, Titus 2:2, II Tim. 2:2, Mk. 16:17-20, II Cor. 12:12. John 20:30 31.
Finally,I have been direct, not unkind. I have contended for the faith once delivered to the saints. Jude 3. I am sorry if you do not like my direct manner. I have nothing against you personally. It is your doctrine that has you messed up.
By the way, George Washington, humm, lived after the days of inspiration. Therefore, it would be quit impossible to find an inspired man to verify him as president. This being the case one may still prove his authenticity by content comparison of documents and witnesses. The same way one knows the Bible is inspired.
Carson...
The verses do not appoint Peter as the pope. They do not require a New Testament church to have a heirarchy(sp?), and it's just too cryptic for me to buy. If Jesus appointed Peter, it would be plain enough so that even I could understand it.
And if Peter was so exalted in Christ's eyes, then why do you doubt the inspiration of his 2nd epistle ?
I don't want to debate Catholic/Baptist with you. It will go nowhere, and eventually be reduced to insults, we have seen it hundreds of times here. I simply will say thet I don't believe in a pope at all, nor a "chain of command" in the churches structure.
That, of course, with a lot of other points about the RCC, that I won't begin to mention.
The verses do not appoint Peter as the pope. They do not require a New Testament church to have a heirarchy(sp?), and it's just too cryptic for me to buy. If Jesus appointed Peter, it would be plain enough so that even I could understand it.
And if Peter was so exalted in Christ's eyes, then why do you doubt the inspiration of his 2nd epistle ?
I don't want to debate Catholic/Baptist with you. It will go nowhere, and eventually be reduced to insults, we have seen it hundreds of times here. I simply will say thet I don't believe in a pope at all, nor a "chain of command" in the churches structure.
That, of course, with a lot of other points about the RCC, that I won't begin to mention.
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Mr. Curtis,
The verses do not appoint Peter as the pope.
Of course, this is your opinion. I have shown, above, how in Matthew 16, Jesus appoints Peter as the foundation stone ("eben shetnyah") of his Church, in which Peter serves as Christ's Prime Minister among the Cabinet of Ministers.
They do not require a New Testament church to have a heirarchy(sp?)
What is a hierarchy? The term comes from two Greek roots: (1) Hieros and (2) Arche, which translates to (1) Priests and (2) Rule, respectively. Hierarchy essentially means "rule of priests", and from Judges 17, 18, and 19, we know that priesthood is spiritual fatherhood. If God is our spiritual father par excellance, then his ministers on Earth who do his work and represent him (as ministers rightfully did in the Davidic Empire for David) here are our temporal spiritual fathers in the household of God.
and it's just too cryptic for me to buy. If Jesus appointed Peter, it would be plain enough so that even I could understand it.
I agree. The account is entirely cryptic: esp. for a 21st century American. But, we must take into account St. Matthew's Jewish Audience. To those entrenched in the language and workings of the Old Testament, Jesus' actions and intentions are clearly manifest - and this is what I have been showing.
And if Peter was so exalted in Christ's eyes, then why do you doubt the inspiration of his 2nd epistle ?
I don't doubt the inspiration of this particular epistle, and the reason that I don't is because the Catholic Church tells me that this particular epistle is inspired. The Church does not say that Peter himself wrote the epistle, which is an assertion that is debated among scholars. If you pick up a contemporary introduction to the New Testament, you will discover that there are numerous reasons for why Peter did not write 2 Peter and that the epistle is included as Scripture because it is "apostolic" - meaning that it was authored within the true faith, not that it was written by an apostle.
What I am requiring of the non-Catholics on this board is an answer to the question: Why do you accept 2 Peter as inspired when (1) There are numerous reasons against its Petrine authorship (which would still allow for its divine inspiration), (2) You reject the Catholic Church - esp. the Magisterium, and (3) This particular epistle was considered non-inspired by numerous Christians and Churches throughout the first 3 centuries of Christianity, in which there was no neatly bound KJV Bible to purchase at your local Christian bookstore?
I don't want to debate Catholic/Baptist with you. It will go nowhere, and eventually be reduced to insults, we have seen it hundreds of times here.
I disagree with you. If you wish to reduce dialogue to insults, then I will not dialogue with you. Christian charity is an essential ingredient of any conversation I partake in.
God bless,
Carson
The verses do not appoint Peter as the pope.
Of course, this is your opinion. I have shown, above, how in Matthew 16, Jesus appoints Peter as the foundation stone ("eben shetnyah") of his Church, in which Peter serves as Christ's Prime Minister among the Cabinet of Ministers.
They do not require a New Testament church to have a heirarchy(sp?)
What is a hierarchy? The term comes from two Greek roots: (1) Hieros and (2) Arche, which translates to (1) Priests and (2) Rule, respectively. Hierarchy essentially means "rule of priests", and from Judges 17, 18, and 19, we know that priesthood is spiritual fatherhood. If God is our spiritual father par excellance, then his ministers on Earth who do his work and represent him (as ministers rightfully did in the Davidic Empire for David) here are our temporal spiritual fathers in the household of God.
and it's just too cryptic for me to buy. If Jesus appointed Peter, it would be plain enough so that even I could understand it.
I agree. The account is entirely cryptic: esp. for a 21st century American. But, we must take into account St. Matthew's Jewish Audience. To those entrenched in the language and workings of the Old Testament, Jesus' actions and intentions are clearly manifest - and this is what I have been showing.
And if Peter was so exalted in Christ's eyes, then why do you doubt the inspiration of his 2nd epistle ?
I don't doubt the inspiration of this particular epistle, and the reason that I don't is because the Catholic Church tells me that this particular epistle is inspired. The Church does not say that Peter himself wrote the epistle, which is an assertion that is debated among scholars. If you pick up a contemporary introduction to the New Testament, you will discover that there are numerous reasons for why Peter did not write 2 Peter and that the epistle is included as Scripture because it is "apostolic" - meaning that it was authored within the true faith, not that it was written by an apostle.
What I am requiring of the non-Catholics on this board is an answer to the question: Why do you accept 2 Peter as inspired when (1) There are numerous reasons against its Petrine authorship (which would still allow for its divine inspiration), (2) You reject the Catholic Church - esp. the Magisterium, and (3) This particular epistle was considered non-inspired by numerous Christians and Churches throughout the first 3 centuries of Christianity, in which there was no neatly bound KJV Bible to purchase at your local Christian bookstore?
I don't want to debate Catholic/Baptist with you. It will go nowhere, and eventually be reduced to insults, we have seen it hundreds of times here.
I disagree with you. If you wish to reduce dialogue to insults, then I will not dialogue with you. Christian charity is an essential ingredient of any conversation I partake in.
God bless,
Carson
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Frank,
You have done no such thing.
I have not accomplished what?
One must refute and argument with evidence ,not ones on thinking. You have produced NO INSPIRED SCRIPTURE TO REFUTE MY POSTS ABOUT II PET.
The point that I have made is that you don't know that Peter wrote 2 Peter, yet you accept 2 Peter as inspired. The early Christian churches were divided over whether this epistle is inspired for very good reason. But, instead of dialoguing over the issue, you continue to repeat, "YOU HAVE NOT REFUTED ME WITH SCRIPTURE", which takes us nowhere.
As for your scriptural posts for the pope. Mat. 16:18,19. Where does it declare,provide the example or by the totality of all the evidence prove such? The scriptures actually teach that all the apostles were given the keys Mat. 18:18.
You are incorrect. In Matthew 18:18, no keys are given. I may have poor vision, but I can't find the distribution of keys anywhere in Mt. 18.
By the way, this is called a refutation. It is done with scriptutal evidence, not the questioning of evidence presented.
It's also called "Scriptural tennis" and brings the two involved to an intellectual void also referred to as "no man's land".
Iraneous,Tertullian and Augustine are not INSPIRED and do not meet the standards of the New Testament nor it's writers.
And, you're not inspired - so I suppose I shouldn't be listening to you?
Mat. 18:18 does not authorize a magisterium. It authorized the 12 to teach all things commanded by the authority of Christ.
This is exactly what the Magisterium does: teach.
The term means, "teaching body".
Mat. 28;18-20. Context of the chapter please. Christ is talking to the 12, not others.
Christ appoints 12 Apostles and 70 disciples very much like Moses had 12 princes from the 12 Tribes and 70 elders. In the Old Testament, Israel's authority structure didn't dissolve with the death of Moses, the 12, and the 70, so I wouldn't expect for it to dissolve in the case of the surpassing NT.
If this were so,one could find SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THIS OFFICE. It is absent in the pages of inspiration.
And, I've shown you how in the OT, the position of Prime Minister was an "office", how Jesus appoints Peter as his Prime Minister, and therefore, Jesus appoints an "office". However, instead of speaking with me and addressing what I say, you conclude with, "SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THIS OFFICE ... is absent in the pages of inspiration".
The Bible plainly teaches that the church of AD 33,not 605, contiunued steadfastly in the APOSTLES doctrine, not the magisterium.
The Magisterium continues steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine; that is its purpose.
II Thes. 2:15 requires one to keep the traditons delivered by US OUR ( APOSTLES) whether by word or epistle.
Exactly! And, do you stick to the "Bible Alone" or do you also adhere to the unwritten tradition of Christianity in matters of doctrine concerning faith and morality? In other words, are you a Catholic -adhering to the one faith lived and preached for 2,000 years- or are you a Protestant, living off of the novel doctrine of "Sola Scriptura", invented by the novel Reformers of thew 16th century in Medieval Europe?
By the way, George Washington, humm, lived after the days of inspiration. Therefore, it would be quit impossible to find an inspired man to verify him as president. This being the case one may still prove his authenticity by content comparison of documents and witnesses. The same way one knows the Bible is inspired.
And, the Bible was "put together" after the days of inspiration. Therefore, it would be quite impossible to find an inspired man to verify which epistles among the 200 or so claiming inspiration in the early Church are actually inspired. This being the case, one may still prove the canon and proper interpretation of the Bible by comparison of documents and witnesses of the early Church.
God bless,
Carson
You have done no such thing.
I have not accomplished what?
One must refute and argument with evidence ,not ones on thinking. You have produced NO INSPIRED SCRIPTURE TO REFUTE MY POSTS ABOUT II PET.
The point that I have made is that you don't know that Peter wrote 2 Peter, yet you accept 2 Peter as inspired. The early Christian churches were divided over whether this epistle is inspired for very good reason. But, instead of dialoguing over the issue, you continue to repeat, "YOU HAVE NOT REFUTED ME WITH SCRIPTURE", which takes us nowhere.
As for your scriptural posts for the pope. Mat. 16:18,19. Where does it declare,provide the example or by the totality of all the evidence prove such? The scriptures actually teach that all the apostles were given the keys Mat. 18:18.
You are incorrect. In Matthew 18:18, no keys are given. I may have poor vision, but I can't find the distribution of keys anywhere in Mt. 18.
By the way, this is called a refutation. It is done with scriptutal evidence, not the questioning of evidence presented.
It's also called "Scriptural tennis" and brings the two involved to an intellectual void also referred to as "no man's land".
Iraneous,Tertullian and Augustine are not INSPIRED and do not meet the standards of the New Testament nor it's writers.
And, you're not inspired - so I suppose I shouldn't be listening to you?
Mat. 18:18 does not authorize a magisterium. It authorized the 12 to teach all things commanded by the authority of Christ.
This is exactly what the Magisterium does: teach.
Mat. 28;18-20. Context of the chapter please. Christ is talking to the 12, not others.
Christ appoints 12 Apostles and 70 disciples very much like Moses had 12 princes from the 12 Tribes and 70 elders. In the Old Testament, Israel's authority structure didn't dissolve with the death of Moses, the 12, and the 70, so I wouldn't expect for it to dissolve in the case of the surpassing NT.
If this were so,one could find SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THIS OFFICE. It is absent in the pages of inspiration.
And, I've shown you how in the OT, the position of Prime Minister was an "office", how Jesus appoints Peter as his Prime Minister, and therefore, Jesus appoints an "office". However, instead of speaking with me and addressing what I say, you conclude with, "SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THIS OFFICE ... is absent in the pages of inspiration".
The Bible plainly teaches that the church of AD 33,not 605, contiunued steadfastly in the APOSTLES doctrine, not the magisterium.
The Magisterium continues steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine; that is its purpose.
II Thes. 2:15 requires one to keep the traditons delivered by US OUR ( APOSTLES) whether by word or epistle.
Exactly! And, do you stick to the "Bible Alone" or do you also adhere to the unwritten tradition of Christianity in matters of doctrine concerning faith and morality? In other words, are you a Catholic -adhering to the one faith lived and preached for 2,000 years- or are you a Protestant, living off of the novel doctrine of "Sola Scriptura", invented by the novel Reformers of thew 16th century in Medieval Europe?
By the way, George Washington, humm, lived after the days of inspiration. Therefore, it would be quit impossible to find an inspired man to verify him as president. This being the case one may still prove his authenticity by content comparison of documents and witnesses. The same way one knows the Bible is inspired.
And, the Bible was "put together" after the days of inspiration. Therefore, it would be quite impossible to find an inspired man to verify which epistles among the 200 or so claiming inspiration in the early Church are actually inspired. This being the case, one may still prove the canon and proper interpretation of the Bible by comparison of documents and witnesses of the early Church.
God bless,
Carson
Carson:
1. Where does the New Testament Authorize a Pope?
2. II Thes. 2:15 authorizes following the inspired traditions of the apostles who had the gift of inspiration. Where in the New Testament did Jesus Command the keeping the traditions of men( uninspired catholicism). Jesus, in fact, condemned that which you approve. Mat. 15;8,9.
3. The Bible teaches that a man that is inspired and teaches the word of God by direct revelation and inspiration proves his message by the Miraculous. II Cor. 12:12, Mk. 16:17-20. Where when and how has any Catholic Pope or Bishop done so? Who gave them the power? Acts 8:17,18.
4. Roman Catholicism teaches false doctrine. It does so in regards to bishops and marriage, in regards to their qualifications, and in receiving unauthorized names. I Tim. 4:1-4, II Tim. 4:1-4, Mat. 23:8,9. Therefore, your assertion about them following the New Testament traditons is FALSE.
5. If you believed the New Testament of Christ was all one needed as Jesus claimed. Mat. 28:18-20, Rev. 22:18,19, I Cor. 4:6, you would not need the edicts and papal bulls of Rome.
One may not argue from silence. Hebrews 7:14, Hebrews 8:4. He must have the word of Christ on matters of faith. Col. 3:17. Jesus ALWAYS APPEALED TO THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD. Mat. 4:4,7, 10, Lk. 24:44-50. Jesus said, It is written. I have asked the same thing Christ required. Where is it written in the word of God the things you claim? Book, Chapter and Verse,please.
Finally, to assert a thing and provide uninspired men as authority may satisfy the requirements of Rome, but they will never satisfy the judgment of Christ. John 12:48.
For the Truth,
Frank
1. Where does the New Testament Authorize a Pope?
2. II Thes. 2:15 authorizes following the inspired traditions of the apostles who had the gift of inspiration. Where in the New Testament did Jesus Command the keeping the traditions of men( uninspired catholicism). Jesus, in fact, condemned that which you approve. Mat. 15;8,9.
3. The Bible teaches that a man that is inspired and teaches the word of God by direct revelation and inspiration proves his message by the Miraculous. II Cor. 12:12, Mk. 16:17-20. Where when and how has any Catholic Pope or Bishop done so? Who gave them the power? Acts 8:17,18.
4. Roman Catholicism teaches false doctrine. It does so in regards to bishops and marriage, in regards to their qualifications, and in receiving unauthorized names. I Tim. 4:1-4, II Tim. 4:1-4, Mat. 23:8,9. Therefore, your assertion about them following the New Testament traditons is FALSE.
5. If you believed the New Testament of Christ was all one needed as Jesus claimed. Mat. 28:18-20, Rev. 22:18,19, I Cor. 4:6, you would not need the edicts and papal bulls of Rome.
One may not argue from silence. Hebrews 7:14, Hebrews 8:4. He must have the word of Christ on matters of faith. Col. 3:17. Jesus ALWAYS APPEALED TO THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD. Mat. 4:4,7, 10, Lk. 24:44-50. Jesus said, It is written. I have asked the same thing Christ required. Where is it written in the word of God the things you claim? Book, Chapter and Verse,please.
Finally, to assert a thing and provide uninspired men as authority may satisfy the requirements of Rome, but they will never satisfy the judgment of Christ. John 12:48.
For the Truth,
Frank
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Frank,
1. Where does the New Testament Authorize a Pope?
Cf. My response above to Mr. Curtis and visit http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp
2. II Thes. 2:15 authorizes following the inspired traditions of the apostles who had the gift of inspiration.
The New Testament does not teach that the apostles "had the gift of inspiration". The traditional and conservative Christian doctrine of Biblical inspiration is derived from St. Paul's statement to Timothy in 2 Tim 3:16 - that God is the primary author of Scripture and that the human authors of Scripture are the instrumental authors. Therefore, "inspiration" is a technical term that applies only to Scripture, not to Tradition.
Where in the New Testament did Jesus Command the keeping the traditions of men (uninspired catholicism). Jesus, in fact, condemned that which you approve. Mat. 15;8,9.
Jesus does not command the keeping of traditions of men. He also does not condemn all traditions of men. Jesus condemned only corrupt traditions of men that nullify God's Word. What I am speaking of when I refer to 2 Thes 2:15 is neither corrupt traditions of men that nullify God's Word nor traditions of men that do not run contrary to God's Word. I am defending what is commonly referred to as big "T" Tradition or what the early Church referred to as "the rule of faith". This is the unwritten Tradition that is one of the two ways that the deposit of divine revelation is handed down to us. The other way is that of inspired Scripture. I believe that the Holy Spirit inspires Scripture and animates Tradition. Paul tells me to "stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." The Catholic defends this Tradition, and the Protestant rejects it.
3. The Bible teaches that a man that is inspired and teaches the word of God by direct revelation and inspiration proves his message by the Miraculous. II Cor. 12:12, Mk. 16:17-20. Where when and how has any Catholic Pope or Bishop done so? Who gave them the power? Acts 8:17,18.
2 Cor 12:12 speaks of a particular form of apostleship. The term "apostle" means essentially "one who is sent". Paul, in this passage, is referring to those immediate apostles who were sent with charismatic gifts to build the Church. The bishops that form the Catholic Magisterium are not apostles in this sense; the Church is no longer in the apostolic age, which ended with the death of the last apostle.
Mark 16:17-20 is a passage wherein Jesus commissions the eleven apostles and describes the signs that "will accompany those who believe". He is speaking of the general believer - not of those in authority. I have personally witnessed three of the signs described in this passage in my own ministry.
Our bishops receive authority through ordination, which is known in the Bible as the "laying on of hands": Acts 6:6; Acts 13:3; Acts 14:22; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6; Titus 1:5.
If you believed the New Testament of Christ was all one needed as Jesus claimed. Mat. 28:18-20, Rev. 22:18,19, I Cor. 4:6, you would not need the edicts and papal bulls of Rome.
The edicts and papal bulls of Rome? I believe that you are using high-handed language that evokes emotions while failing to grasp at the reality that the words supposedly signify. I believe that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, and the Magisterium does not have the authority to teach doctrine that runs contrary to this deposit of divine revelation that was once and for all delivered to the saints nor to teach doctrine that is not a part of this deposit of divine revelation.
One may not argue from silence. Hebrews 7:14, Hebrews 8:4. He must have the word of Christ on matters of faith. Col. 3:17. Jesus ALWAYS APPEALED TO THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD. Mat. 4:4,7, 10, Lk. 24:44-50.
You are incorrect. Jesus did not always appeal to the inspired Word of God. In the Sermon on the Mount, described by Matthew in Chapters 5-7 of his Gospel, Jesus quotes Scripture and then gives his own authoritative command that supercedes Old Testament Scripture. This is what we refer to as "divine revelation" and it was given to the Church through the person of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus said, It is written. I have asked the same thing Christ required. Where is it written in the word of God the things you claim? Book, Chapter and Verse,please.
John Henry Cardinal Newman once wrote, "It is quite evident that this passage [2 Tim 3:16-17] furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition [2 Thess. 2:15]. Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.
"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."
Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).
Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!
The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).
This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).
And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.
Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.
This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.
Ref. http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp
Finally, to assert a thing and provide uninspired men as authority may satisfy the requirements of Rome, but they will never satisfy the judgment of Christ. John 12:48.
You have asserted that George Washington is the first president of the United States, presumably by providing uninspired men as an authority. Now, is this blasphemy or is this common sense? In providing the writings of Irenaeus, the greatest Christian theologian of the 2nd century (who defended traditional, conservative Christianity from the nasty heretical sects known as "Gnosticism" - and gave us some Church history), I have appealed to extra-Testamental evidence in the same way that you would to prove that George Washington is the first president.
Irenaeus, a bishop in Gaul (Modern day France) witnesses to the historical facts of the time in his famous Adversus Haereses, "It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and to demonstrate the succession of these men to our own times ... For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity."
He continues in the next paragraph, "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also by pointing out the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist everywhere."
By appealing to Irenaeus, I appeal to historical fact. Irenaeus, in an aside, states this fact when he writes circa 180 Anno Domini. In his words, I see not only the historical fact of apostolic succession in every church everywhere but also Petrine primacy.. this structure is quite significantly indicative of what we see today in Roman Catholicism.
Your fideism is quite hostile to historical fact, which demonstrates historical truth. Jesus Christ refers to himself as the "Truth".
God bless,
Carson
[ August 10, 2002, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
1. Where does the New Testament Authorize a Pope?
Cf. My response above to Mr. Curtis and visit http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp
2. II Thes. 2:15 authorizes following the inspired traditions of the apostles who had the gift of inspiration.
The New Testament does not teach that the apostles "had the gift of inspiration". The traditional and conservative Christian doctrine of Biblical inspiration is derived from St. Paul's statement to Timothy in 2 Tim 3:16 - that God is the primary author of Scripture and that the human authors of Scripture are the instrumental authors. Therefore, "inspiration" is a technical term that applies only to Scripture, not to Tradition.
Where in the New Testament did Jesus Command the keeping the traditions of men (uninspired catholicism). Jesus, in fact, condemned that which you approve. Mat. 15;8,9.
Jesus does not command the keeping of traditions of men. He also does not condemn all traditions of men. Jesus condemned only corrupt traditions of men that nullify God's Word. What I am speaking of when I refer to 2 Thes 2:15 is neither corrupt traditions of men that nullify God's Word nor traditions of men that do not run contrary to God's Word. I am defending what is commonly referred to as big "T" Tradition or what the early Church referred to as "the rule of faith". This is the unwritten Tradition that is one of the two ways that the deposit of divine revelation is handed down to us. The other way is that of inspired Scripture. I believe that the Holy Spirit inspires Scripture and animates Tradition. Paul tells me to "stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." The Catholic defends this Tradition, and the Protestant rejects it.
3. The Bible teaches that a man that is inspired and teaches the word of God by direct revelation and inspiration proves his message by the Miraculous. II Cor. 12:12, Mk. 16:17-20. Where when and how has any Catholic Pope or Bishop done so? Who gave them the power? Acts 8:17,18.
2 Cor 12:12 speaks of a particular form of apostleship. The term "apostle" means essentially "one who is sent". Paul, in this passage, is referring to those immediate apostles who were sent with charismatic gifts to build the Church. The bishops that form the Catholic Magisterium are not apostles in this sense; the Church is no longer in the apostolic age, which ended with the death of the last apostle.
Mark 16:17-20 is a passage wherein Jesus commissions the eleven apostles and describes the signs that "will accompany those who believe". He is speaking of the general believer - not of those in authority. I have personally witnessed three of the signs described in this passage in my own ministry.
Our bishops receive authority through ordination, which is known in the Bible as the "laying on of hands": Acts 6:6; Acts 13:3; Acts 14:22; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6; Titus 1:5.
If you believed the New Testament of Christ was all one needed as Jesus claimed. Mat. 28:18-20, Rev. 22:18,19, I Cor. 4:6, you would not need the edicts and papal bulls of Rome.
The edicts and papal bulls of Rome? I believe that you are using high-handed language that evokes emotions while failing to grasp at the reality that the words supposedly signify. I believe that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, and the Magisterium does not have the authority to teach doctrine that runs contrary to this deposit of divine revelation that was once and for all delivered to the saints nor to teach doctrine that is not a part of this deposit of divine revelation.
One may not argue from silence. Hebrews 7:14, Hebrews 8:4. He must have the word of Christ on matters of faith. Col. 3:17. Jesus ALWAYS APPEALED TO THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD. Mat. 4:4,7, 10, Lk. 24:44-50.
You are incorrect. Jesus did not always appeal to the inspired Word of God. In the Sermon on the Mount, described by Matthew in Chapters 5-7 of his Gospel, Jesus quotes Scripture and then gives his own authoritative command that supercedes Old Testament Scripture. This is what we refer to as "divine revelation" and it was given to the Church through the person of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus said, It is written. I have asked the same thing Christ required. Where is it written in the word of God the things you claim? Book, Chapter and Verse,please.
John Henry Cardinal Newman once wrote, "It is quite evident that this passage [2 Tim 3:16-17] furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition [2 Thess. 2:15]. Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.
"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."
Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).
Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!
The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).
This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).
And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.
Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.
This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.
Ref. http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp
Finally, to assert a thing and provide uninspired men as authority may satisfy the requirements of Rome, but they will never satisfy the judgment of Christ. John 12:48.
You have asserted that George Washington is the first president of the United States, presumably by providing uninspired men as an authority. Now, is this blasphemy or is this common sense? In providing the writings of Irenaeus, the greatest Christian theologian of the 2nd century (who defended traditional, conservative Christianity from the nasty heretical sects known as "Gnosticism" - and gave us some Church history), I have appealed to extra-Testamental evidence in the same way that you would to prove that George Washington is the first president.
Irenaeus, a bishop in Gaul (Modern day France) witnesses to the historical facts of the time in his famous Adversus Haereses, "It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and to demonstrate the succession of these men to our own times ... For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity."
He continues in the next paragraph, "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also by pointing out the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist everywhere."
By appealing to Irenaeus, I appeal to historical fact. Irenaeus, in an aside, states this fact when he writes circa 180 Anno Domini. In his words, I see not only the historical fact of apostolic succession in every church everywhere but also Petrine primacy.. this structure is quite significantly indicative of what we see today in Roman Catholicism.
Your fideism is quite hostile to historical fact, which demonstrates historical truth. Jesus Christ refers to himself as the "Truth".
God bless,
Carson
[ August 10, 2002, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
Carson:
Jesus PROMISED THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT WHICH INCLUDES INPIRATION TO WRITE TO THE 12. The inspired evidence for this truth is the following:
1. Mat.10:19,20. But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak : for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your father which speaketh in you.TO WHOM? The 12, not the pope,nor the magisterium.
2. John 14:26,15:26;16:13. Jesus promised the comforter the Holy Spirit. 14:26:15:26. TO WHOM?
THE 12, not the pope or the magisterium.
3. John 16:13. The Holy Spirit would teach them all truth. WHOM? The 12, not the pope or magisterium.
4.Luke 24:49. Jesus said, " And behold, I send the promise of my father upon you : but tarry ye in Jerusalem, until ye shall be endued with power from on high. What Power? Holy Spirit. SEE John 16:13. To WHOM? The 12, not the pope or magisterium.
5. Acts 1:4,5." And being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart Jerusalem, but wait for the PROMISE of The Father( Lk. 24:49, Jn. 14:25;15:25;16:13 the Holy Spirit)which saith he, ye have heard of me. For John baptized with water unot repentance: but ye shall be baptized withthe Hokly Spirit not many days hence. To Whom? The Apostles, not the pope or magisterium. See also Acts 1:8.
6. Acts 2:1-4. The Holy Spirit falls on the day of Pentecost. On whom? The 12. See Acts 2:5-7,17, not the pope or the magisterium.
7. Others who had the power of the Holy Spirit are the following:
1. Acts 10: 34. Cornelius as fulfillment of Joel 2:28. See Acts 2:17, not the pope or magisterium.
2. Acts 8:18. And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apsotles hands the Holy Spirit was given,he offered them money. Who Had the power. The 12. Who could pass it to others? The 12, not the pope or magisterium.
This is the divine evidence that proves to the rational mind that the ,miraculous gifts of the spirit, of which one is inspiration, was given to the apostles by PROMISE and given to others by the laying on of their hands. The apostles and only the apostles could pass the gifts to others.
Furthermore, these miraculous gifts ceased when the complete,new testament revelation was given. I Cor. 13:8-10. Eph.4:11-16.
I will deal with the rest of your assertions in later posts.
For the Truth,
Frank
Jesus PROMISED THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT WHICH INCLUDES INPIRATION TO WRITE TO THE 12. The inspired evidence for this truth is the following:
1. Mat.10:19,20. But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak : for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your father which speaketh in you.TO WHOM? The 12, not the pope,nor the magisterium.
2. John 14:26,15:26;16:13. Jesus promised the comforter the Holy Spirit. 14:26:15:26. TO WHOM?
THE 12, not the pope or the magisterium.
3. John 16:13. The Holy Spirit would teach them all truth. WHOM? The 12, not the pope or magisterium.
4.Luke 24:49. Jesus said, " And behold, I send the promise of my father upon you : but tarry ye in Jerusalem, until ye shall be endued with power from on high. What Power? Holy Spirit. SEE John 16:13. To WHOM? The 12, not the pope or magisterium.
5. Acts 1:4,5." And being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart Jerusalem, but wait for the PROMISE of The Father( Lk. 24:49, Jn. 14:25;15:25;16:13 the Holy Spirit)which saith he, ye have heard of me. For John baptized with water unot repentance: but ye shall be baptized withthe Hokly Spirit not many days hence. To Whom? The Apostles, not the pope or magisterium. See also Acts 1:8.
6. Acts 2:1-4. The Holy Spirit falls on the day of Pentecost. On whom? The 12. See Acts 2:5-7,17, not the pope or the magisterium.
7. Others who had the power of the Holy Spirit are the following:
1. Acts 10: 34. Cornelius as fulfillment of Joel 2:28. See Acts 2:17, not the pope or magisterium.
2. Acts 8:18. And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apsotles hands the Holy Spirit was given,he offered them money. Who Had the power. The 12. Who could pass it to others? The 12, not the pope or magisterium.
This is the divine evidence that proves to the rational mind that the ,miraculous gifts of the spirit, of which one is inspiration, was given to the apostles by PROMISE and given to others by the laying on of their hands. The apostles and only the apostles could pass the gifts to others.
Furthermore, these miraculous gifts ceased when the complete,new testament revelation was given. I Cor. 13:8-10. Eph.4:11-16.
I will deal with the rest of your assertions in later posts.
For the Truth,
Frank
Carson:
I use the divine history of the Bible.It is from God. A history book is from man. They are at times incorrect or subject to bias. Man's recollection of history may be right or wrong. However, God's accounting is always true. Psalms 33:4. God said I should trust him, not man. Psalms 118:8,9.
That is how we are quit different. You prefer the writings of subjectivity. I prefer the inspired word of God. II Tim. 3:16,17.
My standard of truth is from the New Testament of Christ. Mat. 28:18-20. Yours is from the pope, the magisterium, traditons of men (uninspired) and, as an after thought, the Bible comes in fourth place with you as authoratative.
For The Truth,
Frank
I use the divine history of the Bible.It is from God. A history book is from man. They are at times incorrect or subject to bias. Man's recollection of history may be right or wrong. However, God's accounting is always true. Psalms 33:4. God said I should trust him, not man. Psalms 118:8,9.
That is how we are quit different. You prefer the writings of subjectivity. I prefer the inspired word of God. II Tim. 3:16,17.
My standard of truth is from the New Testament of Christ. Mat. 28:18-20. Yours is from the pope, the magisterium, traditons of men (uninspired) and, as an after thought, the Bible comes in fourth place with you as authoratative.
For The Truth,
Frank
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Frank,
It is clear and evident to all who read our dialogue that our conversation has come to a standstill. We can advance no further, and I attribute this to your blind fideism, which is unopen to rational thought.
God bless you,
Carson
It is clear and evident to all who read our dialogue that our conversation has come to a standstill. We can advance no further, and I attribute this to your blind fideism, which is unopen to rational thought.
God bless you,
Carson
Carson:
This dialogue has stopped because you simply cannot find the inspired evidence for your claims. Your claims cannot pass the New Testament test. The one who lacks rationality is you. You accept the writings of mere men and question whether II Peter is inspired of God. And, most Catholics thought he was the first pope of the church. Go figure. An inspired Liar as pope. That is an interesting concept.
You have not produced one shread of inspired evidence for the confirmation of the miraculous gifts given to your bishops. You have been silent as an oyster. Which apostle laid hands on any of those you claim speak by the direct revelation of God, today? Again, no PROOF,I Thes. 5:21. Silent as an oyster.
Catholicism ignores the plain teachings of the New Testament as it pertains to I Tim. 3:1-11, Mat. 22:8,9, I Tim. 4:1-4. What defense do you have for those practices. NONE. Again, silent as an oyster.
Where in the divine record did God promise continuing revelation for all times. Where did he promise anyone other than the apostles that they would be guided into ALL TRUTH. Again, no inspired evidence. There is none!!
If one actually reads the post of scripture, it is abundantly clear who is rational and who is not. Rationality,my friend, requires one make only those concluisons as are warranted by the EVIDENCE, not the lack of it!!!
This dialogue has stopped because you simply cannot find the inspired evidence for your claims. Your claims cannot pass the New Testament test. The one who lacks rationality is you. You accept the writings of mere men and question whether II Peter is inspired of God. And, most Catholics thought he was the first pope of the church. Go figure. An inspired Liar as pope. That is an interesting concept.
You have not produced one shread of inspired evidence for the confirmation of the miraculous gifts given to your bishops. You have been silent as an oyster. Which apostle laid hands on any of those you claim speak by the direct revelation of God, today? Again, no PROOF,I Thes. 5:21. Silent as an oyster.
Catholicism ignores the plain teachings of the New Testament as it pertains to I Tim. 3:1-11, Mat. 22:8,9, I Tim. 4:1-4. What defense do you have for those practices. NONE. Again, silent as an oyster.
Where in the divine record did God promise continuing revelation for all times. Where did he promise anyone other than the apostles that they would be guided into ALL TRUTH. Again, no inspired evidence. There is none!!
If one actually reads the post of scripture, it is abundantly clear who is rational and who is not. Rationality,my friend, requires one make only those concluisons as are warranted by the EVIDENCE, not the lack of it!!!
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Frank,
You wrote, "The one who lacks rationality is you. You accept the writings of mere men and question whether II Peter is inspired of God. And, most Catholics thought he was the first pope of the church. Go figure. An inspired Liar as pope. That is an interesting concept", which demonstrates that you are not reading what I post for you to read.
If you would take the time to listen to me in the sense of reading what I write, then you would not continue stating such nonsense - nonsense that contradicts what I have said. You close your ears to what I say and then proceed to put words in my mouth - a frustrating scenario for those who speak with you, to say the least.
I have stated that I do not doubt the inspiration of the second epistle of St. Peter, and that my conviction of this epistle's inspired status rests upon the witness of the Catholic Church.
What I have done is asked you why you accept the epistle as "inspired" when quite a bit of evidence exists that points to the possibility that it should not belong in the canon of Scripture.
As I said, our conversation has come to stand still, and I wish you the best.
God bless,
Carson
[ August 10, 2002, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
You wrote, "The one who lacks rationality is you. You accept the writings of mere men and question whether II Peter is inspired of God. And, most Catholics thought he was the first pope of the church. Go figure. An inspired Liar as pope. That is an interesting concept", which demonstrates that you are not reading what I post for you to read.
If you would take the time to listen to me in the sense of reading what I write, then you would not continue stating such nonsense - nonsense that contradicts what I have said. You close your ears to what I say and then proceed to put words in my mouth - a frustrating scenario for those who speak with you, to say the least.
I have stated that I do not doubt the inspiration of the second epistle of St. Peter, and that my conviction of this epistle's inspired status rests upon the witness of the Catholic Church.
What I have done is asked you why you accept the epistle as "inspired" when quite a bit of evidence exists that points to the possibility that it should not belong in the canon of Scripture.
As I said, our conversation has come to stand still, and I wish you the best.
God bless,
Carson
[ August 10, 2002, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
Carson:
I have read your posts.If you believe II Peter is inspired, why ask me. I had already affirmed the inspiration of the New Testament. I guess you missed it in my posts.
Furthermore, You never answered my questions in my arguments. I guess that is what you call a rational approach.
Finally, even Jesus put his critics to silence. Mat. 22:46. And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.
I have read your posts.If you believe II Peter is inspired, why ask me. I had already affirmed the inspiration of the New Testament. I guess you missed it in my posts.
Furthermore, You never answered my questions in my arguments. I guess that is what you call a rational approach.
Finally, even Jesus put his critics to silence. Mat. 22:46. And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Frank,
You wrote, "I have read your posts. If you believe II Peter is inspired, why ask me. I had already affirmed the inspiration of the New Testament. I guess you missed it in my posts. ", which again, demonstrates either (1) your dishonesty regarding the affirmation that you have read my posts or (2) your inability to comprehend what I say in what I consider fairly good English.
See my above post in regards to your question here. I have repeatedly stated the reason behind my critique of your acceptance of 2 Peter as inspired Scripture. For reasons unbeknownst to me, you cannot follow what I write on this message board, and it is not only frustrating, but also unfruitful to continue in this dialogue with you.
God bless you,
Carson
[ August 11, 2002, 12:51 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
You wrote, "I have read your posts. If you believe II Peter is inspired, why ask me. I had already affirmed the inspiration of the New Testament. I guess you missed it in my posts. ", which again, demonstrates either (1) your dishonesty regarding the affirmation that you have read my posts or (2) your inability to comprehend what I say in what I consider fairly good English.
See my above post in regards to your question here. I have repeatedly stated the reason behind my critique of your acceptance of 2 Peter as inspired Scripture. For reasons unbeknownst to me, you cannot follow what I write on this message board, and it is not only frustrating, but also unfruitful to continue in this dialogue with you.
God bless you,
Carson
[ August 11, 2002, 12:51 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
Carson:
I have a masters degree. And from what I learned in those studies, I also posted as defense for the inspiration of II Peter. It is a valid litmus for authenticity. If, indeed, you are attending a grad school, and have studied apologetics, you know as well as you know your name that the defense is valid.
And you question my honesty!
You have shown a lack of respect for Biblical Auhtority. I expected that from you. This is typical of Catholicism. It is Sola Magisterium!
If you respected the New Testament you would not oppose the teachings of it. I cite the teachings of Roman Catholicism on marriage of bishops, unauthorized names for bishops and qualifications for bishops. SEE I Tim. 4:1-4, I Tim. 3:1-11, Titus 1:4-9, Mat. 22:8,9. Just to name a few!
In summary, I affirm that the New Testament of Christ has all authority for man. You deny it. However, cannot refute it. The previous scriptures sharply contrast the truth of the Bible and the falsehoods of Roman Catholicism.
I have a masters degree. And from what I learned in those studies, I also posted as defense for the inspiration of II Peter. It is a valid litmus for authenticity. If, indeed, you are attending a grad school, and have studied apologetics, you know as well as you know your name that the defense is valid.
And you question my honesty!
You have shown a lack of respect for Biblical Auhtority. I expected that from you. This is typical of Catholicism. It is Sola Magisterium!
If you respected the New Testament you would not oppose the teachings of it. I cite the teachings of Roman Catholicism on marriage of bishops, unauthorized names for bishops and qualifications for bishops. SEE I Tim. 4:1-4, I Tim. 3:1-11, Titus 1:4-9, Mat. 22:8,9. Just to name a few!
In summary, I affirm that the New Testament of Christ has all authority for man. You deny it. However, cannot refute it. The previous scriptures sharply contrast the truth of the Bible and the falsehoods of Roman Catholicism.
I would say that charity is definately one of your strong points. Not one of mine, but I'm working on it.
And I certainly don't want to exchange insults, either, I hope you didn't take what I said that way. I'm just saying it happens here.
I just don't buy Catholicism. I think it complicates salvation with works. It has tried to put the words of man on the same level as God's word, and has attempted to take power away from Jesus Christ.
If we want to know what the "early church" believed I think the Book of Acts is the wrong source. Except for the beginning it details Paul's journeys. What were the other Apostle's doing? I say we should look at other writings from this era. These are few as the ravages of time have taken their toll. But some writings do come down to us. While not considered inspired scripture they do show a historical record of what was believed. One such writing was the Didache written in about 70 AD. Other writings exist from Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Origin, Eseubius, Tertullian and others. In addition the catacombs of Rome are adorned with script giving insight into the beliefs of the early christians.