Eric B said:
Paul did see the risen Christ. As for Mark and Luke, they were contemporaries, and I did include contemporaries earlier. The contrast was between them and later generations, as far as "reliability" was concerned.
Actually Paul didn't see Him, he was blinded. And he wasn't taught by Him which was your other criteria. Luke was a contemporary of Paul, who didn't even witness 90% of the events Luke recorded. According to Tradition, which you don't trust, Mark was a contemporary of Peter.
Does all this add up to "relatively good" reliability, or infallibility? I didn't catch your answer.
Oh, so you take the intererpretation of "whatever you bind on earth has been bound in Heaven". I always thought that was the non-Catholic response to the claim of the apostles being the one causing the binding in Heaven through their decision on earth. Perhaps it was Rome who took it that way, and most of our answers are geared to Rome, as you have seen.
Fine. All that means is that they would relay Christ's teachings or principles, just like deciding that marriage is to be between man and woman for instance. It has nothing to do with whatever later leaders teach automaticlly being true just because of their title, for that would assume the latter [mis]interpretation of the "binding" statement.
Firstly, why do you keep coming back to focusing on leaders, when I've told you it is not just about leaders?
Secondly, you're still obfuscating the answer. Do you or do you not believe that whatever Christ's disciples bind on earth is bound in heaven? Yes or No?
Yes, the existence of the ordinances of baptism and communion were dogmatic, and basically the only dogmatic "religious practices" we see. It's all of the other concepts or teachings your church adds to these, which you criticize us for not following, (such as what age) that are the types of issues that were not dogmatic, as they were not even expounded upon. You expect us to follow later leaders on them.
Ok, so you agree at least that baptism is important. Can Christ's disciples bind on earth what is bound in heaven concerning baptism?
Because it's not about "them", it's about Christ, and they could have been mostly correct in selecting the books without being correct in everything else. Historians can look at all the other books (NT Apocrypha, Pseudopipigrapha, etc) and tell they were not genuine Judeo-Christian books,
and for the 66 books, while not always completely agreed upon, there is no reason to question them.
Well, you might not question them, but you must know there is no shortage of people questioning them, whether it be denying that Peter wrote 2 Peter or that Paul wrote the Pastorals, or that John wrote Revelation, etc etc.
I put it to you that the reason you don't question them is pragmatism - once you start questioning them, you have no religion. But you don't have any defendable reason not to question them, because you have no mechanism for deciding canon.
And you say that that the NT Apocrypha are not genuine Judeo-Christian books. Fine. But the OT Apocrypha ARE genuine Judeo-Christian books, which historians are agreed that the apostles read AND influenced the NT.
Just his mention of bishops, which you take as pointing to the Five, or whatever; they take as pointing to one, or at least supporting the principle that led to that.
Come on, there's nothing there for Rome in Ignatius. If you seriously think there is, I suggest you become Roman Catholic, but I don't think you believe it.
I don't seem to remember reading of much "opposition" to it from the East prior to the time of the split. The papacy as it is known today generally is said to have begun somewhere in the 5th or 6th century.
It may have begun in the 5th C, but is certainly had a ton of opposition from the beginning, especially in the East. And while the papal claims may have started early as a trickle, the full blown, uninterrupted claims came somewhat later. This meant the East could ignore the West for long periods, because the claims were sporadic. I'll give some examples of Eastern opposition:
1) At the council of Chalcedon, the 28th canon gave Constantinople equal privileges to Rome. The Pope attempted to annul the canon, but this was ignored and it is contained in the copies you are likely to come across.
2) Around 530AD, through political manouvres the Eastern bishops are forced to sign "The Libellus of Hormisdas", which essentially claims supremacy for the Roman See. But before the East signs, John the Patriarch of Constantinople adds a paragraph to the end defining the Constantinople see to be the exact same thing as the Roman see. Clearly it was a transparent attempt to cut the guts out of the Roman claims.
Then in between 600AD and 1000AD there was minimal interaction between Rome and the East, partly due to political, language and cultural differences. In 1054 when the official schism happens, it is just continuing the argument that had first arisen with Cyprian in 250AD when he said "no one sets himself up as bishop of bishops".
So I think it's fair to say it is untrue there hasn't been opposition from the East. There has been opposition every time it arose.
and repent in sackcloth.