Replies

*****Transubstantiation did not appear historically*****

It was articulated but the concept existed. Jesus said it was a hard thing to hear. It is also a hard thing to explain. That is why we walk by faith and not by sight.

*****Anyway, without getting into all that, the point is, the doctrines that divide us are not simply disputes about specific passages in Scripture. They are disputes about whether certain later doctrinal developments NOT obvious from Scripture should have the power to bind the Christian conscience. To establish that level of authority, the Roman Catholic apologist must first establish these extra-Biblical traditions as having authority equal to Scripture. Then these traditions can become the source of almost any novel doctrine, no matter how alien to the original text.****

In a way, our disputes are about specific passages in Scripture. These doctrinal developments come from debate over the nature of Jesus, the Good News and Scripture itself. In all these debates, it was the Church who settled the issue. I can’t list all the heresies, they are a matter of record, but when they came, the final authority rested with the Church weighing Tradition and Scripture to proclaim what was True.

Is Jesus God, truly God? The same God as God the Father? Was Jesus human, truly human? Is the Holy Spirit God? Did Jesus truly die? If so, did God die? Did God raise Jesus, or did He raise Himself? Is baptism necessary? Should children/infants be baptized? Do we keep the Sabbath or celebrate the Lord’s Day? Did Jesus bodily rise from the dead? What is the structure of the Church? What sacred writings are actually Scripture? Why these and not others?

We find very different answers to all of these questions. Some are Truth, some are heresy; all with claims to be derived from Scripture. Which are Truth? Which are heresy?

Scripture tells us that there are those who wrest its words to suit themselves, to their own destruction and the destruction of others? In that statement alone, Scripture is telling us that we need to have a sure guide to what the Truth is that Scripture is telling us.

Oral Tradition has been established as equal to Scripture and the matter is settled in the mind of Catholics. The Church, the bulwark and pillar of Truth, has spoken. The Church is not the Truth, but the one who supports, defends and preserves It.

There are no novel doctrines. No doctrines alien to the Truth. There is nothing the Church teaches that contradicts Jesus or the written word. I know that not everyone believes that, but it is what I believe and I have come to that belief through study and prayer and not by being brainwashed or bullied into it.

******2Pe 1:16-21 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (17) For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (18) And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. (19) We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: (20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. ******

I appreciate what you are trying to say here but I reiterate what I said previously. Here Peter is doing exactly what the Church does. He is teaching here and promising that what he is saying is true. Not because Scripture prophesied Jesus, but because Jesus fulfilled what was prophesied. It again a matter of authority and by whose authority Peter preaches.

*****Not really. Not if you accept some of the recent dating for various papyri, in particular the Magdalen Papayrus, a fragment of Matthew (in Greek BTW) which some scholars believe is a mid-First Century product.*****

It does not negate my point to show that very early on there were writings of the Apostles. We don’t know how early and how much these writings were copied and shared. Also, which were considered Scripture? We know that Peter recognized that some things Paul wrote were scripture, but we don’t know of which ones he was speaking. And, then of course, it all comes back to who determined what was Scripture.

I have to quit here for now but will try to resume tomorrow.

Thank you for the time you took to respond. It is appreciated.