Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
The ultimate intention of Catholicism is the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire. That has always been the ambition, at least covertly, but now it is being promoted overtly and openly.
The purpose of this article is only to make that intention clear. It is not a criticism of Catholics or Catholicism (unless you happen to think a Catholic dictatorship is not a good thing).
The most important point is to understand that when a Catholic talks about liberty or freedom, it is not individual liberty that is meant, not the freedom to live one's life as a responsible individual with the freedom to believe as one chooses, not the freedom to pursue happiness, not the freedom to produce and keep what one has produced as their property. What Catholicism means by freedom, is freedom to be a Catholic, in obedience to the dictates of Rome.
The Intentions Made Plain
The following is from the book Revolution and Counter-Revolution:
|
"B. Catholic Culture and Civilization
"Therefore, the ideal of the Counter-Revolution is to restore and promote Catholic culture and civilization. This theme would not be sufficiently enunciated if it did not contain a definition of what we understand by Catholic culture and Catholic civilization. We realize that the terms civilization and culture are used in many different senses. Obviously, it is not our intention here to take a position on a question of terminology. We limit ourselves to using these words as relatively precise labels to indicate certain realities. We are more concerned with providing a sound idea of these realities than with debating terminology.
"A soul in the state of grace possesses all virtues to a greater or lesser degree. Illuminated by faith, it has the elements to form the only true vision of the universe.
"The fundamental element of Catholic culture is the vision of the universe elaborated according to the doctrine of the Church. This culture includes not only the learning, that is, the possession of the information needed for such an elaboration, but also the analysis and coordination of this information according to Catholic doctrine. This culture is not restricted to the theological, philosophical, or scientific field, but encompasses the breadth of human knowledge; it is reflected in the arts and implies the affirmation of values that permeate all aspects of life.
"Catholic civilization is the structuring of all human relations, of all human institutions, and of the State itself according to the doctrine of the Church.
|
Got that? "Catholic civilization is the structuring of all human relations, of all human institutions, and of the State itself according to the doctrine of the Church." The other name for this is called "totalitarianism," the complete rule of every aspect of life.
This book and WEB sites like that where it is found are spreading like wildfire. These people do not believe the hope of America is the restoration of the liberties the founders sought to guarantee, these people believe the only hope for America is Fatima. Really!
In Their Own Words
The following is from the site, "RealCatholicTV." It is a plain call for a "benevolent dictatorship, a Catholic monarch;" their own words. They even suggest that when the "Lord's Payer," is recited, it is just such a Catholic dictatorship that is being prayed for.
[View video in original here or on Youtube. Will not show in FR.]
Two Comments
First, in this country, freedom of speech means that anyone may express any view no matter how much anyone else disagrees with that view, or is offended by it. I totally defend that meaning of freedom of speech.
This is what Catholics believe, and quite frankly, I do not see how any consistent Catholic could disagree with it, though I suspect some may. I have no objection to their promoting those views, because it is what they believe. Quite frankly I am delighted they are expressing them openly. For one thing, it makes it much easier to understand Catholic dialog, and what they mean by the words they use.
Secondly, I think if their views were actually implemented, it would mean the end true freedom, of course, but I do not believe there is any such danger.
I don't think the Bible indicates there was a "need". Jesus said Himself:
That explains why. Christ consecrated Himself to the Father and as a consequence that holiness spread to the elect through the Spirit. See also:
God says to his people "be holy because I am holy." He doesn't say "I make myself holy so that you may be holy."
He says both, but in different contexts. The first just describes the result without explaining the "how". The second explains what makes us able to be holy. It is not a command of something we can do of ourselves, but rather an encouragement of having the right mindset in experiencing God working through you.
Only someone who is not sanctified can become sanctified.
That is only if the concept of sanctification is a one time event. The Bible says it isn't. Believers become more and more sanctified as they mature in the faith.
“So then the EO has no infallible authority huh?”
Oh, we have an infallible authority, just no infallible individuals. Ecumenical Councils can and have declared infallibly Christian dogma. Interestingly, we know that declared dogma is true, however, only if the Laos tou Theou, the People of God, accept the dogma and live it out in their lives as Christians. We believe this because we do not believe that the Holy Spirit, given to The Church at Pentecost, will allow the Body of The Church to fall into error.
Here’s a link to the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs in Reply to a Letter of Pope Pius IX. The letter is a reply to the Pope’s claim of absolute authority over the entire Church. They disagree. What you may find interesting is the discussion of dogmatic authority within The Church. It is rather more polemical than one would read today. So was the letter from the pope. But the principles enunciated by the Patriarchs are as true today as when they wrote them.
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
Kosta: “Only someone who is not sanctified can become sanctified.”
FK: “That is only if the concept of sanctification is a one time event. The Bible says it isn’t. Believers become more and more sanctified as they mature in the faith.”
If “sanctification” is the western equivalent of theosis, then certainly it is a process, at least for the overwhelming majority of us. Or is sanctification not theosis?
The servant that gives light is Israel, the wisest nation on earth who will lead and teach the gentiles (Deut 4:5-8; Zech 8:23), because Jews are called to be the light of the nations (so the world would know the God of Israel through them). You should know that since the New Testament even says so: "salvation is from the Jews" (John 4:22)
The blinded servant: Israel...
No, it's the blindness of the people. Take for example Isa 52:15 where he makes it very clear that the Servant will cause the Gentile kings to see and hear, so how can the Servant be "blind and deaf?"
The fact that the Servant is Israel is in all the references I gave you previously: the Servant is identified by name numerous times and it ain't Jesus. You choose to ignore all of them and interpolate through the New Testament (specifically only through Luke, who is not even Jewish or an eyewitness to Christ, and whose Gospel exists in two versions) that it is all about Jesus, writing at least 400 to 500 years after the fact.
The problem, better yet, the futility is that you attempt to "prove" that Isaiah is about Jesus through the New Testament, written by fanatical Jesus followers decades after Jesus died. This is like Daniel (the last Old Testament book to be written, in the 2nd century BC) writing "prophesies" as if he were writing them 400 years prior! Or, like using the Book of Mormon to "prove" the "veracity" of the Mormon interpretation of the New Testament. Or the Muslims claiming to have the "last" revelation through the Koran.
But Isiah's vagueness is a gold mine where one could imply anything, especially after the fact and knowing there are no other historical sources to verify any such allegations. Taken on blind faith, such allegations then become internal self-serving "proof" of "prophesies" that have no external corroboration.
If Isaiah simply cannot be proven on its own (and it can't) that it is about Jesus without acceptiong the New Testament on blind faith, then it is not about Jesus, but is made to be about Jesus. It becomes a retro-egineered "proof" for a specific agenda. The New Testament was written so as to agree with the Christian interpretation, because Christians had an agenda and a motive to do so. This is not unique. Daniel was written "prophetically" after the fact as well. This is a trick used by ancient writers, to "prove" their credibility. It works for the gullible.
Some of the parallels with Jesus based on the New Testament in reference to Jesus are both supported and contradicted by the same New Testament. For example, it is said that the suffering Servant will be quiet like a lamb, and the synoptic Gospels seem to support this. But John's Gospel doesn't!
And speaking of the Servant, Isaiah 53:10 says "But the LORD was pleased [sic] to crush Him, putting Him to grief; if He would render Himself as a guilt offering, he will see His offspring [!] and will prolong His days [!]...
Isaiah 53:11 suggests that it is through the Servant's knowledge, not faith in him, that many will be justified. Etc., etc...
I was just curious to see what evidence you had that Isaiah was about Jesus and your evidence is the New Testament, specifically Luke, not Isaiah. To me, that is no different than someone quoting the Book of Mormon to "prove" the LDS interpretation of the New Testament. This is no different than Paul saying Christ commissioned him and you must take him on his word. Or that anonymous Gospel writers were really who the Bible says they were. It is like me telling you there are pink unicorns on Jupiter because I know it, and I wrote about it.
What about Mary?
But Paul was "all things to all men" (1 Cor 9:22) and aimed to "please all men in all things" (1 Cor 10:33) by his own admission, telling them what they wanted to hear as long as they acquiesced to his story.
Kosta, i am bit surprised at you in this, as surely you must understand context as well as Paul's testimony. Paul elsewhere expressed that he was not going to compromise his message even if it meant persecution, (Gal. 5:11), which it typically did, and having chastened the Corinthians for their liberal inclusiveness (1Cor. 5) which made them sorry, and among other warnings, having excluded impenitent sinners from the kingdom, (1Cor. 6) he is not about to tell them to tell people whatever they want to hear as long as they believe the gospel! Which gospel would not even be consistent with what he preached, unless you want to cut and paste things to fit your construct, as he called sinners to repentance. (Acts 26:20)
In the chapter at issue, Paul defends his apostleship and (tough) love for them by recounting his manner of life, in which he adapts to persons and cultures as regards his Christian liberty which was the subject of the preceding chapter, and which relates to non-moral aspects. In making himself a “servant to all,” (v. 19) he forsakes his liberty so that with the Jews he was kosher, and made himself as one under the law (going to synagogues, etc.) To them that were without law he was not kosher, but “without law” does not mean was an Antinomian, but just the opposite as he established in Rm. 6 and addressed in Gal. 2:18, as being under the law to Christ was the supreme standard. Thus Paul condemned violations of the moral law. To those who converts were “weak, meaning in faith, having scruples as regards ceremonial law, and which he addressed in Rm. 14 and 1Cor. 8:7-12, he took care not to offend them, in accordance with his instructions on such. While Christians can eat pork etc. it is no compromise not to, like as in observing cultural taboos against it, while adopting non-moral customs such as native dress is not sin (unless immodest).
At other times, Paul says you have to confess "with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead" (Rom 10:9).
There was no change in message. First, as relates to the above, if you study Paul's missionary preaching, one can clearly see adaptation in method, not in the essential message. To the Jews he used Scripture, (Acts 13) to the illiterate barbarians he appealed to natural revelation and the miraculous, (Acts 14:6-18) while to intellectual pagans he used reason and invoked a line of truth from one of their own poets. (Acts 17) But in all of these were calling souls to repentance toward God and and faith in the LORD Jesus, (Acts 20:21) though in Acts 14 he could not get as far as the latter.
And as far as Rm. 10:9, it is true faith justified, but faith, like love, is not something abstract from life, but determines how one lives, and the only kind of faith that saves is one that is confessional in nature, in word and in deed, and thus baptism was the typical “sinners prayer” in body language. (And contextually, it often took a lot of years off your physical life expectancy.) Thus this is entirely consist with Paul's statement that he preached “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Acts 20:21) God-given faith is what is counted for righteousness, (Rm. 4) but Paul makes it very clear that this is Abrahamic type faith, characterized by “the obedience of faith” and repentance when convicted or not doing so. Thus Paul's discipline in 1Cor. 5, and his exclusion of “fornicators” etc. in 1Cor. 6:9,10 does not simply apply to heathen ones, and a father has “denied the faith” who does not care for his own family, (1Tim. 5:18) and he states there are “things which accompany salvation.”
So, here you have to meet certain requirements (conditions) in order to be saved, hence it is not an "unmerited" gift.
As for the “free” aspect, which i understand is the real issue, “free” is used as opposed to wages earned, not that no response is required, which is really an extreme view outside the Bible as well. The free aspect relates to the fact that you have a gift offered which you cannot merit but is offered on Christ's expense and merit. What is received by the response is not merited by the response, while it is God who gives that faith (Eph. 2:8,9) and grants repentance (Acts 11:18). If you offered me a million dollars for “nothing“ i would not say it was not free if i had to come to you and open up my closed hand to receive it, even more so if you had to convince me to do it.
This use of “free” as without a purchasing price but which requires a response is nothing new: "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price." (Isaiah 55:1)
In other situations, you may be an unbeliever as long as you are married to a believer and that's enough to save you!
Is that an infallible interpretation (are you in the chair)? You are reading too much out a verse. The idea that one's household is “sanctified” and not “unclean” is a Jewish one, but it did not make ones sons saved, (“Now the sons of Eli were sons of Belial:” 1Sam. 2:12). And Paul's affirmation of Timothy's salvation was not because he had a believing mother, but because he was “persuaded” that that faith was in him also. (2Tim. 1:5) It was normal for families to follow the father's lead in faith, but the requirement for baptism require repentance and whole-hearted faith. (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) And that was Paul's message. (Rm. 6:17)
So, here, again, we have a conditional salvation which doesn't qualify as a free gift.
Again, it does as it is not earned. To repeat, the conditions necessary to receive a free unmerited, unearned gift do not earn it. God convicts souls of their need, often by preaching, and grants repentance and gives faith, though i believe man's will is involved, but that does not earn the gift. Calvinists believe regeneration precedes the faith response, but still, if a doctor convinces a man against his normal will (making him willing) to assent to an operation that saves his life, i do not think the patient can take any credit for it, as left to himself he would have chosen the way of death.
In Romans 11:14 he says "if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them." Again, conditions have to be met, the requirement must be satisfied or nothing. No free gift.
Again, a skewed and unBiblical idea of free. Yet if you are supposing becoming jealous is necessary to be saved, the you can be... right, in the sense that seeing God work and change the lives of despised Gentiles can move a Jew to humble Himself a sinner, and thus Jesus remarked that hookers went into the kingdom of God before the Jewish hierarchy. (Mt. 21:31) Thus God works to moved soul to faith, if they yield.
Or what about this: "To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. (1 Cor 9:22) Here, Paul is not only implying that it is through his work that some are saved but that it is he who so, through his work, save them!
Surely you understand that expressing yourself as an instrument in bring souls to receive the gift of salvation is not the same as saying you actually save them. Thus 1Cor. 15:10. The persons who persuades and directs villagers to a free vaccine that will save their lives can be said to have saved them, though the vaccine did so, and it was free, except in an extreme formal sense some want to restrict it to.
Then to the Ephesians (2:8) he changes the story and says they have been saved through grace and faith. However, in 1 Thess (2:16) he suggests that preaching (which is works) saves.
The preacher tells of Gods salvation to the Gentiles, eating with “sinners,” and they believe on the LORD Jesus for a salvation they need but cannot earn. The preacher tells Jews of the grace the Gentiles have realized, angering some who see themselves as the elect, which is what Jesus did, (Lk. 4:16-30) so they may humble themselves and be saved. None of this is contrary to salvation being a free gift, nor does is constitute a different message.
Again, salvation is a gift of God because it cannot be merited, but a God-enabled response is necessary to receive it. In order for that to occur preaching is often employed, for faith comes by hearing the word of God, thus “"Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved (1Thess. 2:16) prevented them from acting in faith. Working as an instrument by which souls may be saved by receiving the gift the preacher tells them of is not salvation by works. God chooses to employ men in persuading men to receive the unmerited gift, by a God-enabled choice.
At other times he says God had saved the elect before the foundation of the world, so the rest was just going though the hoops so to say. A mixed message, at best.
Paul is not mixed up at all, though his words are often wrested. (2Pt. 3:16) Here, believers in Christ such as the ones in my illustration having been “chosen us in him before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4) or “elect according to the foreknowledge of God,” (1Pt. 1:2) does not mean they need not make the response the gospel requires to receive the unearned gift, but that they were chosen to do so. Likewise Jesus being “slain from the foundation of the world.” (Rv. 13:8) The basis by which they were chosen is the big debate.
Even on a theoretical level a perfect being can be utterly unselfish in calling for such, if that is what is best for his subjects. The Bible states God needs nothing, (Act 17:25; cf. Ps. 50:8-13) and it just so happens that believing in and worshiping this infinite and perfect being, versus making finite and or imperfect created things your god, is what is best for man. Your life is determined by what you worship, and your ultimate object of affection, and source of security, is our god. God not only needs nothing but He gains nothing by man's submission, but is completely benevolent in calling volitional beings to love and worship you, as that would be best for them.
Moreover, what you choose reveals what you really love and esteem. (Jn. 3:19-21) And for choice to be meaningful, there are things to choose between. Thus God calls men to “choose ye this day whom ye will serve;” (Josh. 24:15) created things as your god or the eternal Creator. (Acts 14:15)
And to condemn those who don't? Where is mercy in that?
As those who do not choose the light — who ultimately do not want Christ, “God manifest in the flesh,” over sin — manifest that they love darkness, thus their damnation is just. They would be happy in Heaven even if they could go there. Yet if God forced conversion then men would also object, which would be the case if He made faith in Him so utterly overwhelming that no one could not find anything by which they may rationalize unbelief.
...Protestantism is narcissistic because the Protestant God is narcissistic. So, at least in that there is consistency.
It is not just the Protestant God who is misconstrued, and in the Bible God is constantly giving, giving man both good things and good laws, which He misuses and breaks, and then God gives a way back, finally by giving that His most Beloved, His own Divine Son, who gave Himself in service day and night, and finally gave Himself for our sins, even becoming was He hated, to save even souls who rail against them, once they come to their senses. And to believe in Him is to be just the opposite of narcissism, that of living for Christ out a motivation of love for Him for what He is and has done, and for the good of others. Not to gain eternal life, but because we are given it. And as we follow Him who bore our sins in His death, we should be willing to go to Hell if that would serve that purpose, as our examples of Moses and Paul were, thank be to God.
“What about Mary?”
+John Chrysostomos said she did indeed commit sin. Panagia was born as human as you and me. Her nature was as fallen as all mankind’s. In other words, she had the same propensity to sin as the rest of us. If she were different from us in that regard, her Son, Christ, would not be True God and True Man. She, however, attained a state of perfect theosis by her cooperation with and total submission to the grace of God. Because we and she are not God, while we Orthodox believe that she committed no voluntary sins in her life, she may very well have committed involuntary ones for which we Orthodox Christians also ask for forgiveness. Thus we have the line, “...for there is no one who lives and is sinless. You alone are without sin.”
“I was just curious to see what evidence you had that Isaiah was about Jesus and your evidence is the New Testament, specifically Luke, not Isaiah”
As I said, it looks like Zechariah 3:8 testifies that the Branch, the Messiah, is God’s servant. “Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.” Both Isaiah and Jeremiah identify the “Branch” as a descendant of Jesse. Isaiah identifies the Branch as Jesus, 11:1-2 “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD.”
Jer 23:5 “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.” Jer 33:15 “In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.”
No where in the scriptures is Israel mentioned as the “Branch”; only the Messiah.
Israel has not had a king of the lineage of Jesse since the time of the exile during Jeremiah’s prophetic life. Jesus has been identified as the descendant of Jesse who will be king.
Further, Jesus quotes this Isaiah passage as identifying himself as the servant; In Matthew 12:18-21, “ Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.”
This is a quote from an eye witness to the testimony of Jesus.
Spoken like a lost man that has never known Christ or had the ability to read scripture with understanding
Why are you surprised???? Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.. they are foolishness to the perishing
“As I said, it looks like Zechariah 3:8 testifies that the Branch, the Messiah, is God’s servant. “Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.” Both Isaiah and Jeremiah identify the “Branch” as a descendant of Jesse. Isaiah identifies the Branch as Jesus, 11:1-2 “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD.””
Good one, b-d. The Syrian Orthodox (who are non Chalcedonians) interpret Zechariah in the same way.
Based on WHAT
We believe this because we do not believe that the Holy Spirit, given to The Church at Pentecost, will allow the Body of The Church to fall into error.
Paul did not believe that, He warned against error and false teachers entering the church
2Cr 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him].
2Cr 11:13 For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore [it is] no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
Neither did Peter
2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
John did not believe that
1Jo 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Jude was very clear in his warning
Jud 1:3 ¶ Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort [you] that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. Jud 1:5 ¶ I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 8 Likewise also these [filthy] dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.Jesus warned us
Mat 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
Mat 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
The EO may claim they do not have an infallible man ...but the men of those councils are credited with infallibility IF THEY HAVE NO FINAL INFALLIBLE MEASURING ROD for that doctrine.. it is nothing more than the doctrine of men
Based on WHAT
Funny how that works. First they declare THEMSELVES infallible. Then they declare their beliefs infallible.
Who can argue with such a fallible-proof system...
LOL...exactly
Neither did Peter
John did not believe that"
But R, the men who decided for you and all Christians that Paul and Peter and John and Jude, and Matthew and Mark and Luke for that matter, were worthy of belief believed exactly that.
Bingo. But that has not been loosed in Heaven.
Kolo: +John Chrysostomos said she did indeed commit sin. Panagia was born as human as you and me. Her nature was as fallen as all mankind’s.
FK, the Eastern Church does not believe in Mary's immaculate conception, so her nature is equally fallen, as the rest of Adam's descendants, even if she dis not commit any personal sins. She still had the "maucla" (spot) of Adam's sin. Christ doesn't.
But Roman Catholics believe otherwise, and for that reason you won't hear a Roman Catholic priest chant with regard to Jesus "for there is no one who lives and is sinless. You alone are without sin" precisely because someone would ask "What about Mary?"
The Roman Catholic dogma of Immaculate Conception implies that, besides Jesus, Mary was born ontologcially like the pre-Fall Eve, and supposedly remained in that state during her earthly life. The East believes that she was cleansed of all sin (basically baptized by the Spirit) at the Annunciation, and made an 'acceptable vessel," and that, being under special grace, she sinned not since.
The Jews don't dispute that Zechariah and Isaiah hints at a (king) messiah (remember rabbinic Judaism that survived is the Pharisaical Judaims of Jesus' times, and they were messianic/apocalyptic believers in a messiah; they just think it was him! And your evidence does not prove that it is Jesus without reaching for the New Testament! What kind of a "proof" is that, and how can anyone blame the Jews, given that they didn't have the NT!?
Which presupposes that those thru whom Scripture was written and entrusted, are its infallible interpreters. Which logic would require us to become Jews. And yet God preseved the faith among a remnant despite the failures of those who sat in Moses seat, even it meant sovereignly raising up prophets who reproved them and died for it.
Also, the NT evidences that believers recognized writings as Scripture without a assuredly infallible magisterium. (IM)
I see such writings becoming established as from God like a true man of God is - some being more evident than others - by enduring qualities and Divine attestation and from those who likewise have such. Which of course presumes a standard for such.
Councicular decrees ratified what became manifest as being bread from Heaven, and their testimony was instrumental, but it was the qualities and effects that progressively made them “classics from heaven” and what resulted in their enduring acceptance as such.
And as those who hold to Scripture as supreme (versus those who effectively have a higher authority) (but not the solo source of info) are most universally united in (and contend for) the core doctrines we agree with Rome about, as those of the Nicene creed, it attests that we can affirm that Rome can teach infallible Scripturally warranted doctrines.
The main issue here is not simply teachings which we most universally see as failing that warrant, but the formulaic assured status of the IM. And i do understand that you are not a RC., but seem like a reasonable man.
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.