Posted on 03/27/2014 12:43:01 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
A.) Is there an existential difference between that Jewish Oral Tradition handed down over the centuries (or even millenia from the time of Moses until that Oral Tradition was codified) and Roman Catholic Oral Tradition passed on from Bishop to Bishop until it was later codified?
B.) If an Oral Tradition is carried from person to person over a period of time (from say 33 A.D. until 90's A.D. - around the time of John's death) and that New Testament Oral Tradition was being codified during that time period, is that codification different or greater in authority (given that it could have been subject to the Apostle John's acceptance or rejection) than Oral Tradition that is/was codified over a much larger expanse of time - say from after John's death up until the Counter Reformation?
How do we know that that Oral Tradition which emerged after John's death has any veracity or authority at all? If we say "We know that it is truthful and authoritative because it was passed from Bishop to Bishop and because it was passed from Bishop to Bishop we know that it is true," isn't that circualr reasoning?
If so, doesn't that hold true for Jewish Oral Tradition that is outside of the canon (Torah) or the canon (Genesis to Malachi) - whichever one of the two one accepts as being authoritative?
How do we know that the Oral Interpretation of the codified letter (the book of Jeremiah or Genesis for example) that may have been given much later - say hundreds of years later - carries any veracity or authority at all? Did those Jewsish authorities who interpreted those written scriptures and later codified their interpretation(s) (or had their interpretation(s) codified by others "down the road a bit") have some authority that was almost Ex Cathedra in scope or nature?
As a digression, when one speaks Ex Cathedra, do they lose Free Will? Does God take over so that that Pope cannot commit error? If so, is that equal to what the Apostle Paul said in the New Testament: "All scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for doctrine..."
In the end, if any Oarl Tradition is equal in veracity and authority (be it Jewish or Roman Catholic) why not - for example - place that codification in a canon and include it right alongside say Genesis to Tobit and Baruch to Revelation?
The same for Jewish Oral Tradition?
Traditional Judaism makes sharp distinctions between Biblical and rabbinic enactments.
Jesus celebrated Chanukah. Did he consider the ‘Feast of Dedication’ adding to Torah?
The it says, “The Torah and the commandments” means the 10 Commandments (which aren’t called ‘commandments’ in Hebrew, but instead are, ‘Aseret haDibrot’ - the 10 words) and the other 603 commandments. The 10 Commandments are special in the fact that they are incumbent on all people, not just Jews.
Reposting this:
Keep in mind there are various classes of mitzvot (aka commandments) of the 613 listed here.
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Taryag/taryag.html
All 613 are listed here.
http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm
One of these are the “Chukkim” (aka statutes) which are given and have no reason as far as we can tell.
Let’s look at Deuteronomy 12:21
“If the place that the LORD your God will choose to put his name there is too far from you, then you may kill any of your herd or your flock, which the LORD has given you, as I have commanded you, and you may eat within your towns whenever you desire.”
There is no information given in the Written Torah as to the proper procedure for slaughtering kosher animals or even why it is supposed to be done.
If you study Oral Torah you’ll find out how to do the the slaughtering properly and correctly. It’s very detailed and requires quite a bit of training to be able to do it right.
Oral Torah also tells us how the words were spaced in the Written Torah as well as the cantillation and the vowelization of the words.
I strongly recommend that you memorize the words of Yeshua in Matthew 7:23, just in case you become deaf before you stand before him at the Great White Throne, so you will not be too disoriented.
HMMMmmm...
"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'
WHY did you leave out the QUALIFIERS???
There is nothing in verse 22 that lets the lawless off the hook. There is no escape clause anywhere in the entire word of God for those that reject his Torah.
“Not hearers of the law, but Doers of the law will be justified.”
.
Pardon (and respect), but I do not believe you. That might look good on paper, but practice is different, in my observation.
Jesus celebrated Chanukah. Did he consider the ‘Feast of Dedication’ adding to Torah?
And Purim too - And both hold prophetic portent - That is a conundrum, isn't it... But at the same time, he excoriated the Pharisees, and said not to do as they do or say...
mmm...
I thought Jesus said to obey those in “Moses’ seat”?
Isn’t Moses’ seat now the Holy Catholic Church? Can every Christian be his own Moses?
Exodus 18:13 ...Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening.
14 And when Moses’ father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even?
15 And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God:
16 When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God, and his laws...
Yes indeed. But I see that passage differently than most. Exactly thereafter he says not to do as they say and do... He cannot be saying BOTH, so there is something deeper there - I would submit that 'say and do' are 'takanot and ma'asim'... In which he is saying the Pharisees claim to be disciples of Moses, and in that, do whatever Moses says - When they speak with authority according to Moses, THAT DO... But do not follow their enactments and examples. for they 'say and do' not (according to Moses). This is perfectly in line with every other contention he made thereafter - The context of every thing he did was against tradition and for Torah... The commandments of men having nullified Torah.
Isn’t Moses’ seat now the Holy Catholic Church?
Not just no, but 'oh hell no'!
Can every Christian be his own Moses?
Moses is Moses. period.
>> Shall I now need go fetch examples for the contrary? How about doubting Thomas? <<
Go read the passage of doubting Thomas. He does NOT ask any questions to Jesus. He declares in Jesus’ absence that he would need to see proof of the Resurrection, and then Jesus appears to him and shows him the proof. No questions.
In every list of the apostles, Peter is called, “first.” But Andrew was the first apostle! True, Peter was first to see the risen Lord, but only because Peter stopped, and yielded to Peter! So, “Petrus, primus” refers not to Peter being first in chronology, but first in primacy!
>> Or those who questioned Him as who would be greater in the Kingdom of Heaven <<
There is no mention as to which asked him that. But he then repeated to the 12 PART of what he told Peter... and after that, Peter asks the questions (v. 21). And yes, many times he answered to the 12 together, but when he spoke of the keys of the kingdom, he specifically addressed Peter alone. When he directed, “shepherd my sheep,” he specifically addressed Peter alone.
At the transfiguration, who was there? Peter, James and John. At the Garden of Gethesemane, who was there? Peter James and John. To John, he left care of his mother. James would be glorified by martyrdom first. And Peter would lead.
>> would you interpret and explain what I just said directly to the multitudes? <<
That’s just stupid. Of course, he needs to instruct Peter first. But then when he is gone, who interprets the succession of Judas to the apostles (Acts 1) ? Peter. Who interprets Pentecost to the crowds (Acts 2)? Peter. Who interprets Joel and David? Peter. Who did Andrew yield to, arriving at the Tomb of the Resurrected Christ? Peter. Who speaks to the onlooker when the beggar was healed (Acts 3)? Peter. Who speaks to the Sanhedrin the apostles (Acts 4)? Peter. Who condemns Ananias and Sapphira? Peter. Whose shadow do people reach for to be healed (Acts 5)? Peter. Who advocates for the 12 in persecution? Peter. Who bests Simon the sorcerer (Acts 8)? Peter.
Whose vision, wthout seconding or interpretation by another apostle, leads to welcoming the gentiles and abandoning kosher laws, overturning Moses? Peter!
>> How about instead of myself going and digging out scriptures where other Apostles do directly interact with the Christ, you go play fetch and bring to us here multiple instances of the other Apostles shrinking back, and in actuality pushing Peter forward while saying at the same time to Peter “you ask for us”, instead of there being instances of Peter’s own boldness of stepping forward (on his own ‘get-go’, as it were) rather than being “asked”. <<
OK:
Mat 14:28
Mat 15:15
Mat 16:16
Mat 17:14
Mat 17:26
Mat 18:21
Mat 19:27
And about FOURTY MORE INSTANCES!!!
Catholic oral tradition? I’m sorry, but after all of the scandals in resent years you would think they would choose another term to describe it.
You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? 2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you [f]suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?
6 Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. 7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you.” 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.
10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.” 11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
15 Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. 17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.
19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. 20 Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one. 21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. 22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.
I thought them guys on the road to Emmaus were the first ones?
Here [below the following text in blue] is the first passage from your list which you supply in answer to the request I made, which is alleged to supply answer to that request under condition of --- as I put it;
bring to us here multiple instances of the other Apostles shrinking back, and in actuality pushing Peter forward while saying at the same time to Peter “you ask for us”
28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. 29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. 30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. 31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?Neither did I find anything of the sort (other Apostles asking Peter to ask for them) in wider context of the rest of that chapter. About as close as that passage gets, is just prior in that same chapter they wear all fearful at the sight of Christ walking upon the water, but Peter more bold after Christ spoke directly to them all.
Which is still far short of the others saying "Peter, you ask Him FOR us".
Can't you SEE that???
As I made mention in my previous comment to you here, even as you copied and pasted in your own reply (did you not read what I wrote to you? Ugh! this is SO tedious! what is it with Papists anyway? Do they not read much of anything other than Roman Catholic apologetic web pages or something--- but when anyone else even goes to the time & effort to write to themselves directly, they just skim over it? EVEN when they copy/past the same? holy ToLEDO!) -- there are numerous instances where Peter steps forward (as it were), but I know not of any where the others as you said >but ask Peter to ask for them< which means you seem to be attempting to misrepresent what the scripture actually says...or even indicate, having added this "extra" sense, that the others were "asking" Peter, to "ask for them".
Otherwise, bring any full passages HERE which would show that I am missing that which would make the underlined portion of your own statement to which I previously, and here again make reply --- seen as true. How about in even ONE instance? huh?
Are you going to force me into bringing EACH and every scripture passage which you give small listing of, here to these pages to show just how much they ALL FAIL to do what you say they do?
How about --- yourself going to fish out all the passages, read them for yourself and see if they actually fit the bill, before sending ME on wild goose chase/fishing expedition, for I suspect you may have not read them -- and possibly lifted the 'list' which you proclaim there are FORTY MORE example for -- from some Papist apologetics page.
I say this --- for otherwise, unless you be yourself willfully reading into them that which is not there -- you cannot actually believe that any of them show other Apostles as having asked Peter --to ask for them? I'm not willing to assume that you are that STUPID.
After not getting a bite on the first cast (your list of citations) not the tiniest nibble (you guaranteed I would catch a whopper), I had a mind to not play "go fish" with your list any further, but did so anyway, and found nothing of the sort which you claim, for there is nothing showing the other Apostles to have asked Peter to ask Jesus -- anything.
In Matthew 17, as in each other chapter also, we see Christ addressing them severally, all together, more so than singularly speaking to Peter alone, and in verse 26 is shown Peter answering a question Christ asked of Peter himself directly;
Now one would think that somewhere along the line, if notion of "Petrine primacy" be valid in the various manners which Papists seek for that to be applied, then from Christ, Paul, even Peter himself would have come further theological insight as towards better foundation of this highly singular claim ---which I must again point out-- was not seen in earliest centuries in the wider church as belonging only to Rome.
Was everyone that stupid -- for centuries? Was the church that much in the dark as to how Ekklesia was to function, that it took many centuries (longer than the U.S. Constitution has been in print, like about than three times as long) for even Rome itself to begin to get a grip on it?
Or was that "grip" more of a grasping reach? It is interesting that no one else (who wasn't already part of the 'Western' church) agreed with Rome, when Rome made the big push to finalize the claim for itself and it's bishop (which claim had been simmering and inflating for about four centuries, approx.) when the big split between East & West occurred in 1054.
The Eastern churches saw the difference being over the Filioque, while the Latin church chose that time to bring out that bigger fish to fry (as in -- Rome alone, head and shoulders above the rest -- was "Peter heir"), the Big Fish of the Entire World (other than Jesus). It came about in such a nasty fashion -- fighting over the wording of where the spirit "proceedeth" from!
The rest of what you wrote --- is Romish-tinted-lens gibberish, in that regardless of Peter's own role as seen in scripture, there was never a sense in the early church that what was bestowed upon Peter, would be given over only in succession to bishops of Rome ALONE, in single file order there --- but not elsewhere, even not elsewhere unless they went thru Rome/recieved charter from Rome, etc, which ideas I mention in hopes of heading off tacks in that direction (I've seen Papists pull just about every trick in the book -- all of them aimed at maintaining appearances of Papal righteousness over and above all, regardless of the abundance of primary evidence available to the contrary).
On the other hand, there is evidence for there having been a positive sense that such as was given to Peter as seen in Matthew 16, was alsogiven over to all the rest directly from God, as can be seen well enough in Matthew 18 (if not gaining some sense it be for all in chapter 16, for I do see it there also) then later passed down to & through the offices of all the other "patriarchates", with there being required among them --- not need for permission from Rome, or unilateral obeisance towards Rome for establishment of their own validity (as bishopric) but those bishoprics also honestly enough (even as from the very beginning!) able to hold for themselves autonomy of sorts, with that autonomy belonging severally to each and all, with all of them jointly successors to Peter (in the spiritual sense) just as all were also successors to Paul and all the rest. The first church -- was a commune of sorts, do not forget...
This idea of patriarchates was basically one of regional bishops from locations of particular local importance, which locations themselves also had history of Apostolicity for having been founded by (or at least overseen directly at some time) by various Apostles themselves personally, with Peter during his own time not claiming anything like "primacy" for himself as in sole or singular authority, or much of anything resembling such... which was not in rather communal manner shared among all,leaving them all, from the barest beginning be subject to one another [Ephesians 5:19-21], as it is written that it should be -- for THAT was how they were directed to proceed.
It was not for many centuries that the Latin branch of the church began to press claim for themselves (for their own "pope", while other patriarchs were called "pope" also, at least long ago) this idea of there being in Rome alone the "keys" which Peter was given (as I mentioned previously also -- that was taken care of in Matthew 18, when Christ again raised the issue there, while addressing them all together, all at once when speaking of the "keys" which were given to them -- the binding and loosening) leaving this Romish idea of singular Papacy, which cannot but include also Supremacy over all others, be an invention of centuries after the fact of the church's earliest inceptions, for that sense of organizational hierarchy was not there from the onset, no matter how hard Rome continues to attempt to spin it, squeezing it out of various scripture passages by way of eisegesis, even that which Tradition predating singular "Papacy" itself, clearly and undeniably refutes!
The gig is up. There is far too much historical information available to far too many people TODAY, than at any time in history.
No one has to sit back and allow the Church of Rome to LIE TO THEIR FACE, any longer.
Examination of that (history) as I spoke previously towards also, leaves Papists clinging to the idea of there being singular Papacy (thus Supremacy too) needing to rely upon Newmanesque development theory, with Papists today needing to see in every interaction of Peter with Christ (as found in scripture) yet another 'acorn'. BUT --- as I continually point out --- that wasn't the understanding of the wider universal thus "catholic" church for many centuries!
Were they all so STUPID that everyone (including in Rome itself) did not notice that that was what the good Lord intended -- until long centuries later? And by some freak coincidence (imagine that, ha!) it was Rome itself who said -- "oh, by the way -- God died, and did Rise again from the grave, before leaving us all behind, and wait for it...
...left us in charge Supremely Primarily in direct ecclesiastical authority over all others! Ta-DA!
But if you don't agree (came the modern-day development, after previous centuries of saying in myriad ways that all else other than those who submitted to the Roman Pontiff were condemned, damned to hell for willful resistance to claims of Romish authority) while otherwise in any form 'Christian' (heck --even if you are a God fearing-Muslim that believes in 'one God' or a Jew) than you are connected to "The Church" albeit imperfectly, yet through "divine papal office" --- and you can't get the blessings we [claim to] enjoy from God [as much as we can!] unless you come bow yourselves before our Pope & priesthood.
Would God have left such an important aspect or set of considerations (which do indeed have far reaching theological implication) for only this one branch of the church, the Western branch, to on it's own discover many centuries after the original foundings of the various Ekklesia that it alone and above, apart from all others -- was singular inheritor to Peter?
No, I do not believe that, for the early church did not believe that OR PRACTICE it either.
I believe in Christ having been crucified for the sins of many, even the entire world, if they would but go to Him, each and everyone, for the sacrifice was and still is sufficient for all, instead.
I don't believe for one solitary second -- that He willfully made Himself hostage to Rome's priesthood, which ultimately (but without coming right out and saying it) much or most of the "theology" which is "Romish" (in comparison to Christian traditions in any and all direction elsewhere) can see to much equate to including.
The prisoner has not only escaped -- but was never prisoner (of Rome) in the first place.
A denial without a real difference in this area .
|
Is Peter the 'rock'?
As you can see, Simon was already known as 'Peter'
BEFORE the following verses came along.....
NIV 1 Corinthians 10:4
and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. NIV Luke 6:48
He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. NIV Romans 9:33
As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." NIV 1 Peter 2:4-8
4. As you come to him, the living Stone--rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him-- 5. you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6. For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 7. Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone, " 8. and, "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message--which is also what they were destined for. But, since there WAS no NT at the time Christ spoke to Peter, just what DID Peter and the rest of the Disciples know about ROCKS??? NIV Genesis 49:24-25 24. But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed limber, because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob, because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel, 25. because of your father's God, who helps you, because of the Almighty, who blesses you with blessings of the heavens above, blessings of the deep that lies below, blessings of the breast and womb. NIV Numbers 20:8
"Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the assembly together. Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink." NIV Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he. NIV Deuteronomy 32:15
Jeshurun grew fat and kicked; filled with food, he became heavy and sleek. He abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Savior. NIV Deuteronomy 32:18
You deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth. NIV Deuteronomy 32:30-31
30. How could one man chase a thousand, or two put ten thousand to flight, unless their Rock had sold them, unless the LORD had given them up? 31. For their rock is not like our Rock, as even our enemies concede. NIV 1 Samuel 2:2
"There is no one holy like the LORD; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God. NIV 2 Samuel 22:2-3
2. He said: "The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; 3. my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation. He is my stronghold, my refuge and my savior-- from violent men you save me. NIV 2 Samuel 22:32
For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? NIV 2 Samuel 22:47
"The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God, the Rock, my Savior! NIV 2 Samuel 23:3-4
3. The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me: `When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God, 4. he is like the light of morning at sunrise on a cloudless morning, like the brightness after rain that brings the grass from the earth.' NIV Psalms 18:2
The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge. He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold. NIV Psalms 18:31
For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? NIV Psalms 18:46
The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God my Savior! NIV Psalms 19:14
May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer. NIV Psalms 28:1
To you I call, O LORD my Rock; do not turn a deaf ear to me. For if you remain silent, I will be like those who have gone down to the pit.
NIV Psalms 31:2-3
2. Turn your ear to me, come quickly to my rescue; be my rock of refuge, a strong fortress to save me. 3. Since you are my rock and my fortress, for the sake of your name lead and guide me. NIV Psalms 42:9
I say to God my Rock, "Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?" NIV Psalms 62:2
He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will never be shaken. NIV Psalms 62:6
He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will not be shaken. NIV Psalms 62:7
My salvation and my honor depend on God ; he is my mighty rock, my refuge. NIV Psalms 71:3
Be my rock of refuge, to which I can always go; give the command to save me, for you are my rock and my fortress. NIV Psalms 78:35
They remembered that God was their Rock, that God Most High was their Redeemer. NIV Psalms 89:26
He will call out to me, `You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.' NIV Psalms 92:14-15
14. They will still bear fruit in old age, they will stay fresh and green, 15. proclaiming, "The LORD is upright; he is my Rock, and there is no wickedness in him." NIV Psalms 95:1
Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation. NIV Psalms 144:1
Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle. NIV Isaiah 17:10
You have forgotten God your Savior; you have not remembered the Rock, your fortress. NIV Isaiah 26:4
Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD, is the Rock eternal. NIV Isaiah 30:29
And you will sing as on the night you celebrate a holy festival; your hearts will rejoice as when people go up with flutes to the mountain of the LORD, to the Rock of Israel. NIV Isaiah 44:8
Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one." NIV Habakkuk 1:12 O LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One, we will not die. O LORD, you have appointed them to execute judgment; O Rock, you have ordained them to punish. |
And now you know the Biblical position!
You squirm and post irrelevant scriptures that do not absolve you or anyone of Yeshua’s commandments.
Either you obey, or you do not.
Those that believe in him obey him, and are entitled to the benefit of his perfect sacrifice. If you do not obey, you do not believe.
Those that love him keep his commandments. (He said that, not me)
.
So much of what you write is merely the modern interpretation of scripture being held in contrast to the ancient, Traditional, apostolic interpretation. We could trade blows forever about the meaning of 1 Cor 3:15, but the plain fact is that the ancient Church prayed for relief of suffering of the departed, and that a long list of Church fathers explained the purpose of doing so in the context of 1 Cor 3.
But as to the matter of the Council of Florence, there does seem some debate as to whether the Council as a whole was infallible or merely some portion of it. (Herein, the American-written Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913 is virtually useless, since so much of the Catholic faith was unavailable to the English-language, mid-Western, US-bound authors; the imprimatur only signifies that it contains no false moral doctrine, not that it effectively serves as the Catholic position in all apologetic disputes.) You seem to relish a fight, so you ignore that I said I only brought up the Council of Florence as a correction to my previous statement that the Catholic canon was established as Trent.
Because I am interested in leading no-one astray, however, let me clarify the Council of Florence.
Yes, the Council of Florence suggests anyone separated from Rome is bound for Hell. And the Council of Trent, which is absolutely infallible anathematizes any Protestant. Context is required here, however. The Council of Florence meant to bind the conscience of anyone under the authority of the Orthodox-cum-Catholic bishops so as to prevent schism. The context of someone entering schism because they refuse to accept their own bishops is quite different than the context of someone who remains loyal to their only episcoacy and presbytery their land has ever known. The Catholic church had already made quite clear that the supposed excommunication of the Orthodox made at the time of the Great Schism had been made “ultra vires” (beyond oversight).
As someone who finds much favorable to Orthodox spirituality through first-hand experience, the absurdity of the Orthodox’s version of history is quite saddening: That the bishops were with but one exception all heretics, and that the princes the defenders of the faith. The entire POINT of an ecumenical council is so that the bishops can discuss their differences and achieve a common understanding; to say that those who did not participate can nullify such a council is to reject the very notion of a council. I lump this one with blaming the atrocities of the excommunicated crusaders in the 11th century for the 15th century fall of Constantinople. (The reality is the Greeks assassinated so many of their own leaders, they lost their institutional memory. The many assassinations are even probably why they lost the secret of Greek Fire!)
There is an invisible Church. And a visible Church. In Holy Scripture it is the visible Church that Paul writes to. He writes with authority as there is authority, there is a hierarchy.
To say otherwise is to ignore scripture.
No, again God IS Truth. There is a difference.
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.