You have all heard this phrase before that “there are as many Baptists as there are flavors of Baskin-Robbins ice cream. “
Jesus was no “itinerant preacher.” That’s a pedantic phrase reserved for Al Sharptons, David Goreshs; and Jeremiah Wrights and the likes of Billy Graham, Rev. Schuller, Joel Osteens, TD Jakes.
Jesus preached in the Temple with Divine authority. Hence the passage from Scripture:
“And when he was come into the temple, there came to him, as he was teaching, the chief priests and ancients of the people, saying: By what authority dost thou these things? and who hath given thee this authority? “ Douay-Rheims Bible
Fundamentalists are basically anti-intellectual because they are unable to defend the whole of Scriptural text and interpretation by the very sources the early Church Fathers used to select what books constituted the Bible. That is, the received oral tradition, ritual, practice, and Divine infallibility that empowered Peter and his successors to preach THE Word of God. Not different flavors. This power was absolute: “Whatsoever thou shall bind on earth…” as it was enduring until the end of time “The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against thee.”
This is why Fundamentalists cannot explain how great theological minds have through studied debate and inquiry, assiduous research, and analysis conducted through the centuries confirmed the irrevocability of Petrine authority. Fundamentalists in many respects are not unlike Muslims interpreters of the Quran, where faith and reason are incompatible. To Catholics, faith and reason are braided together. Therein lies the difference!
Don’t for example expect any Fundamentalist to take the time to read such brilliant encyclicals like those of Benedict XVI: dubbed by The London Economist as the “theological Einstein of our times” whose works fill up the libraries of theological departments in every major university that has a School of Theology or at Harvard or Yale’s Divinity School. Fundamentalist minds are either incapable of grasping a higher level of thinking or as is usually the case they are, like Muslims, impermeably closed to acute reasoning and analysis: Hence why the crack open the Bible and toss out snippets of scripture.
Jesus taught in people’s homes...For example He often visited Lazarus, Martha and Mary’s home and taught...We see this in several places in the Gospels...
On one occasion, Jesus and His disciples were their guests, and Mary sat at Jesus’s feet listening to Jesus’s teaching...Jesus also taught in fields, by trees, on boats, by the sea, in the temple, by a well, on the mount of Olive, on mountaintops, in valleys, and just about everywhere He went...
So I'd say we can disregard most everything you claim about Jesus or the bible...
Fundamentalists in many respects are not unlike Muslims interpreters of the Quran, where faith and reason are incompatible. To Catholics, faith and reason are braided together. Therein lies the difference!
I, the muzlims (if you say so) and Jesus agree with that statement...We know better than to mix our human reasoning with the spiritual things and truths of God...
Oddly the first thing a Catholic priest learns is 3+ years of human philosophy/reasoning, ahead of any religious teaching...And what does Jesus say about that???
Col_2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
And these philosophers, the great thinkers and scholars of the Catholic religion are going to show us something???
1Co_2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Thank GOD!
2 Corinthians 1:13-14
For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that, as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Likewise Catholics under that umbrella, but we can formally separate from the Ted Kennedy Catholics Rome counts and treats as members, while you cannot.
Jesus was no “itinerant preacher.”
He, as well as john the Baptist and all the original apostles, were indeed in the eyes of those who were the historical and stewards of Scripture as the magisterium over Israel sitting in the seat of Moses, - the very manner of position RCs invoke as the basis for requiring submission to her.
Or do you disagree (as i asked another) that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in some form of rebellion to God.
Jesus preached in the Temple with Divine authority. Hence the passage from Scripture:
He did indeed, as He established His Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, contrary to Rome, whose basis for veracity is the premise of her assured veracity. Thus Keating as quoted before, "The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275;
“And when he was come into the temple, there came to him, as he was teaching, the chief priests and ancients of the people, saying: By what authority dost thou these things? and who hath given thee this authority? “ Douay-Rheims Bible
Indeed, and which acted as Rome would when faced with what she sees as itinerant Preachers who reproved her by Scripture. But the Lord simply invoked the authority of another itinerant preacher!
Fundamentalists are basically anti-intellectual because they are unable to defend the whole of Scriptural text and interpretation by... the received oral tradition, ritual, practice, and Divine infallibility that empowered Peter
More haughtiness that further renders Rome to be like the Pharisee crowd:
The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:46-49)
And in reality, tradition, history and Scripture only are and say what Rome says they are and say, regardless of evidence to the contrary.
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine....
I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,”
This power was absolute: “Whatsoever thou shall bind on earth…”
Which only indicts Rome as not having apostolic authority, as they will not and cannot even bind her own liberals unto supernatural judgment unto repentance, (1Cor. 50 while her "extreme unction" which is sppsd to be based upon Ja. 5 and promises healing, is most usually a precursor to death! deliver her which is main .
This is why Fundamentalists cannot explain how great theological minds have through studied debate and inquiry, assiduous research, and analysis conducted through the centuries confirmed the irrevocability of Petrine authority.
Now you are believing your own propaganda, and besides being contrary to how the church began, and the disagreement of "fathers" with Rome on some things, or lack of unity (even on Peter), you must exclude those from have engaged in assiduous research and analysis from being intellectual when they do not subscribe to the party line.
Pardon the length but the testimony of anti-intellectual RCs is that they will not read linked material that challanges ther faith, though this is only a part regarding Peter: .
• Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4, finds:
“New Testament scholars agree..., The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative.
That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.”
“....that does not mean that the figure and the commission of the Peter of the New Testament did not encompass the possibility, if it is projected into a Church enduring for centuries and concerned in some way to to secure its ties to its apostolic origins and to Jesus himself.
If we ask in addition whether the primitive church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer.” (page 1-2)
[Schatz goes on to express that he does not doubt Peter was martyred in Rome, and that Christians in the 2nd century were convinced that Vatican Hill had something to do with Peter's grave.]
"Nevertheless, concrete claims of a primacy over the whole church cannot be inferred from this conviction. If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (page 3, top)
[Lacking such support for the modern concept of the primacy of the church of Rome with its papal jurisdiction, Schatz concludes that, “Therefore we must set aside from the outset any question such as 'was there a primacy in our sense of the word at that time?” Schatz. therefore goes on to seek support for that as a development.]
“We probably cannot say for certain that there was a bishop of Rome [in 95 AD]. It is likely that the Roman church was governed by a group of presbyters from whom there very quickly emerged a presider or ‘first among equals’ whose name was remembered and who was subsequently described as ‘bishop’ after the mid-second century.” (Schatz 4).
Schatz additionally states,
Cyprian regarded every bishop as the successor of Peter, holder of the keys to the kingdom of heaven and possessor of the power to bind and loose. For him, Peter embodied the original unity of the Church and the episcopal office, but in principle these were also present in every bishop. For Cyprian, responsibility for the whole Church and the solidarity of all bishops could also, if necessary, be turned against Rome." — Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], p. 20)
• Roman Catholic scholar William La Due (taught canon law at St. Francis Seminary and the Catholic University of America) on Cyprian:
....those who see in The Unity of the Catholic Church, in the light of his entire episcopal life, an articulation of the Roman primacy - as we have come to know it, or even as it has evolved especially from the latter fourth century on - are reading a meaning into Cyprian which is not there." (The Chair of Saint Peter: A History of the Papacy [Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999], p. 39
• Catholic theologian and a Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that,
“the episcopate [development of bishops] is a the fruit of a post New Testament development,” and cannot concur with those (interacting with Jones) who see little reason to doubt the notion that there was a single bishop in Rome through the middle of the second century:
Hence I stand with the majority of scholars who agree that one does not find evidence in the New Testament to support the theory that the apostles or their coworkers left [just] one person as “bishop” in charge of each local church...
As the reader will recall, I have expressed agreement with the consensus of scholars that available evidence indicates that the church of Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century...
Hence I cannot agree with Jones's judgment that there seems little reason to doubt the presence of a bishop in Rome already in the first century.
“...the evidence both from the New Testament and from such writings as I Clement, the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians and The Shepherd of Hennas favors the view that initially the presbyters in each church, as a college, possessed all the powers needed for effective ministry. This would mean that the apostles handed on what was transmissible of their mandate as an undifferentiated whole, in which the powers that would eventually be seen as episcopal were not yet distinguished from the rest. Hence, the development of the episcopate would have meant the differentiation of ministerial powers that had previously existed in an undifferentiated state and the consequent reservation to the bishop of certain of the powers previously held collegially by the presbyters. — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221,222,224
The research of esteemed historian Peter Lampe* (Lutheran) also weighs against Rome:
The picture that finally emerges from Lampe’s analysis of surviving evidence is one he names ‘the fractionation of Roman Christianity’ (pp. 357–408). Not until the second half of the second century, under Anicetus, do we find compelling evidence for a monarchical episcopacy, and when it emerges, it is to manage relief shipments to dispersed Christians as well as social aid for the Roman poor (pp. 403–4). Before this period Roman Christians were ‘fractionated’ amongst dispersed house/tenement churches, each presided over by its own presbyter–bishop. This accounts for the evidence of social and theological diversity in second-century Roman Christianity, evidence of a degree of tolerance of theologically disparate groups without a single authority to regulate belief and practice, and the relatively late appearance of unambiguous representation of a single bishop over Rome. (Review of “Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries,” by Peter Lampe in Oxford’s Journal of Theological Studies, 2005)
(*Peter Lampe is a German Lutheran minister and theologian and Professor of New Testament Studies at the University of Heidelberg, whose work, “From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries,” was written in 1987 and translated to English in 2003. The Catholic historian Eamon Duffy (Irish Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge, and former President of Magdalene College), said “all modern discussion of the issues must now start from the exhaustive and persuasive analysis by Peter Lampe” — Saints and Sinners,” “A History of the Popes,” Yale, 1997, 2001, pg. 421).
Alister Edgar McGrath, Northern Irish theologian, Anglican priest, intellectual historian, scientist, and Christian apologist, Andreas Idreos Professor in Science and Religion in the Faculty of Theology and Religion at the University of Oxford:
Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment. —The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism: James R. Payton, “Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings”
Your reliance upon lettered intellectualism is selective, while contrary to how the church began and most its leadership. .