That's all rather besides the point(s), and this "chaos" which you invoked could be compared to the chaos on this nation's freeways.
Some individuals do run themselves off the road and into the ditches, or else smash-up against some immovable object, when not more simply, upon occasion colliding with one another. For reason that some do, does not equate with all will do so --- like --- whenever it is they take the wheel in their own hands. Not everyone in the USA eventually dies in automobile accidents, due to their own negligence, though this comparison is the way in which Romanists would make it out to be, for any and all whom utilize Scripture in refutation of certain and particular aspects of Roman Catholic theology.
Again I will remind you that you yourself have disqualified yourself from being a capable judge of comparable theologies ---- having also apparently just recently missed some slight, but significant in it's implication, brief touching upon comparable Eucharistic theologies, which agree with one another as for Spirit (rather than 'carnal flesh' viewpoint) leaving Roman Catholicism somewhat out in the cold, for those whom take an earthly, corporeal flesh type of approach to "Real Presence" as the Reformers spoke of, and the invitation of the Spirit to be the bread ---- as I provided link for an Orthodox view towards. I do suggest that if you think you are qualified to evaluate such things, to go to the link which I provided for that, and read carefully to see if you can see just what it is I'm talking about, rather than myself having to drag it all out ---- and explain to you each and every aspect which should be fairly enough taken into consideration.
If yourself not personally qualified to interpret Scripture --- how then could you interpret the theology of others, other than only on the most shallow levels wherein reliance must be placed not upon comparison of what conceptualizations are being spoken of -- but rather what is being said more woodenly, as in word-for-word comparison, engaged in while ignoring (willfully? I do wonder) what it is which is being conceptual conveyed by the words themselves...
Additionally, as I have previously noted, there is more widespread agreement among many, even here on FR -- than serious disagreements from a few, this thread also serving as evident of what levels of agreement which there are -- which is significant regardless of anyone's denial of such, and as yourself having done, declared the opposite.
For there is not the "chaos" of individual interpretations running around -- all of them in entire disagreement with one another, as you seem to be claiming that there is, even as there is also differing levels of understanding also --- even among Roman Catholic individuals --- including theologians whom align themselves with the RCC.
Yes, but then you must also admit that in the early patristic witness, those individuals didn't not always agree on each and every thing, and in fact there is much which can be seen to have "developed" during later centuries, rather than to have been taught clearly as this "one truth" which you speak of. What could be important would be to sift through what it is which they did indeed most widely agree upon, which itself is also best supported by the Scripture itself also.
Have I not been over that with yourself -- perhaps even numerous times?
I see that you went to some effort to outline how the NT canon came to be. Though I perhaps would not agree with each assertion, in each and every sentence, I will say that you do much exaggerate the process, in the sense that what it is that is being ignored by yourself (even as you are also explaining it, curiously enough) is that that the Apostles imposed upon the Church, the very writings which came to be known as the NT, and these were widely enough known for the vastly greater measure, from quite early on.
In fact, it was this very widespread acceptance itself which ultimately was the truest measure of what was Apostolic --and what was not. But as seeming usual, you do seem to go to great lengths to turn things around rather backwards, I suppose in order to better make way for later Church Council's discussion of the issue to then be projected to have been reliant upon the bishop of Rome. Look -- I know the drill. I know it backwards and forwards. But it's made up of far too much (unprintable on this forum) mixed in with the actual underlying truths of the matter(s).
As for the texts themselves, albeit there were indeed many pretenders, and spurious writings of various sort, what was eventually settled upon was nothing more (and nothing less) than what had come to the various and widespread ekklesia from actual Apostolic sources.
If there was something less ----- which did indeed come from these same authors from whom the contents of the NT came, then show what those writings are. Guess what? There are none that are known of, or of which there can be found trace mention of (that is not mention of some *other* spurious pseudo-graph), or else the Christian world would have likely known of them, all along. Even one writing (not recognized as NT by anyone) which is attributed to Peter himself arguing with some interlocutor, has been well enough established to not be the writings of the Apostle Peter, but are among early pseudographical writings. Or--- feel free to show me some known-to-be actual Apostolic writing which didn't make the cut.
It was much more a matter of these various ekklesia -- none of them in the least being unilaterally under the authority of the Bishop of Rome (other than the Church of Rome itself), whom together were able to establish, and yet again re-establish what it truly was which came from Apostolic source, and what did not. None of this process was funneled singularly through the bishopric of Rome -- which means that your prior assertions concerning this issue were nothing but a bunch of hot air.
I do find your masses of collective assertion, all of them seeming to lead squarely back to your own mistaken & distorted views of this alleged "Petrine authority" which is alluded to belong singularly to 'Rome' as it were, to be entirely tedious.
No matter how many times and ways it can be demonstrated that such concepts as Supremacy for the bishop of Rome absolutely did not exist in the forms which after later "development" within the Church of Rome alone became distorted and inflated into becoming, all the ceaseless rhetoric in the world cannot make truth out of collections of distortion and outright untruth.
Let’s summarize.
First, you try to get away from the one truth by comparing it to traffic n the highway. If this is the case why engage on this inquiry? This is not simply a debate or about avoiding accidents. It’s about the truth of eternal life.
Second, having first asked for relevance of oral tradition, when inundated with such proof of what the early Church writers wrote, you reply simplistically that one cannot evaluate the arguments of theologians because if one is not “personally qualified to interpret Scripture -— how then could you interpret the theology of others, other than only on the most shallow levels.” This argument self-destructs. So if one cannot read the early Greek texts and be a theologian himself, he cannot accept the theological scholarship of others. In short only theologians are qualified to comment on theology. But you miss the point here. Just as you trust your auto mechanic to tell you what’s wrong with your car, we can place confidence in the theologians of yesteryear and today. This trust of course could be a blind trust or it could also be based on the references you receive on the mechanic for his/her experience, expertise, and acceptance by those who have examined his work.
Third, when presented with the works of Catholic scholars whose thinking is the stuff of major colleges and universities and whose books are standard offerings in theological departments, the simplistically naive answer is that because there are libraries of such books this contradicts Petrine authority. Never mind the books present different angles and types of scholarship of Petrine proof which is what theologians do. But apparently, Bible-Christians look for one piece of paper. In short, less scholarship is proof of Petrine authority, more disproves it.
Fourth, it does not seem to matter that preeminent Anglican, Protestant, Lutheran, and Episcopalians who having spent a lifetime of theological study study have converted to Catholicism. No problem you say since this is part of the “chaos” of the nation’s freeways. But this is exactly the kind of chaos these theologians want to avoid and find the one true path to eternal life.
Fifth, when asked to agree that Christ taught one truth, the absurd answer is a “yes, but” response with nonsensical references to disagreement among “early patristic witness, those individuals didn’t not always agree on each and every thing.” Duh! Even the Gospel writers provide different accounts of various aspects of the Life of Christ. The disagreements are indeed essential. since it helps to distill not only what is true and what is untrue but also how the faith must be communicated as one truth.
Sixth, you haven’t provided a single refutation, not one to the empirical date offered in the posts about Petrine authority. Instead, you cavalierly dismiss the works of scores of theologians breezily asserting “as for the texts themselves, albeit there were indeed many pretenders, and spurious writings of various sort, what was eventually settled upon was nothing more (and nothing less) than what had come to the various and widespread ekklesia from actual Apostolic sources.” I must suspect this is a careless piece of cut and paste since its not sourced at all but simply a conclusory statement.
Seventh, it appears that historical proof and belief is something foreign to Bible Christians. You find “Petrine authority” which is alluded to belong singularly to ‘Rome’ as it were, to be entirely tedious.
“Entirely tedious”? Go tell this to St. Iranaeus:
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
Yes, there is no expiry date on Petrine authority.
With this post I must reluctantly conclude that rational exchange in surveying the truth by reference to deep theological waters is not possible. Oh, and by the way why persist in supplying you with a response when one is not a theologian!!! That would be a sheer waste of time and ink, wouldn’t it?