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?
No, it's more like I was busting your assertions which you sadly enough mistake for "truth" .
As for the rest which you just wrote... I didn't bother to read it.
There would be no point in doing so, for being as it begins with multi-layered accusation & error, it's doubtful it will get any better.
Meanwhile, it has been yourself who has been all along (for the most part) evasive, while I myself am wearied of correcting your own compound errors -- as I have been doing all along...while you keep repeating the same things over and over, at times in slightly altered forms, but not returning to the same claims which had just been shot full of holes until after throwing up a wall of blather, seemingly is response to how the claims had just been challenged, before as I noted, yourself simply returning to the same 'ol same 'ol (which had just been shown to not be nearly as far-reachingly true enough, as that that would need to be, in order for your grab-bags of assertions to have much of any validity in the way which you need them to).