Posted on 03/30/2015 8:34:08 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Here is the summation for the previous threads and the last of this for some time:
Jesus Christ alone possessed the intrinsic quality of infallibility, was unlike any man that has ever lived, and was in a class all by Himself.
There were some (like the Ebionites) who believed that Jesus was the messiah but also believed that he lacked divinity. Some, like those who ascribed to Arianism or semi-Arianism, who were somewhere in between the Ebionites and those who believed/believe that Jesus was fully God and Fully Man.
Each of these nonetheless believed that Jesus was unlike any man before Him or after Him.
There are those who would say that the Ebionites and those who ascribed to Arian belief did not place Jesus high enough, but it can be easily retorted that some place certain churches and men on too high a pedestal and ascribe to man and a church that which can only be possessed by Jesus Christ.
The tendency to try and claim infallibility (or something close to it) has been attempted more than once throughout history. The Pharisees declared to the man who was born blind, whom Jesus healed (John chapter 9:1-34 (verses 28-29): "You are this fellow's disciple! We are disciples of Moses! We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this fellow we don't even know where he comes from." The man gave his retort to them in verses 30-33 to which they replied in verse 34: "You were steeped in sin at birth, how dare you lecture us! And they threw him out."
After this, there was a convergence of Big Government (Rome) and Big Council (Matthew 26:59: "Now the chief priest, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death.").
After them, Big Council again tried to stifle the Apostles, as related in the Book of Acts.
Then there was a convergence of Big Gov't (Constantine) and Big Council. And after them another convergence of Big Gov't (Theodosius), yet another Big Council (Council of Constantinople) and Big Code (the Theodosian Code).
After them, Big Bishop (Bishop Athanasius), tried to suppress and dictate to others what others should read (what was being read during his time included both non-Gnostic, Heterodox texts like the Gospel of Peter, semi-Gnostic and Gnostic texts).
After him, there was a attempt by Big Church to suppress the translation of the scriptures by Wyclffe and others even though they were completely non-Gnostic scriptures.
Then, as well as now, one can claim to possess infallibility and point to certain scriptures in an attempt to bolster one's claim, but citing certain scriptures leads one to ask "How do you know your church possesses infallibility or inerrancy? Certain scriptures tell you that? How do you know that you are infallibility interpreting those scriptures or interpreting them without error? Because you possess infallibility or inerrancy?
If so, then welcome to the land of circular reasoning?
So that would explain why the reading of the Gospel of Peter was rampantly being read, not in Gnostic churches but in the “good ones.”
And that would explain why this Gospel was found buried with who probably was Coptic elder in his local chrch.
And that would explain why the reading of the Revelation of Peter was rife all over the Roman Empire and not in the bad churches but in the “good ones.”
The Clermont List reflects what was considered scriptural in Alexandria in c. 300 A.D., and it contained the Revelation of Peter. And don’t forget that the Muratorian Fragment reflects what was considered scriptural in Rome c. 180 A.D. and it includes...wait for it... the Revelation of Peter, too!
Obviously they were being led by the Holy Spirit?
And let’s not forget that the earliest Greek Manuscripts available to us (Codex A, S and B) contains books that Protestants, Catholics and Ethiopic Christians do not consider to be canonical.
Obviously the Holy Spirit was leading them when these were compiled?
At the very least, the human authors of Scripture were infallible when writing Scripture, because they were inspired, and inspiration (saying exactly what God wishes to be said) includes infallibility (not saying what God does not wish to be said).
I see no comment on the infallibility of any book.
This Big Council had an attitude of ‘We are God’s mouthpiece.’ and threw the man out who was born blind out. (IOW, they “excommunicated” him). The same arrogant stunt has been repeated many times since.
Conflating Luther with them shouldn’t be attempted. He had the attitude but could not and did not throw them out of their synagogues. I don’t know if he considered himself to be God’s mouthpiece, but the Pharisees definitely thought a or acted as if they were.
...the Apostle Peter was wrong occasionally, and corrected by the Apostle Paul...(seems like Saul was corrected one time...also...
on the road to Damascus... ( ; )
so...
...unless you are sitting in the Chair to the Right of Jehovah God...
...
I suggest you refer to the Holy Scripture.
And may you be Blessed.
xxxandifyousaytheHolySpirittoldyouso...please stand a little farther away from me. ( ; )
...even though I was promised the “gift of the Holy Spirit” at my baptism.
“Once delivered to all.”
“No private interpretation.”
“from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.”
I am not confusing them.
There are no inspired writers, only inspired scripture.
Otherwise, what has been said by certain rabbis in the past, “The words of the scribes are weightier than the words of the prophets” would be true.
Jesus didn’t write the bible...man did...now what?
You nailed it! The Roman Catholic Church says it can speak infallible, but they don't have an infallible list of when they've spoken infallibly.
The Bible is a corroborated testimony to the words and acts of Jesus. In this it is unique among holy books because it was not written by the person promulgating it.
If Jesus were to be accused of a crime then the Bible would be sufficient evidence to convict Him of it. Likewise, to me it is sufficient proof that He lived, He spoke, He healed, and He died.
once a prophet...blows it...THATS ..IT!!!
the pope is as infallible as Harold Camping!!!
Amazing then how it was “once delivered to all” and yet the “good churches” (and not the “bad ones”) had what they considered to be inspired scripture which what was allowed in the scriptures in Rome, reflected by the Muratorian Fragment for c. 180 A.D. Rome (and most likely even before that in Rome) and it included the Revelation of Peter.
This work was widely read is a plethora of “good churches: throughout the Roman Empire. I guess they considered this book to also be “:once delivered unto the saints.” Yeah, no way they could have been in error. I mean, it’s the church I Rome, the “Holy See” of all places. In Rome of all places, men speaking and reading twisted things.
No private interpretation...
We can see a lot of that in the early second century church. Most churches - the “good ones” - had the Gospel of Peter as being considered “canonical” and many other Heterodox texts were also accepted as being inspired scripture. I will list them at some time in the future.
Oh yeah, the early church sure possessed infallibility when pickin’ them. What is being worked now is tracing how far back books like these go.
It is most likely just a matter of time before they will be traced back to even the “good churches” in the Apostolic Age (1st century), as archaeological finds and tests conducted by MIT, the Smithsonian and others (which trace the synoptic Gospels to the first century) will, trace texts like the aforementioned back to that time period.
Conflating Luther with them shouldn’t be attempted. He had the attitude but could not and did not throw them out of their synagogues. I don’t know if he considered himself to be God’s mouthpiece, but the Pharisees definitely thought a or acted as if they were.
So to be clear and to keep us on point in a discussion about whether the Pahrisees claimed infallibility: is it your contention that they "many times this arrogant stunt has been repeated" are all examples of people claiming infallibility?
The elements of the arrogant stunt being:
1. A group of people claim to be God's mouthpiece.
2. They throw someone out, IOW they excommunicate him.
By the way your statement that Luther "had the attitude but could not and did not throw them out of their synagogues" is incorrect. According to Paul Johnson:
"Luther was not content with verbal abuse. Even before he wrote his anti-Semitic pamphlet, he got Jews expelled from Saxony in 1537, and in the 1540s he drove them from many German towns..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies
Your statement may be correct, but in fact they did - Formally. Every synagogue has within it a throne or chair called 'the Seat of Moses'. When the chief rabbi sat upon the Seat of Moses his words were considered to be infallible.
Of course, Yeshua put an end to that. It wasn't true then any more than it is true now.
Matthew 16:19
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
1 Timothy 3:15
"...which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."
Matthew 18
15“If your brother or sisterb sins,c go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.
16But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’d
17If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will bee bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will bef loosed in heaven.
Bishop St. Cyprian the Martyr of Carthage in 252 [Epistle 59:14 in PL ],
After such things as these, moreover, they still dare--a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics--to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the Apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.
[[Does any Church or Council possess infallibility or did Jesus alone possess this?]]
Well if a church or leader was really infallible, then I could pick and choose who I want to be my savior
Perhaps you might read the Old Testament and find the same proofs were claimed as promised the same way by the religious authorities of Judaism. They were wrong then... What makes you think you’re interpreting those promises rightly now?
Assuming what you write is correct, it destroys the Bible [as we know it] from being the one and only to ever contain all truth. This opens up tradition as guidance. Somehow it validates that Jesus wrote only once and that was in sand. Jesus relied on teaching through individuals, not books, to teach. He didn’t rely on individual interpretation. Sounds like the Catholic Church got it right with apostolic succession.
1. On what authority do you know that the Bible you use is inspired at all? Even if the Bible somewhere claimed that authority for itself (which it doesn't) it wouldn't matter, because any book could say that (and false books like the Book of Mormon and the Koran do). A burning in the breast feeling also is not valid.
2. How do you even know what books are inspired and belong in the Bible you use? The table of contents is not inspired and some human being with requisite authority had to decide that, for example, the Gospel of John is in, and the Gospel of Barnabas is out.
3. What use would it be for God to throw us an infallible book if he were not going to provide an infallible interpretor? Otherwise every man, citing the gift of the Holy Spirit, would interpret the Bible for himself. This is exactly what has happened since Martin Luther resulting in the tens of thousand conflicting and contradicting denominations we have today. If this were God's plan, then the Holy Spirit is one of confusion, not truth.
I myself believe with all my heart that the 73 books found in my Bible are the inerrant, inspired word of God. But I have good, solid, biblical reasons for doing so. Other, people-- I'm afraid not so much. This is not because they are stupid (almost everybody is smarter than me), but because they have never fully thought through the implications of their assumptions on this topic, either because no one has pointed it out to them, or they have avoided the subject.
It is always better to put light on an idea rather than just heat. Here are some more considerations for those who are not afraid to peruse them:
It does not explicitly say “infallible”, however if it is truly given by inspiration from God, and God is “infallible” then logically we can conclude that the books of the Bible are infallible (unless translated incorrectly).
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.