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?
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
Read Matthew 28, Jesus never gave His authority to the OT religious authorities, nor was the Holy Spirit poured out on them.
what is your evidence for the statement that most of the “good churches” ( I assume you mean the Catholic Church ) accepted the Revelation of Peter?
the evidence is quite the contrary.
Most renaisance art was inspired by God. Which pieces do you consider infallible?
No person alive today can be a successor to any of the apostles ... the criterion for apostleship includes
1. Eyewitness to resurrection
2. With apostles from the beginning
3. Signs of an apostle, miracles, wonders, etc.
I am not aware that anyone in the RCC meets these criteria ... or any other church.
The same way you know scripture was.
am not aware that anyone in the RCC meets these criteria ... or any other church
someone also isn’t aware of what the doctrine of apostolic succession means and what it doesn’t mean.
none of those three factors have anything to do with apostolic succession.
the ignorance on the RF is astounding, and from conservatives no less.
Honestly ... the blindness is stunning.
It is unbelievable what an unbeliever will believe ... to remain an unbeliever.
google Wikipedia for “apostolic succession” and educate yourself.
don’t believe what you hear, ignorance isn’t bliss!
1. This comment is irrelevant to the story at hand, since there is no reference to chief priests in this passage, but plenty elsewhere in the gospels, and even references to "the chief priest and the pharisees" which suggest that these terms are not interchangeable.
2. Despite that, I'd be interested in any evidence you have that "When the chief rabbi sat upon the Seat of Moses his words were considered to be infallible."
Do you have a clue as to the difference between “being read” and declared cannon?
I never do ... if something as important as apostolic succession is not in the scriptures ... its a candidate for the trash heap.
Your side argues that Acts 1:15-26 is the basis and model for apostolic succession ... yet it ignores what is plainly in the text.
Rather than believe what is plainly there ... the bait and switch method of shoehorning Catholic belief into the text is performed.
... "one must be ordained" to be a witness of His resurrection ... not actually what the text says.
Acts 1 is not the basis for apostolic succession, that is why I suggested you do a little research about the doctrine.
the doctrine is based on the laying on of hands as Timothy and Titus had done to them and as they were instructed to do to other faithful men, who then laid hands on others, etc etc.
been happening now close to 2,000 years.
Are you sure you want to go that route?
apostolic succession is much more than Acts 1.
Clement of Rome ( who conversed with Peter and Paul ) tells us that the Apostles chose men to lead the Church after they were gone and laid hands on them.
the Scriptures describe this as happening to Titus and Timothy, and also Titus was instructed to do this in Crete.
so yes, I want to go that route.
This is quite apparent ... since the prescription in Acts 1 is ignored.
the Muratorian Fragment represented the canon of scripture for Rome c. 180 A.D. (Some place it earlier).
This Canon has the NT within it minus some missing pieces, but also included the Revelation (Apocalypse) of Peter, a book that was a Gnostic text.
How could infallible Rome possibly have a Gnostic text within their approved Canon? Because they weren’t infallible on matters of faith as this scripture was right under their nose, right in their own back yard.
They had a penchant for declaring others to be “heretics” while they themselves were “heretics.”
The Muratorian Fragment represents the Canon of scripture in Rome, c. 180 A.D. This canon lists the NT, but has some missing pieces. Along with this, they had the Revelation of Peter, a Gnostic text, within the Muratorian fragment.
How could the church in Rome be infallible when they had a Gnostic text right under their nose, in their own backyard, in their own canon they believed to be inspired scripture?
Yeah, the Gnostics were “heretics. But oh, no, they weren’t...not Rome.
The Muratorian fragment represents the canon of scripture for Rome, c. 180 A.D. It contained the NT, but has some missing pieces. It also had the Revelation of Peter, a Gnostic text.
An infallible church in Rome has a Gnostics text right under their own nose within their canon of inspired scripture.
Yeah, the church in Rome sure was infallible all right...
In the end, the Muratorian frgamnet represents the canon of scripture for Rome, c. 180 A.D. It has the NT, minus some missing pieces. It also contains the revelation of Peter, a Gnostic text.
Amazing how a supposedly infallible church in Rome then had a Gnostic text within their own set of inspired scriptures.
Some infallibility all right...
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.