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?
If there was indeed a true Apostolic Succession, conveying truth from one bishop to another (like in Rome), the “Popes from Peter down to St. Elethesis in Rome would have not permitted the Revelation of Peter to be even near the other books that the Muratorian fragment lists.
This, ultimately, cuts through the clutter of arguments which you and others have levied here.
There is no Apostolic Succession conveying a so-called truth from one bishop to another in Rome, or in Alexandria (c. 300 A.D., - Clermont List which lists that the church in Alexandria had the Revelation of Peter within their canon of inspired scripture) or anywhere else.
If there was truth conveyed from peter on down, they would know if Peter wrote it. If he didn’t write it they would have know.
No escaping any of this...
You keep repeating this and and we keep asking you for proof that the Muratorian Fragment is an official Church document or has in anyway ever been approved in it's entirety by Rome, and you have provided none. If it makes you feel better to believe what you believe in spite of having no evidence to support it, you're free to do so.
It didn’t need to be approved
lol, thanks for playing.
Christ said, “if I say the truth, why do you not believe me?” It is the message that validates the messenger. It cannot be the other way around. Scripture does not get it’s authority from the messenger it gives authority to the messenger. Scripture also tells us to prove all things, hold fast that which is good. It would not say this if it were not possible.
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.