Actually in my vast collection of my saved replies as a regular in the RF (by God's grace), I only find one thread you ever responded to me in, and after refuting your attempt to support praying to created beings in Heaven, which is utterly absent in Scripture, you resorted to the extrapolative premise that Matt 16:18 and John 16:13 means Rome is the one true church, but you never responded to my simple question that challenges it. As we are not to carry debate from thread to thread, you can just answer the longer version regarding your premise and its presuppositions in post 48 on this thread .
All i see you doing is usually expressing the same old assertions or type of argumentation that have been often challenged and refuted here. We are not to continue past debates with a poster interactively from threads to threads, but i think if you care to affirm here the argumentation which you referred to here, most of which i usually see other RCs making, then i think we could deal with them again as a group. These include,
That Aramaic is determinative what Mt. 16:18 means and which is that Peter is the Rock, t despite what other researchers and the rest of Scripture says
That the fallible interpretation of Is. 22:15-23 speaks of Peter, not Christ if anyone in the secondary sense.
And the strawman that Protestant faith means that have have no appeal to ecclesiastical magisterium, despite what Westminster says, and that the invisible (in Scripture) RC magisterium is essential (even that the imprimatur means matters of faith and morals are in accordance with Catholic teaching),
That Peter was The spokesman for the apostles in Acts 15, but had no Scripture for him to cite (yet James did), and which somehow refutes SS, as if Scriptural substantiation was not the basis for this judgment, as if an explicit text is needed. And Peters counsel (proposal) is extrapolated into claiming Rome is filling in the "gaps" whenever teaching what is not taught in Scripture, even making the Assumption as binding doctrine when this fable is lacking even early historical testimony.
That the sole replacement of an apostle, Judas, translates into continued apostolic succession, and which translates into Catholic apostolic succession, versus leadership being thru presbuteros which were charged with being overseers. And that NT pastors are RC "priests," though nonexistent in Scripture, based upon the premise that there primary distinctive function was that of offering up the Eucharist a sacrifice for sin, though they are never even shown to do so in the life of the church, and preaching the word is said to be their primary distinctive function, by which souls are "nourished," nor is the Cath literalistic interpretation of the Lord's supper supported by the rest of Scripture, including in the life of the church, while only the metaphorical position easily conflates with it.
That Rome did not stifle the translation of the Bible into the languages of the people but was just keeping it safe, with the laity relying upon what was read and explained in Mass so as to preserve (cultic) unity.
That Rome has actual unity of faith, while "Protestant" is broadly defined, yet relegating liberal RCs as being excoms, based upon the interpretation of RC teaching by conservative RCs, despite how Rome shows what it believes by treating them as members in life and in death.
That the fallible RC interpretation of 1 Tim 3:15 means Rome is the church which is the one to settle discipline on church members (though it rarely does on her own).
That "he who receives anyone I send, receives Me" (John 13:20) uniquely means whom the Cath. church sends, and she uniquely has Binding and Loosing power, though this also was given to righteous believers besides presbuteros (not NT priests).
That Paul being consecrated for his mission by Ananias (Acts 9:17) supports the above, though Ananias was not conspicuously not even said to be an apostle or even a pastor, but simply as "a certain disciple" "a devout man."
That texts such as Matt 28:19-20 and Eph. 4:11 and the valid episkopate office, and such as Paul calling himself a spiritual father supports requiring RC priests to formally be called "fathers," which presupposes there was a distinctive class of believers titled "priests", and who were spiritual fathers since baptism effects regeneration.
That the Sola Scriptura viewpoint means that the Holy Spirit has not taught all things (as if the Holy Spirit has taught all things thru Rome) but has only been saying "read the Book," while SS does not hold that all that can be revealed from God is in Scripture. And that doctrines such as the "Rapture" contradict SS, as if eschatological interpretations are excluded under SS (this one misplacing the resurrection as a rapture), while other RCs say the "Rapture" is a product of SS, as if Rome herself is settled or necessarily correct in denying the literal 1,000 reign of Christ.
That the fact that a certain basis for determining the veracity of Truth claims results in disunity means it cannot produce unity, and is not Scriptural, and imagining that the RC alternative, that of sola ecclesia, based upon the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, has produced unity, as per John 17:21, though that is what is basically truly seen among mature evangelicals, not RCs overall, while in fact it Roman unity is quite limited in scope and largely on paper, and is not the basis upon which the NT church began.
That 2 Peter 1:20 refers to interpreting Scripture, disallowing private revelation, but which itself is an invalid interpretation, as it refers to how Scripture was written, that being under Divine inspiration, and would require is interpretation to be under Divine inspiration if that is what it applies to, which cannot be said of Rome's teaching.
That 2 Thess 2:15 supports the basically bottomless pit of Cath amorphous oral tradition, as if Rome could prove on thing that Paul was referring to was taught in Cath tradition, and was not subsequently written down, as was the norm for anything called the word of God/the Lord. And that SS pastors cannot require obedience to their oral preaching of Scripture Truths.
And that Paul did appealed to Scripture, despite Scripture saying that was his manner, and giving examples among the Jews, (Acts 13; 17:2; 20:23) in preaching "the gospel of God, Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures." (Romans 1:1-2)
That the private instruction Christ gave to the Apostles is the Cath Deposit of Faith, and that John 20:30 and John 21:25 indirectly supports this, yet cults use the same tactic, while the fact is that the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. As is abundantly evidenced
And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)
That since the Bible Itself tells us it is not all-inclusive then there is no such thing as Sola Scriptura, but which imagines the sufficient aspect must wholly refer to formal sufficiency, excluding material sufficiency, and that SS claims the Scriptures contain all that can be revealed (versus what is necessary), and that this must be the case if a source is to be the only supreme standard for faith. Which thus presumes Rome has supplied all that can be revealed.
I don't know about you but I am a one-man business with four homeschooling kids... I don't have time to respond to everything. If you look at my posting history, you will see that I take as many challenges as one man can reasonably handle... I never shrink from a good debate. I try to follow conversations to conclusions. Unfortunately, what often happens is that multiple posters try to get in on the action and a voice can get drowned out and overwhelmed quickly. I have every intention of returning to the thread in question when I have time to do it justice. I haven't forgotten that you sent me multiple very long posts. I don't just want to give short or curt responses. Alas, life gets in the way. Please be patient with me as I do try to get to the worthwhile challenges. Your posts in particular take a great deal of time to handle. That is a compliment to you.
All i see you doing is usually expressing the same old assertions or type of argumentation that have been often challenged and refuted here. We are not to continue past debates with a poster interactively from threads to threads, but i think if you care to affirm here the argumentation which you referred to here, most of which i usually see other RCs making, then i think we could deal with them again as a group.
And yet you just made my point that you highlighted at the top of your post... "crickets?" Again, people may disagree with our responses but the responses have been anything but crickets.
That Aramaic is determinative what Mt. 16:18 means and which is that Peter is the Rock, t despite what other researchers and the rest of Scripture says
I don't claim to be the world's best Scripture scholar. I proclaim what I know and what I've learned. I could be wrong about the Aramaic assertion... it's been years since I remember that particular discussion that brought it up. I will point out something, though... taking the linguistic gymnastics out of it, Jesus did change Peter's name to "rock" at the exact same time that He discusses on which "rock" He will build His Church. Coincidence? Ok... but I think many people get caught up in the jots and tittles and miss the plainness of the words in front of their faces. In a single sentence, Jesus permanently changed St Peter's name and referenced that name (or a variation thereof) as a rock for His Church. There are only a few times in the Bible where names get changed... and it is always with great importance.
That the fallible interpretation of Is. 22:15-23 speaks of Peter, not Christ if anyone in the secondary sense.
Haven't seen this particular line of reasoning but I'd like to see how your exegesis put Jesus in the role of Prime Minister rather than King. There are clearly defined roles being discussed in Is. 22.
And the strawman that Protestant faith means that have have no appeal to ecclesiastical magisterium...
Can you point me to the infallible pronouncements of this overarching Protestant magisterium to which all must subscribe?
That Peter was The spokesman for the apostles in Acts 15, but had no Scripture for him to cite (yet James did), and which somehow refutes SS, as if Scriptural substantiation was not the basis for this judgment, as if an explicit text is needed.
If you read the Gospels, you will see that St Peter is always the spokesman for the Apostles when they are gathered together. And he didn't have Scripture to cite to say that the Gentiles didn't have to be circumcised to be part of the Church. Can you tell me what Scripture he consulted and quoted? He had to rely on his judgement based on the teachings of Christ. What came out of the Council of Jerusalem was new doctrine.
That the sole replacement of an apostle, Judas, translates into continued apostolic succession, and which translates into Catholic apostolic succession, versus leadership being thru presbuteros which were charged with being overseers. And that NT pastors are RC "priests," though nonexistent in Scripture, based upon the premise that there primary distinctive function was that of offering up the Eucharist a sacrifice for sin, though they are never even shown to do so in the life of the church, and preaching the word is said to be their primary distinctive function, by which souls are "nourished," nor is the Cath literalistic interpretation of the Lord's supper supported by the rest of Scripture, including in the life of the church, while only the metaphorical position easily conflates with it.
Lots of assertions in a run-on sentence. Nothing here to hang my hat on. This is an example of what makes conversations so difficult. You go on and on but don't actually make a point of refutation beyond mere words and opinion.
That Rome did not stifle the translation of the Bible into the languages of the people but was just keeping it safe, with the laity relying upon what was read and explained in Mass so as to preserve (cultic) unity.
Until the advent of the printing press Bibles were copied by hand. They were primarily translated into the language of the learned, Latin. They were read to all at Mass and explained so that all could understand. Unity (cultic?) of Faith is what Christ desired for His Church (John 17:21, Eph 4:13). Why would the Church do other than it did from a truly historical perspective?
Look, I'm out of time and only halfway through your post. This is my problem with responding to you. If you could pick a topic for discussion, that would help me engage you... and I would like to engage in a good dialogue with you.