You do remember that it would only be a "problem" for sola Scriptura types... right? Those who don't subscribe to that illogical and unbiblical idea of Luther aren't particularly bothered by a lack of explicit "chapter/verse" references.
Waitaminnit there... I said what I said above in reply to your demand that I provide 'Chapter and Verse' for Judaism's infallibility claims.
As to Sola-scriptura... Knock yourself out... No skin off of my nose. Same to the Jews. Same to every other cult and sect that follows traditions of men. But expect your arguments to fall upon deaf ears here. I have studied the claims of your church. I have studied the wisdom of the elders, I have studied Luther and Calvin and Wesley... Thanks anyway, but I will revert to the original contract. What I can take to the bank are the words of El Shaddai. Those words are eternal, and will justify me in Messiah. What HE bids me do, that I will do, as best as I can. Where that intersects with y'all, or with the Jews, or with the Protestants, there we will find agreement... But where it differs, I will stay on the path that YHWH has so plainly laid.
[roamer_1:] BUT, it isn't quite the same - Judaism assumes the infallibility of their great rabbis because of their great knowledge - more like your 'doctors' than your magisterium and pope...
That's hardly an accurate representation of either Judaism or Catholicism. [...]
I think you misunderstand me.
Jews never asserted infallibility for their teachers at ALL--not even to famous and skilled ones such as Gamaliel (though they ascribed great weight to them, if they were good ones); [...]
Which is why I assigned 'Infallibility per se'... Your comment is almost without merit when one tries to consider how a whole people are moved from the relative simple living instructions of Torah to a religion that is so exhaustively incremental as to tell you how to put on your socks and shoes in the morning. They are certainly listening to somebody as if they were infallible... As a 'Christian Messianic', I get a lot of this stuff from our Jewish Messianic brothers - I have listened to countless hours of it, and it always boils down to an argument between Shammai and Hillel, or some such, when it should boil down to YHWH. Again, I will revert to the original contract. That's exactly what Yeshua did, and that's good enough for me.
[...] and Catholics do not ascribe infallibility to doctors of the Church.
I understand that. I never said they do - I was merely assigning Jewish 'doctors' that role by means of comparison with language you might better understand. The comparison was supposed to end there. Jews do not have a pope, and their Sanhedrin would seldom go against the words of great rabbis. Thus the 'infallibility per se' lies in the great rabbis.
Only the pope (or the bishops in union with the pope), when defining dogma which is binding on the entire Church, has the protection of infallibility.
Which 'protection' is demonstrably lacking, according to it's fruit, to one who does not presume inherently that your church is THE Church... That is why Torah still must be supreme - (one of) Torah's main purpose(s) is to allow every man to be able to discern that which is 'set apart' - That's 'sacred' for those of you in Rio Linda - If a church is calling sacred what isn't called sacred by YHWH, and ignoring as common those things that YHWH has unconditionally called sacred, then inherently, there must be a problem... Again, I must revert to the original contract. (See 'Sabbath' for the easy win).
[roamer_1:] It might just astound you at the similiarities.
Hm. I'm thinking that you're overestimating that, and you're not quite getting an accurate picture of either one; see above.
Or maybe, without a 'traditional' dog in the hunt, I might be able to see both more clearly.
[roamer_1:] A bunch of silly men claiming to be more than they are, in order to convince themselves that they are more than they are...
Oh, come now! Surely you see that this is merely your raw opinion/editorial? It would be just as inaccurate (and just as inflammatory) to say something like, "Look at all those Protestants... a bunch of silly little men, cobbling together their own personal religion from their own personal opinions which they inject into Scripture at their whim!"
Yes, it would. Maybe it would be better if we all simply consider, first and foremost the Word of He who created us, every one, and breathed his Life into one and all. When there is difference, do as HE says, and quit listening to any tradition.
Um... I think, with all due respect, that you're indulging in some of the very thing you accuse THEM of using; you're "declaring" that the rabbis (as a whole) are arrogant phonies... and we're supposede to believe that because... why?
Yet what is written will plainly damn us all - Wouldn't it make sense to at least TRY to get it right? Who best to listen to? Yeshua said to try to get it right - I think I will follow HIM... And here we are, back at the originating contract.
Such statements are plainly wrong... Not in my opinion, but in the Word, and in reality. All that such statements can do is reinforce the proclaimed authority of the 'leaders', regardless of whether where they are leading is good or true - And that's just dumb, no matter where you are. If one considers, it is submission to false authority that is the primary problem of every facet of life.
Because you say so? I'm sure that some rabbis (as well as some Catholic clergy, some Protestant clergy, some atheists, some Muslims, some Buddhists, etc.) ARE arrogant phonies; but I don't think anyone is in any position to "tar" them all with the same broad brush.
Understand that I am indicting systems, not persons. That seems to be a hard concept for those of the Roman church to grasp.
[roamer_1:] Infallibility per se,
Hold on. "Infallibility" (at least in the Catholic sense) is a technical term, which can't just be cobbled together out of opinions; it's not valid to say, "Well, that's infallibility, for all intents and purposes!" No... either something meets the strict standards for infallibility, or it does not.
'Infallibility per se' is speaking of the Wisdom of the Elders. I realize that Rome has been more definitive (regardless of if true).
[roamer_1:] as who can have greater knowledge than the teachers of the knowledge? See, theirs is circular too...
First: the rabbis didn't consider themselves infallible, as a rule (or else there would have been no possibility of debate [...]
Agreed, in the technical sense, yet no one will go against the great rabbis... Their knowledge is considered as close to infallible (per se) as possible without admitting the technicality.
[...] and no "quoting of other scholars and opinions" which made Jesus' teaching with authority so striking to the crowds of His day).[...]
Yes - What was so striking is that he didn't quote the rabbis, except in midrash (You have heard it said [...], But I say [...])... In fact, in every case, he assaulted their tradition.
Second, there's no equivalence between the rabbinic approach and the charism of infallibility (in the Catholic sense), aside from the fact that some FR commenters don't happen to like either of them.
Because yours is right and theirs isn't? Because yours is more defined than theirs? Meh. Still both are circularly defined by tradition that defines them - And both falsely attributed. As I said at the start of this conversation, it is the prophets that correct the scribes and teachers, and it always has been.
[roamer_1:] And at the local level, the 'seat of Moses' was much like your 'chair of Peter' = When the chief rabbi spoke from the seat of Moses, that settled the matter. Period.
It was "much like", yes... in terms of AUTHORITY. It was NOT "much alike" in terms of infallibility (which the Jews never claimed for themselves), and the infallibility of the pope is quite distinct from the AUTHORITY of the pope, anyway.
It is much the same thing - Absolute authority assumes it is infallible long before it is declared... It never remembers that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is nothing distinct about it - Both necessarily attempt to take their power away from YHWH.
[roamer_1:] Thankfully, the Rabbi to which I am enjoined tore that entire system down... Too bad all y'all didn't get the memo.
:) Er... FRiend... that same "Rabbi" built His Church, and safeguarded it against the gates of Hades! St. Matthew (via the Holy Spirit) sent you a memo to that effect, yes? (Matthew 16:18)
Indeed. Your mistake is in the assumption that yours is that Church.
[roamer_1:] The power to bind and loose cannot destroy Torah,
Of course not; nor can papal infallibility change even the tiniest bit of Divine Revelation. Did you think otherwise?
Yet it does (or rather, attempts to) - in every way (again, see Sabbath and the feasts for the easy win)...