Science proves God's Word to be accurate.

[Resha Caner]

The same could be said of my Catholic tradition ...

Indeed, and well it should. Some of your theology is the same as mine with the same history.

The bottom line is that many points have never had unanimous agreement, such as how to interpret Genesis. The ones that have are often the ones you disagree with, such as the primacy of the Pope.

Unanimous agreement is not my measure. And I'm not sure what you're saying, but the primacy of the Bishop of Rome has never had unanimous agreement, nor is there support for a tradition as long as the RCC would like to make it - the name wasn't even coined until the Reformation. The RCC in its current form is not the "original" church. Prior to the schisms, there was just the Church, and so the EO has as much a claim as Rome (more IMHO).

Those have no evidence against them, so God's revelation in his creation doesn't indicate that they are allegorical.

Many would disagree with you, and you don't have a reputation for supporting Biblical history. Rather, it's an appearance of special pleading.

 

[Papias]

Indeed, and well it should. Some of your theology is the same as mine with the same history.

So the parts where your tradition agrees are correct, and the others aren't? You started this by talking about "a long confessional history". Well, as just pointed out, your "confessional history" is not the longest uniform history. I'll agree that many RCC positions don't have an uninterrupted history and were often one of many positions, but that's certainly true of yours at least as much.

Unanimous agreement is not my measure.

No, but isn't that what you were hinting at (at least unanimous agreement early on), in your claim of a "long confessional history."? If not, then what was your point? The truth is that there are very few things that all Christians every agreed upon from the start or over our history, so your claiming that seems pretty spurious.

And I'm not sure what you're saying, but the primacy of the Bishop of Rome has never had unanimous agreement,

No, the primacy of a Pope, regardless of where he lives, goes back to Jesus' own command (Mt 16).

The RCC in its current form is not the "original" church. Prior to the schisms, there was just the Church, and so the EO has as much a claim as Rome (more IMHO).

Ignatius and others show that the church in the 2nd century shares much with the RCC and EOC that Protestants reject. I agree about the EOC - at least to the point of having a roughly equivalent claim. Of course it's not exactly the "original" church - there was no internet, cars, biotech, etc in the 2nd century.

Many would disagree with you (that the miracles of Jesus and his resurrection don't have evidence against them - from my statement), and you don't have a reputation for supporting Biblical history. Rather, it's an appearance of special pleading.

OK, then, tell me what evidence there is against the miracles you mentioned (the parting on the sea, turning water into wine, Jesus walking on water, etc.)? I don't see how any of them would leave clear evidence that they didn't happen - as is clearly the case with stories like the flood, Babel, etc.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Resha Caner]

So the parts where your tradition agrees are correct, and the others aren't? You started this by talking about "a long confessional history". Well, as just pointed out, your "confessional history" is not the longest uniform history. I'll agree that many RCC positions don't have an uninterrupted history and were often one of many positions, but that's certainly true of yours at least as much.

Sure. I can understand why you inferred an idea of unanimous agreement, but it was never my intent to say that. I was only indicating that these ideas are not mine. I didn't invent them. Specific to Confessional documents, they only go back to the Reformation. However, the Confessional documents are not and have never been considered infallible. It is the Scriptures themselves that originate much farther back and find their inspiration in God. So, it is Scripture itself that has the longest history, and it is on the authority of Scripture that the Confessional claims are made.

The Word of God always has been true and always will be. That is the only & oldest continuous tradition.

No, the primacy of a Pope, regardless of where he lives, goes back to Jesus' own command (Mt 16).

I understand how the RCC interprets that passage, but it has never been universally interpreted that way. Acts indicates James was more the leader of the early church, and both Clement and Hegesippus support that. But I expect you're already aware of that and have your answer ready ... just as I have replies to Ignatius or anything else you might bring up.

OK, then, tell me what evidence there is against the miracles you mentioned (the parting on the sea, turning water into wine, Jesus walking on water, etc.)? I don't see how any of them would leave clear evidence that they didn't happen - as is clearly the case with stories like the flood, Babel, etc.

I'm not going to argue for things I don't believe. If you want to hear arguments against the various miracles, you can post in the forum where unbelievers are allowed. I'm sure you'll get a host willing to participate.