The Bible Is A Catholic Book

[packermann]

Wrong. The same illogical argument can be made concerning the Old Testament - that only the scribes and Pharisees can interpret it.

It is ironic that Jesus sided with the Pharisees more than the Sadducees in matters of doctrine – especially the resurrection of the dead. The Sadducees taught that we should only hold to the first five books of Moses (called the Pentateuch) as being the Word of God, and the first five books do not say much about the resurrection of the dead and after all. So Jesus rejected the Sadducees Pentateuch-only in favor of the Pharisees’ the Pentateuch AND tradition.

Can only Bible publishers interpret the Bible?

That is what gets me of my fellow Protestants when I was one myself in a Protestant seminary. Since you would say that no one is infallible, then why are you so trusting to the publishers of the Bible? Why would you trust unknown translators of the NIV, NASB, or KJB Bibles. It is only the original documents that are infallible, right? And the OT was written in Hebrew and the NT in Greek? So why aren’t you going to the nearest seminary to learn Hebrew and Greek, so that you can know what it says without depending on what you pastor say it means in the Greek or how the translators render it. They are not infallible. Right?

And this is what I learned from a conservative, evangelical Protestant seminary. Most of the last chapter of Mark was not in the original Gospel of Mark. It was added later on. All that stuff that Jesus said about followers lifting up serpents and they shall not harm them was not in the original document. But it is there in our Bibles! Remember the story of the adulterous about to be stoned and Jesus said the hew who is without sin cast the first stone. It was not in the original gospel. Bible scholars noticed that these passages were not in the earliest copies we have they must have been added later. Look it up! Do not just take my word for it. This can be easily researched on the internet.

This is tragic for Protestants but not for Catholics. It matters little to me whether these passages were in the originals or not. It matters little to if the added by someone in the second or third century. These stories were part of oral tradition until someone added them to the gospels. And I believe that oral tradition is reliable. Also, the Church canonized the Bible in 405 AD. So I know that everything, including these two stories, are part of the Word of God because the Church tells me so! But this is a dilemma for a Protestant. If he concedes that these two passages are not really part of the original NT documents then what does he do? Should he reject these passages? Should the Protestants take these passages out their Bibles? And are there other passages that should also be taken out? Without the Church we cannot ever be sure how accurate our translation is.

They suppressed it from the public.And they kept even the masses in Latin. They took away the Bible from the public. They weren't even Bible publishers. They were Bible suppressors. Not only so but with the rise of Catholicism came the rise of illiteracy.

The Mass was in Latin because Latin at that time was the universal language throughout the Roman empire. The Romans spoke Latin. Ever since the Romans conquered Europe they had spread Latin throughout Europe. This did not keep the Mass from the people. It made the Mass understandable to the people.

Before the 1500’s the printing press was not yet created. The Bible had to be hand-copied. To purchase a Bible would cost a person a year’s wages. Illiteracy was always a problem because there was not enough money for a commoner to purchase books .If the Bible was suppressed by the Church, then why did the Church not just destroy all the copies of the Bible? True, the Bible was chained in the Church. But that just show how the Bible was so precious to the Church. It was so valuable that they wanted to make sure that no one would steal it. But everyone could still read it in church. Also, the classic The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis. There is a whole chapter on reading the Bible prayerfully. If the Church was suppressing the Bible, why would one of its churchmen write to laypeople on the proper attitude in reading the Bible?

In Jesus' day ordinary people would memorize large sections of scripture.

Yes, people would memorize very well. Since they had no printing press, they had to rely on their memory. This is oral tradition was so trustworthy. People would memorize what Jesus and the apostles said, not just what they wrote.

Catholicism did just the opposite- discouraging people from reading at all. And that's why there was such a dramatic transition due to the Reformation when people FINALLY got their hands on the Bible. But even to this day the Catholic Church suppresses the scriptures.

Please provide primary sources of the Church discouraging anyone from reading scripture. The only they every restricted the reading of the Bible was when the Abengians took verses out of context to tell the people that suicide was a good thing. I have been back in the Catholic Church for the last 14 years, and I have never been suppressed from reading the Bible. And I think that I had demonstrated, whether you agree with me or not, that I have a good knowledge of the Bible.

 

[packermann]

Let me remind you of what you claimed

That was because Orthodox churches saw only scripture and tradition, which caused division among the Orthodox Churches. But in the West, the Catholic Church for the next 500 years remained unified under scripture, tradition, and the magisterium.

Yes, and it is STILL unified. I NEVER wrote that the Catholic Church was perfectly unified. Just that it remained unified. The United States is unified – that is why it is called “United”. But California is far different than Nebraska. But it is still one country. Orthodoxy is broken up into different churches – Russian Orthodox Church, Greek Orthodox Church, etc. They are not united. It is worse in Protestantism – with thousands of different churches.

I assumed that every Christian understood that we are all sinners, and that sin permeates every aspect in our lives. That is why the unity cannot be perfect. Even the apostles did not have perfect unity. After the mother of James and John asked our Lord to make her sons to be in the highest position when our Lord comes into His kingdom and the apostles resented them for it. There was not much unity at that time. I thought it was a given that the unity will never be perfect in this fallen world. Even though I since I did not say “remain in unity, but not in perfect unity”, this does mean that the Catholic Church is invalidated.

As the evidence I posted earlier demonstrated, the Catholic Church was not unified at all during that period, so your statement was false, as was your claim about the Orthodox in the same paragraph.

You gave two examples in the span between 1000 AD and the Reformation that the Catholic Church was not unified. How does that prove that it was not united NOT ALL? How long did each example take? What about the other centuries?

All I did was demonstrate that the Catholic Church was not unified as you had claimed. Nothing was said or implied regarding a claim the the Church is supposedly "impeccable". That is a complete red herring on your part.

Yes, it did. Impeccability means being flawless. Because of our fallenness, we cannot be flawless in anything. Even our unity will be flawed, but Catholic unity is closer than Orthodoxy and Protestantism to fulfilling Jesus’ prayer to the Father that we be one.

You are thinking that two isolated incidents of disunity prove that the Catholic Church was NEVER unified AT ALL! The only way you can prove that is by going through each year and show that the Church was not united. But you only gave two incidents! And you ignore the incidents of division in Orthodoxy and Protestantism!

Why would I need to address that? I am neither Catholic or Protestant so your warts are not my concern. Truth is, however, which is why I responded to your claim.

Then look at Orthodoxy. The Catholic Church, in spite of its warts, is closer to unity than all the different Orthodox churches. Since you identify yourself as Eastern Orthodox, here is the list of separate churches, each self-governing:
Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
Church of Constantinople
Patriarchate of Alexandria
Patriarchate of Antioch
Church of Antioch
Patriarchate of Jerusalem
Patriarchate of Moscow
Patriarchate of Serbia
Patriarchate of Romania
Patriarchate of Bulgaria
Church of Bulgaria
Patriarchate of Georgia
Church of Cyprus
Church of Greece
Church of Poland
Church of Albania
Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia
Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia - OrthodoxWiki
Orthodox Church in America (autocephaly recognized only by Moscow, Bulgaria, Georgia, Poland, and the Czech Lands and Slovakia)
Orthodox Church of Ukraine (autocephaly recognized by Constantinople)
Church of Sinai
Church of Finland
Church of Estonia (autonomy recognized by Constantinople but not Moscow)
Church of Japan (autonomy recognized by Moscow but not Constantinople)
Church of China (virtually non-existent, autonomy recognized by Moscow but not Constantinople)
Church of Ukraine (autonomy recognized by Moscow but not Constantinople)
Archdiocese of Ohrid
Autonomous Archdiocese of Ohrid

https://orthodoxwiki.org/List_of_autocephalous_and_autonomous_churc

Each one of them are self-governing. Whereas Protestantism divisions are based on doctrines, Orthodoxy divisions are based on geography. These Orthodox churches are not united.

“World Orthodoxy will likely split along lines of those faithful to the EP, and those who align with Russia. It will be a severe wound to the body of Orthodoxy, and highlights Orthodoxy’s greatest weakness: its lack of unity.”
The Ugly Politics Of Orthodoxy

Vladimir Soloviev wrote “The will to maintain this counterfeit unity is decidedly not inspired by Christian charity, but by the dread of a fatal disclosure; for on the day on which the Russian and Greek Churches formally break with one another the whole world will see that the Ecumenical Eastern Church is a mere fiction and that there exists in the East nothing but isolated national Churches.”

(cited from the above article)

So when you compare the Catholic Church to Protestantism AND Orthodoxy, you will find that the Catholic Church has fewer warts than they have and is closer to keeping our Lord’s prayer for unity.

 

[packermann]

Good day, BCBSR

Just as a side the fallacy of the Roman church interpreting the bible is a sham, I submit they have not because they can not.
In Him,not all

Bill

The people you had quoted do not have the charism of infallibility. According to the Catholic Church, the only individual who has infallibility is the pope, and only when he speak ex cathedra. That means that not all scholars would agree with them, any more than there is total agreement among Protestant scholars.

Well-known Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin has listed the verses that a Catholic must interpret according to the Church.

As far as I have been able to document, only seven passages of Scripture have had their senses partially (not fully) defined by the extraordinary magisterium. These definitions were made by the Council of Trent:

(1) The reference being “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5 does include the idea of baptism.

(2–3) In telling the apostles “Do this [the Eucharist] in memory of me” in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, Jesus appointed the apostles priests.

(4–5) In Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22–23, Jesus did confer a power on the apostles to forgive sins, and not everyone shares this power.

(6) Romans 5:12 refers to the reality of original sin.

(7) The presbyters referred to in James 5:14 are ordained and not simply elder members of the Christian community.

The Limits of Scripture Interpretation

 

[packermann]

Just so you have a very clear working definition of Sola Scriptura:
First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

I agree.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth.

I agree. We Catholics teach God’s truth and we do not deny the Church’s authority.

I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth."
The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof.

Well, since you are not Catholic, I think you meant to write “The churches teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof.”. And that is the problem with Protestantism. There are so many different churches with so many conflicting gospels. One says that a person must ask Jesus as his Savior and Lord. Another says you only ask Jesus in your heart as Savior. One says you must be baptized in order to be born again. Another says that baptism is just a symbol. One says that once you are saved you can never lose your salvation. Another says that you can lose your salvation. Truth cannot be contradictory – so all these churches cannot be the pillar and foundation of truth. If all these churches are the “pillar and foundation of truth” then truth is relative. What is true for me may not be true for you. A Lutheran can hold that baptismal regeneration is true and a Baptist can hold it is only symbolic. In Protestantism, it seems that it does not matter, as long as you get your own “truth” from the Bible.

The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture.

Now, aren’t you establishing a rule here? Do you have a scripture verse for this? If you don’t have the scripture verse then you are violating your own rule.

The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Again, you use the word “Church” as if there is one Church. But in Protestantism, you have thousands of different churches – each listening to the word of Christ in a different way. Which one is right?

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

Actually, the apostles proved the message by signs and wonders – especially witnessing the resurrected Christ.
Also, there is a lot of inconsistency between the Old Testament and New. The Old says there one God. The New Testament says that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit are each God, and yet the Father is no the Son, and they both are not the Spirit. The Old has bulls and goats sacrificed, the New says that only Christ has been sacrificed. The Old says one must be circumcised. The New says no. True, there was also some continuity between the Testaments, but if the apostles based their validity based on the OT alone, everyone would have remained Jewish.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

Again, you use the Church as some monolithic entity. But with Protestantism, it is not. So what happens when the Holy Spirit guides and enlightens the Anglican Church one way and the Lutheran Church in a contrary way?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church.

I have always understood this. But where is this found in the Bible? Where is it in the Bible that the Bible is our only rule of faith?

All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. "

Again, where is this in the Bible?

Oh BTW the historical Ot is the oracles of God given to the Jews, I know the church of Rome has their own and that is OK by me seeing I am not a member of that church.

The Catholic Church has the same OT that was entrusted to the Jews at the time of Christ and it was that one which was quoted from by Christ and the writers of the New Testament. The Protestant have the same OT as the Jews AFTER the Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah.

 

[GingerBeer]

The Bible is a Catholic Book. God preserved and compiled it through the Catholic Book. This is why it can only be translated and interpreted it by Catholic Church.

I bet you knew this would stir up many Protestant people!

 

[BobRyan]

It is ironic that Jesus sided with the Pharisees more than the Sadducees in matters of doctrine – especially the resurrection of the dead. The Sadducees taught that we should only hold to the first five books of Moses (called the Pentateuch) as being the Word of God, and the first five books do not say much about the resurrection of the dead and after all. So Jesus rejected the Sadducees Pentateuch-only in favor of the Pharisees’ the Pentateuch AND tradition.

Here is Jesus hammering the Pharisee tradition "sola scriptura"

Mark 7
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?
6 He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
7 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

I bet you knew this would stir up many Protestant people!

 

[prodromos]

Orthodoxy is broken up into different churches – Russian Orthodox Church, Greek Orthodox Church, etc.

We are the same Church. I can receive Holy Communion in any Orthodox Church, whether Greek or Russian or Romanian or Japanese etc. All I need to do is let the priest know in advance so that he can know who my bishop is.

 

[prodromos]

You gave two examples in the span between 1000 AD and the Reformation that the Catholic Church was not unified. How does that prove that it was not united NOT ALL? How long did each example take? What about the other centuries?

One example was enough to prove your statement false. I don't understand why are having such a hard time admitting that.

 

[prodromos]

Since you identify yourself as Eastern Orthodox, here is the list of separate churches, each self-governing:
Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
Church of Constantinople
Patriarchate of Alexandria
Patriarchate of Antioch
Church of Antioch
Patriarchate of Jerusalem
Patriarchate of Moscow
Patriarchate of Serbia
Patriarchate of Romania
Patriarchate of Bulgaria
Church of Bulgaria
Patriarchate of Georgia
Church of Cyprus
Church of Greece
Church of Poland
Church of Albania
Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia
Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia - OrthodoxWiki
Orthodox Church in America (autocephaly recognized only by Moscow, Bulgaria, Georgia, Poland, and the Czech Lands and Slovakia)
Orthodox Church of Ukraine (autocephaly recognized by Constantinople)
Church of Sinai
Church of Finland
Church of Estonia (autonomy recognized by Constantinople but not Moscow)
Church of Japan (autonomy recognized by Moscow but not Constantinople)
Church of China (virtually non-existent, autonomy recognized by Moscow but not Constantinople)
Church of Ukraine (autonomy recognized by Moscow but not Constantinople)
Archdiocese of Ohrid
Autonomous Archdiocese of Ohrid

As I stated before, I can receive Holy Communion in any of those jurisdictions. We have eucharistic unity. Your inability to comprehend this is not my problem.
You also seem to forget that this is the same model that existed from before the time that Rome broke from the Church. Each of the five Patriarchates were self governing and all were in communion with each other. Rome's ecclesiology has now morphed into something completely different to that of the early Church.

 

[prodromos]

Vladimir Soloviev wrote “The will to maintain this counterfeit unity is decidedly not inspired by Christian charity, but by the dread of a fatal disclosure; for on the day on which the Russian and Greek Churches formally break with one another the whole world will see that the Ecumenical Eastern Church is a mere fiction and that there exists in the East nothing but isolated national Churches.”

(cited from the above article)

Firstly, the above was not from the article but was a comment posted by a friend of the author.
Secondly, Vladimir Soloviev had a number of heretical views, and I'm not sure why Catholics like to quote him as some kind of authority because his views would be equally heretical in the Catholic Church despite Soloviev's fondness for the papacy.

 

[Strong in Him]

True, it is God's Word. It originated by God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. But God compiled and preserved the Bible through the Catholic Church.

Even if that were true, and I don't know that it is; so what?
You don't have to be a catholic to buy, own or read a Bible.

We do not have any of the original Biblical documents. They are long gone! What we have instead are copies and copies of the documents. Who wrote them? Hermits wrote them. They were celibates who lived in caves. Thank the Lord for celibacy! If these men were married with children they would not have had the time to write these copies.

I don't see how you can possibly know that.
If someone was convinced that the Lord wanted them to make copies of the documents, they would do it, and they would no doubt expect their wife to know, and honour, that.

And later on, it was done by Catholic monks.

No doubt because they had a lot of time on their hands; it doesn't mean that there was no one else at all who couldn't have done it.

But not only this. The Catholic Church compiled the Bible from different documents. Up until the 6th century, there was no such thing as the "Bible". Instead, you had the the gospels, the letters of Paul, the letters of Peter, etc. It was the Church that put them all together into what we now call the Bible. This was not a small task!

That might be true, and no doubt that we owe a great deal to those who translated the Scriptures for us. But why does that make it YOUR book?

The Bible is a Catholic Book. God preserved and compiled it through the Catholic Book. This is why it can only be translated and interpreted it by Catholic Church.

It is interpreted, and applied, by the Holy Spirit; no one else.
Your statement implies that I could not read the Bible without being in a Catholic church, or without the help of the Catholic church - yet I have been doing so for more than 50 years. Millions of others would say the same.
Catholics translating it into English does not mean it is a Catholic book - any more than me translating Pliny's letters means that I now own Pliny's letters.

 

[Strong in Him]

Can a child honor his mother and father and yet refuse to obey them?

If the parents want the child to do something, follow a particular course of study, carry on the family business or marry and give them grandchildren, and the child is old enough to know his own mind; sure.

We call a judge "Your honor" and we recognize him as having authority over us.

That would only be true in his courtroom; outside of it he is just like anybody else.

It is never explained how a pope being honored by the bishops does not mean being recognized as being over them in authority.

I guess it would mean that, according to Catholic tradition, bishops and cardinals have authority to elect a Pope; someone who they believe would be a good person to take on leadership in the Catholic church. Having raised him to that position of authority, then then accept the authority that they have given him - even though all authority is from God.

 

[Strong in Him]

The eldest usually does have authority over the other siblings.

You try telling my 3 brothers that!

 

[BobRyan]

We are the same Church. I can receive Holy Communion in any Orthodox Church, whether Greek or Russian or Romanian or Japanese etc. All I need to do is let the priest know in advance so that he can know who my bishop is.

I can receive communion in any Baptist or Presbyterian church (Just as they can in mine) and I don't need to let their pastor know ahead of time who my Seventh-day Adventist pastor is... that does not mean these three denominations are in fact one denomination.

I think we all knew that.

 

[prodromos]

I can receive communion in any Baptist or Presbyterian church (Just as they can in mine) and I don't need to let their pastor know ahead of time who my Seventh-day Adventist pastor is... that does not mean these three denominations are in fact one denomination.

I think we all knew that.

What you call communion has little in common with what we call communion.
I think we all knew that.

 

[BobRyan]

We are the same Church. I can receive Holy Communion in any Orthodox Church, whether Greek or Russian or Romanian or Japanese etc. All I need to do is let the priest know in advance so that he can know who my bishop is.

I can receive communion in any Baptist or Presbyterian church (Just as they can in mine) and I don't need to let their pastor know ahead of time who my Seventh-day Adventist pastor is... that does not mean these three denominations are in fact one denomination.

I think we all knew that.

What you call communion has little in common with what we call communion.
.

You have not addressed the point above.

And your statement appears to be nonsense - since we have the consecrated unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine and we repeat the words of Christ at the last supper and "do this in REMEMBRANCE of Me" as the memorial service that Christ gave us...

And of course in all of our gatherings "where two or three are gathered in My name there I AM in the midst of them" - the real presence. Matt 18:20 in all of our gatherings.

 

[packermann]

I bet you knew this would stir up many Protestant people!

 

[Daniel C]

Can a child honor his mother and father and yet refuse to obey them? Can a citizen honor his president and yet refuse to see him as his authority? We call a judge "Your honor" and we recognize him as having authority over us. It is never explained how a pope being honored by the bishops does not mean being recognized as being over them in authority. Does it mean that they honor his birthday? Does it mean that they call him once a week to wish him well? Does it mean that they genuflect when they see him? Please give specifics how they honored him without seeing him as having authority over them.

Well I know David was the youngest of his brothers:

1 Sam 17:14
And David was the youngest: and the three eldest followed Saul."


So older isn't authority. At least not in Christianity.

 

[packermann]

Here is Jesus hammering the Pharisee tradition "sola scriptura"

And yet there is an instance where Jesus accepted Pharisaical tradition.


Matt 23:1-5 "Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.

BTW, the "Moses' seat" is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. Check it out! It does not exist! So where did Jesus get this idea of the seat of Moses? Certainly not from what is written! No, this was part of Pharisaical oral tradition that when a Pharisee sits in the authority seat of Moses he is to be obeyed ("Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do"). So our Lord is referring to oral tradition! Good Golly Miss Molly!

Also this prefigures the Pope sitting in the chair of Peter (ex cathedra) - whatever the pope says sitting in the authority seat of Peter we should observe and do. Now, sometimes the popes' walk did not match their talk - especially in the Middle Ages. They will be judged severely for that, as will the Pharisees who do not live up to their own teachings - especially when the popes or Pharisees make a dogmatic pronouncements from the seat of authority.
We do not follow their behavior but their teaching.

It is not that everything that popes and the Pharisees say must be observed. It is to be observed only when they pronounce it from the seat of authority. So our Lord condemned the teachings of the Pharisees when the teaching were not from the seat of Moses but commanded to observe them when the Pharisees Make a pronouncement from the seat of Moses. In the same way, not everything the pope says is infallible. It is only infallible when the pope says it fro, the seat of Peter.

Now, I am not saying that there is actually a seat of Moses or a seat of Peter. It is similar to a prophet saying "Thus saith the Lord". Not everything a prophet says comes from God - it is only from God when he makes an official pronouncement. In the same way, when a Pharisee or the pope make an official pronouncement is it from God. Now, a prophet, Pharisee, or a pope has enough fear of God to be careful not make too many official pronouncements, because if the Lord is not revealing it through them the Lord will strike them dead! So speaking with a "Thus saith the Lord", or from the seat of Moses, or from the seat of Peter is rare.

 

[packermann]

Well I know David was the youngest of his brothers:

1 Sam 17:14
And David was the youngest: and the three eldest followed Saul."


So older isn't authority. At least not in Christianity.

Well, you are talking about Judaism, not Christianity.

And in the Jewish culture there was the highest respect given to the oldest. But God is not limited to our cultures. So he can choose Jacob over his older brother Esau, and He can choose David over his older brothers. God often chooses the simple over the wise and the young over the elder. He chose simple fishermen to start a movement that turned the Roman Empire upside down. Even recently, He had His mother appear to three peasant children in Fatima instead of appearing to theologians at the Vatican. He chooses the foolish to confound the wise.