Peter Is Not The Rock!

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

Yes, I believe there is another university somewhere in the fens that has the word 'Bridge' in it somewhere. Having spent a term there teaching and researching, it has too many humourless types for a chap of your sprightliness; go for the original and best, whatever links your current educational institution has with what we have always called 'the other place'.

Since Oxford has been called the 'home of lost causes', it might also suit your Romantic temperament - but you'd better steer clear of Pusey House, which would rule out St. John's. Perhaps St.Peter's is the rock for you?

peace and lol,

Anglian

 

[beamishboy]

NONE of this however; means that the Churches all had seperate teachings...
There was ONE Church - all under the same Tradition of teaching from the Apostles - except all of them had different OBSTACLES to overcome to UNITE under the one set of teachings.

Hi,

I did not say that in the NT, the churches all had separate teachings. That would be heresy. But I do believe that churches MUST have teachings that are directly those of Jesus and the Apostles as revealed in the NT. We all know that Oral Tradition is quite unreliable. The fact remains that RCs, EOs, OOs, etc all have different Traditions and I can show you how the differences can lead to a bloodbath (but I won't do that cos I'm peace-loving; hehe). So, to cut a long story short, the beamishboy's position is some churches must be right and others wrong. The yardstick will have to be to see which churches stick closest to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles as recorded in God's Holy Word. Any departure from such teachings or teachings that cannot firmly be established by Scriptures or even, much worse, teachings that can be shown to be contrary to the Scriptures must be rejected as false and unapostolic. That's the beamishboy's most humble opinion.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Dear OrthodoxyUSA,

Thanks very much for your recommendation. To be honest, I clicked on the link, half expecting (as some evil chap did in another forum) that it would lead me to a Barney comic book or something insulting but I was very pleased to see that you were not being condescending. That is indeed the sort of book that the beamishboy would love but unfortunately, the whole book is on nothing but liturgy.

What I'm really interested in are doctrines and how each doctrine comes about. For example, we know that in Marian theology, Mary was called Mother of God in about 400AD but ostensibly at that time, the focus was more on the divinity of Jesus, so some of the proponents assured us. Queen of Heaven came much later - I think it's 1000AD and that was followed by the ritual of "crowning Mary". Before that was the Immaculate Conception I think. Long after that came the Assumption.

Thanks anyway for your recommendation.

The Beamishboy, D. Div (Cantab), MA (Comparative Theology) (Cantab), B. Th. (Cantab); author of The Definitive History of the Roman and Orthodox Churches - A Complete History of These Churches and How They have Departed from Apostolic Teachings

I look forward to hearing from you when you have had more time to study Orthodox Christianity.

For instance, "Mother of God" or rather "Bearer of God" (Theotokos in Greek), comes much earlier than you expect. On that subject look for the letters written to St. Mary during her lifetime. http://www.amazon.com/Life-Virgin-Mary-Theotokos/dp/0944359035 is an Orthodox book that you may enjoy on the subject.

Forgive me...

 

[beamishboy]

Dear Beamishboy,
you'd better steer clear of Pusey House, which would rule out St. John's. Perhaps St.Peter's is the rock for you?

Dear Anglian,

Nah, none of mere saints for me, thank you very much! Since I'm Protestant, I'll stick to Jesus College. Hehe

 

[lionroar0]

Trying saying that in Iran or Saudia Arabia or heck, even in the US today

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=2902391
Muslims and the return of Jesus in Future

Ready aim....

Peace

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

we understand your position, but it would be more tenable if the NT had preceded the Church - which it doesn't. If you are prepared to accept the decision of the Church as to which books are and are not canonical, but are prepared to say that only interpretations dating from the time of your XXXIX articles are properly Apostolic, you have rather a long gap to fill in - as you will discover as you plan your book.

Might I commend the following to you:

Henry Chadwick. The Early Church (1967 and many editions since)
S.G. Hall, The Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church (1991 and many editions since)
J. Stevenson, Creeds, Councils and Controversies (1966 and many editions since).
Eusebius, The History of the Church (1989 edition has a good introduction by Prof. Louth of Durham)
T. Ware, The Orthodox Church (1963 and many editions since)
F. Dunzl, A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Trinity (2007)
J. Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions (1989)

Henry C's book has a good bibliography. Happy reading.

peace,

Anglian

 

[lionroar0]

So, your beliefs are different from Narnia's. You believe that there is no salvation for those outside the RC church and so you believe there is no salvation for Protestants and Orthodox. That's precisely what we've been trying to establish but most of the RCs pretend that that's not their teaching even though the Unam Sanctam is as clear as daylight. Thanks for being honest.

Have you been reading my posts and what has been quoted from the Cathechism??

Where did I state that the Orthodox and protestants are not saved??

Peace

 

[Anglian]

Dear Anglian,

Nah, none of mere saints for me, thank you very much! Since I'm Protestant, I'll stick to Jesus College. Hehe

Having dined there, I'd either eat up before going up, or I'd go for the Trinity

peace,

Anglian

 

[lionroar0]

What I posted was if a person beliefs that the CC is the Church that Christ started and then leaves the Church and hold on to the belief that the CC is the Church that Christ started then that person maybe hell-bound.

As there is no salvation outside the Church.

Peace

 

[Mikeb85]

But from the EO perspective, doesn't that mean that primacy need not be established in the NT between the apostles for the church to in effect implement the primacy of one bishop over another? And if it takes an ecumenical church council to effect such a change, how did a patriarchate come about in Moscow?

First question, no, primacy does not need to be established in the NT between the apostles. All our Patriarchs are equals. They all have authority within their boundaries, and not in the territory of another church (this applies even to the Ecumenical Patriarch). Primacy of honour means just that - honour. They are seen as a 'spokesperson', they represent the church at large, are mentioned first in documents, councils, etc..., but don't actually have any more power than the other Patriarchates.

The church of Russia was the 'daughter' church if you will, of the church of Constantinople (which was granted a Patriarchate in one of the councils). The Russian church was/is very big, and covered an immense amount of territory. For practical reasons, Constantinople granted Russia autocephaly once it was ready for self-rule (as Patriarchates have authority over their entire territory, they also have authority to grant autocephalous status to their daughter churches). Nowadays, while Russia doesn't have official status of primacy, they are by far the largest Orthodox church, and one of if not the most important, so they do have a prominent place, more so than some of the smaller churches. In the Orthodox church (as in the ancient model) church territory is governed by geography, for practical reasons (Anglian gave some good examples of this).

 

[beamishboy]

I look forward to hearing from you when you have had more time to study Orthodox Christianity.

For instance, "Mother of God" or rather "Bearer of God" (Theotokos in Greek), comes much earlier than you expect. On that subject look for the letters written to St. Mary during her lifetime. http://www.amazon.com/Life-Virgin-Mary-Theotokos/dp/0944359035 is an Orthodox book that you may enjoy on the subject.

Forgive me...

Now, I really crave your forgiveness because what I'm going to say may offend your ears. But I might as well be honest.

I do not accept the authenticity of letters written to Mary during her lifetime. Many of these letters have been proved to have been manufactured at a MUCH LATER date - something like 500 or 600 years after the Apostles had died.

As we know, the epistles did not have the slightest whisper of Mary's name. The Gospels had a very sketchy mention of Mary, many of which were concerning the gestation period of Jesus, his birth and the rest were about Mary's misunderstanding of Jesus' true function on earth. The only books that enlarged on Mary are the apocryphal books and even heretical books, all of which were summarily rejected by early Christians when considering the canon.

No early Christian literature even hinted at the veneration of Mary and the only one that did is the Gospel of James, which as we know today, is an apocryphal book that was not written by James and rejected by early Christians at all times throughout church history and was rejected for the canon.

Of course calling it the Gospel of James will put it on the same category as the other heretical works such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Truth, so proponents of Mary veneration would rather call it the Protoevangelion of James. But let's call a spade a spade and let's call that book by its real name, the heretical Gospel of James, rejected by early Christians.

Where do the letter to Mary stand? Even worse than the Gospel of James.

Please forgive me if I have offended you but I have still not learnt political correctness and I usually come out too strong. I really find it hard to soften my words with adult sensitivity which I sadly lack.

 

[WarriorAngel]

The rock of our salvation is not Peter.. For Peter could not even save Himself..

Again, it seems you are determing that God is wrong somehow because - He was after all the One Who named Simon of Jonah - 'Rock'.

Do you suppose Christ called him that willy nilly?
AND why would He name him Rock in that sentence???

Now - when Jesus was alive - who did He point to that must be obeyed?

Which leads me to this point: altho Peter did not give us salvation, does Christ still uphold us to obedience of those He set up as authority...and how well can we say we will not be judged by that standard as such?

For Christ Himself pointed to the Seat of Moses and said to obey them.
He then stood in judgement of those who still would not obey the seat He set up accordingly.

Hi,

I did not say that in the NT, the churches all had separate teachings. That would be heresy. But I do believe that churches MUST have teachings that are directly those of Jesus and the Apostles as revealed in the NT. We all know that Oral Tradition is quite unreliable.

No, you have no proof it is unreliable. You have only an opinion.
The oral teachings - in conjunction with the written cannot be corrupted because Who leads both?
Yes, the Holy Spirit.

Simple faith as required - would agree this is true.

The gates of hell cannot overcome the Church. Paul said to Timothy to KEEP BOTH the oral and written.
Paul didn't worry that Timothy could not do this - for his faith in God and the Spirit meant that it would occur and it has.

No if's and's or but's.

Only men think anything could corrupt a task that is protected by the Holy Spirit.

The fact remains that RCs, EOs, OOs, etc all have different Traditions and I can show you how the differences can lead to a bloodbath (but I won't do that cos I'm peace-loving; hehe).

No BB, you cannot.
You can show us how we call it different things, or that we may have 'ideas' on the very same subject - but we are not actually different.
And yes i know the Traditions - all of which do not [when it boils down to it in the end] actually disagree with one another...
BUT we do not say it the same way.

Purgatory = tollhouses.
Final conclusion - we all pray for our dead.

Mary is the Mother of God = Theotokos.
Mary is the greatest Saint in Heaven. Mary is to be venerated.
All agree.

Saints are part of the Body eternally = interecession.
All the Church requests the aid of Saints.

Immaculate Conception OR Mary choose never to fall into sin = same thing.

Assumption = Dormition of Mary.
WE all hold to the fact that Mary's body was raised to Heaven as was Elijah and Henoch and Moses...
No one can define if she died or slept and frankly it doesnt matter. None of the Church makes a statement towards that.

well...i could go on.

So, to cut a long story short, the beamishboy's position is some churches must be right and others wrong. The yardstick will have to be to see which churches stick closest to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles as recorded in God's Holy Word. Any departure from such teachings or teachings that cannot firmly be established by Scriptures or even, much worse, teachings that can be shown to be contrary to the Scriptures must be rejected as false and unapostolic. That's the beamishboy's most humble opinion.

The Church[es] all stick to the sacraments which are visible signs of God's graces for mankind.

And we all uphold to the Eucharist.
Whether or not we agree with the outwards of the Host or not - it's still changed by the ordained hands to the Body of Christ.
The Liturgy is revolved around the Eucharist as the Body of Christ and as such is the main centerpiece of the celebration. The climax to the gathering.

And again - that's the real meat of the issue.
The SACRAMENTS.

What I posted was if a person beliefs that the CC is the Church that Christ started and then leaves the Church and hold on to the belief that the CC is the Church that Christ started then that person maybe hell-bound.

As there is no salvation outside the Church.

Peace

I understand what you mean...
If a person tastes the truth from the Holy Spirit that the Church is the true Church and yet they let themselves let go of that - thru their choice to quit believing - then they are responsible for that choice and possibly may face hell.

This coincides with scripture.

Its interesting to note all Christian churches believe this, but if the Catholic Church says this [who has been here from the start] then they are mischaracterized and persecuted ad infinitum.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Now, I really crave your forgiveness because what I'm going to say may offend your ears. But I might as well be honest.

I do not accept the authenticity of letters written to Mary during her lifetime. Many of these letters have been proved to have been manufactured at a MUCH LATER date - something like 500 or 600 years after the Apostles had died.

As we know, the epistles did not have the slightest whisper of Mary's name. The Gospels had a very sketchy mention of Mary, many of which were concerning the gestation period of Jesus, his birth and the rest were about Mary's misunderstanding of Jesus' true function on earth. The only books that enlarged on Mary are the apocryphal books and even heretical books, all of which were summarily rejected by early Christians when considering the canon.

No early Christian literature even hinted at the veneration of Mary and the only one that did is the Gospel of James, which as we know today, is an apocryphal book that was not written by James and rejected by early Christians at all times throughout church history and was rejected for the canon.

Of course calling it the Gospel of James will put it on the same category as the other heretical works such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Truth, so proponents of Mary veneration would rather call it the Protoevangelion of James. But let's call a spade a spade and let's call that book by its real name, the heretical Gospel of James, rejected by early Christians.

Where do the letter to Mary stand? Even worse than the Gospel of James.

Please forgive me if I have offended you but I have still not learnt political correctness and I usually come out too strong. I really find it hard to soften my words with adult sensitivity which I sadly lack.

Don't worry, you won't offend these old ears.

I would like to encourage you to discover WHY the assembly of the canon was made. For in that we come to understand some things differently.

The Bishops chose the canonical books not based on "true or false" but rather the need that everyone be reading the same things liturgically through all the Churches at the same time for the sake of uniformity. That's not to say that false books weren't presented and rejected. They were. But not all books were rejected of canon because they were false but because they were not needed or desirable for reading during The Divine Liturgy.

The canon itself (with the exception of Revelation) is read in it's entirety throughout the liturgical year. If a traveler were going from one Church to the next he should be able to understand what is going on and be able to participate in the liturgy because of the consistency among Churches.

Before the canon was established there were many books being read in the different Churches at different times and not all of them were agreeable. Some were false and some only a few of the Churches had.

It was important that all the Churches everywhere had a copy of the same exact text and were doing the services in like manner. That is why the study of the Liturgy becomes important.

Peace

Forgive me...

 

[beamishboy]

No, you have no proof it is unreliable. You have only an opinion.

Neither do you have proof it is reliable. You have only an opinion.

The oral teachings - in conjunction with the written cannot be corrupted because Who leads both?

Yes, the Holy Spirit.

Again, that is your opinion. The Holy Spirit guides the Apostles to remember the teachings of Jesus and to write the NT. And that's all.

The gates of hell cannot overcome the Church. Paul said to Timothy to KEEP BOTH the oral and written.

Paul didn't worry that Timothy could not do this - for his faith in God and the Spirit meant that it would occur and it has.

Again, that is your interpretation. I've covered that verse about a thousand times and I've written about it in my blog.

No if's and's or but's.

Only men think anything could corrupt a task that is protected by the Holy Spirit.

You are assuming that the Oral Tradition is protected by the Holy Spirit. If in fact the Oral Tradition is a departure from apostolic teaching, there's no way it would be protected by the Holy Spirit. Paul's epistles have shown us that heresies were around even in his time. The heretics then would probably say that their teachings were protected by the Holy Spirit as well. How then are we to know who's right and who's wrong? Simple! Just look into the NT and see if the teachings are taken from the NT. Teachings that are not contained in the NT are a departure.

No BB, you cannot.

You can show us how we call it different things, or that we may have 'ideas' on the very same subject - but we are not actually different.
And yes i know the Traditions - all of which do not [when it boils down to it in the end] actually disagree with one another...
BUT we do not say it the same way.

Purgatory = tollhouses.
Final conclusion - we all pray for our dead.

Mary is the Mother of God = Theotokos.
Mary is the greatest Saint in Heaven. Mary is to be venerated.
All agree.

Saints are part of the Body eternally = interecession.
All the Church requests the aid of Saints.

Immaculate Conception OR Mary choose never to fall into sin = same thing.

Assumption = Dormition of Mary.
WE all hold to the fact that Mary's body was raised to Heaven as was Elijah and Henoch and Moses...
No one can define if she died or slept and frankly it doesnt matter. None of the Church makes a statement towards that.

well...i could go on.

I can also go on and on about the extreme differences but that's not important to me. I want to say this. I don't want to spend too much time on CF. I've spent almost all my waking hours here and I must put a stop to it. I just want to say this:

I've read a huge debate on the Oral Traditions and I'll tell you why the similarities between the Orthodox and the RCs don't affect me one bit. Both of you are bound to have similarities because you both accept quite a lot of the same Traditions. Let's focus on these traditions.

In the first place, from my reading of that huge debate, I find that RCs do not have evidence AT ALL that the Oral Traditions came from the Apostles. In fact the evidence is that they do not.

Nobody and I mean absolute NOBODY can show that the Traditions started earlier than 200 AD. I'm already being excessively generous. Most of the traditions arose much much later than 200AD.

If the Oral Traditions came directly from the Apostles, it must mean that at any one point in time, a bishop before 200AD would be able to cough up all the "traditions" into one document because these are after all supposedly oral whisperings from the apostles into some bishop's ear. But nobody could do that.

So what terminology should the church invent? The RCs call it "development" of doctrines. Oh, these Oral Traditions came from the Apostles but they needed time to develop. And when they are promulgated, even as late as the 19th or even 20th century, they are believed to have come from the Apostles and have been believed all along. They've only been put into words now.

The uniformity of SOME of the traditions between the Orthodox and the RCs is no testimony that these traditions are true or apostolic. NONE of the traditions can be shown to be from the Apostles. I'm of course talking about traditions that cannot be supported by scriptures or that do not come from scriptures. NONE can be shown to be around before 200 AD. I mean NOT ONE. In fact the majority of the Traditions grew up way way way after 200AD.

In all the debates that I have read including something I believe in a major journal, no RC theologian is able to show even a shred of tradition that came about before 200AD. The more un-Protestant the tradition, the later is its origin. That's why I hope to write a book on this.

Of course there are a lot of heretical and apocryphal books that are not accepted as canon by the church. Some of these books are of very late authorship and they all pretend to be written by some apostle. The early church rejected them all and that's why they don't appear in our Bible. Some are of such late authorship that they didn't even feature in the early church but in 600AD, all of a sudden, someone "found" a book written by one of the major apostles but in 600AD language. All these must be rejected in argument.

The beamishboy really must stop going online for a while. You guys who disagree with me can write a review of my book when it's published. Hehe. Till then, cheerio!!!

 

[bbbbbbb]

I apologize for my delay in responding. I have been exceedingly busy with my work these past few days. I shall attempt to address your questions, as follows:

Both. There is not a conflict between the two. It is only when one begins with a conclusion and seeks to prove it with selected information instead of drawing on all information to reach a conclusion the conflict seems to be.

That is the reason I quoted the entire article in question and not merely the conclusion. Anyone who reads the article in its full context will understand the final paragraph appropriately. If I have omitted any pertinent information, please supply it.

First of all, regarding the "last paragraph", neither Fulgentius of Ruspe not the paragraph itself are 'dogmatic'. Simply the opinion of yet one more theologian, although certainly shows a pattern of thought. Is it not important to look at culture? This is pre-schism, pre-Reformation -- so cannot be construed to damn Orthodox and Protestants (or Catholics and Protestants from the Orthodox point of view).

In truth, very few things in the Catholic Church are "dogmatic." Unless it has been declared to be dogma by an ex-cathedra statement by the Pope it is not dogmatic. Given the fact that such statements were not made prior to the declaration of papal infallibility in 1871, there is very little that is truly dogmatic including such apparently debatable topics as the Trinity or any of the papal bulls issued prior to 1871. Thus, when confronted about various "dogmatic" statements by various Roman pontiffs in past centuries (e.g. that the earth is most assuredly flat and not round) the are dismissed as mere opinions by mortal men and not true dogma.

In all of the above, here is your key:

However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.

As I noted on the other thread, every person who joins a church other than the Catholic church is, by this definition, outside of salvation. Virtually nobody joins a church unknowingly or undeliberately. They just don't wake up some morning and say, "Wow! I are a Luthern now. I wonder how that happent."

So, ask yourself and answer the question. Have you knowingly and deliberately rejected divinely revealed doctrine and refused to enter the Catholic church?

To answer your question - Yes, I reject all of the Marian dogma of the Catholic church as not having been divinely revealed doctrine and I refuse to enter the Catholic church. Thus, according to you, I am outside of salvation.

Because if your answer is no, then the Catholic church would consider you to be in innocent ignorance. A title you may not believe is applicable, but remember, we're talking about what the Catholic church teaches here, not you.

I am pleased not to be in innocent ignorance. As I stated previously, only those who are utterly indifferent to religion or are simpletons or deranged fall into the Catholic definition of those partaking of salvation outside the Church. As for pious Protestants and Orthodox, we are excluded.

This is why there is no conflict, especially hundreds of years after a major breach in Christian unity, for Pope Benedict to say "It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them."

Please tell me which churches and ecclisial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church accept and believe the Marian dogmas as divnely revealed doctrine. Either Pope Benedict was in error or was ignorant of your own statements above.

Another little point -- the Catholic church had not and never will make any authoritative statement about the ultimate damnation of any individual person. It is a role that belongs only to God. Given that, it's hard to understand how one could profess that the church teaches any 'group' of people are damned.

I never made that assertion. The Catholic church merely states that those who are members of other churches and communions are not partakers of salvation until they reject those churches and enter into the Catholic church.

So my turn -- to what benefit is it to continue to portray the Catholic church as teaching something it does not?

It does, as you have agreed. You have stated that both are true and that neither are in conflict. My position is that the two are mutually contradictory and one must be true and the other not true. If, as you assert, that there is no conflict, then the Catholic church does indeed teach and believe it.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

if you're going to get into that book, you are going to have to be more careful with your dates. Most authorities put the letters of Clement at c. 95AD, and those of St. Ignatius as early second century and those of St. Polycarp c. 170. These contain many of the traditions of the Church.

In any event, even supposing you are correct and there were no traditions datable before AD 200, why prefer traditions dated from c. AD 1500? It is only you and your Church which claim that the traditions of much earlier Churches are not aligned with those of the Apostles. We are happy to stay with those who had lived with those who knew the Apostles, and with the book which their Church found to be Apostolic.

Irenaeus used to ask by what authority those outside the Church preached, defining the Church by those who could trace their Apostolic succession. Your own Church used to make a great deal of fuss about this, because it too accepted the Irenaean imperative that a real Church must show Apostolic credentials if it were to claim to teach what the Apostles taught. You may, as you occasionally do, not agree with your own Church, but there it is all the same.

The Bible itself is, as has been explained to you many times, itself part of the Holy Tradition of the Church founded by Christ. That Christ founded a Church is attested to by Scripture. He said it would always prevail; we believe He was right and can point to that Church here and now. Do you believe Our Lord spoke aright? If so, where do you think the Church He founded, and which St. Clement and St. Ignatius thought so important, now is?

By the way, you are well old enough to know that courtesy and politeness cost nothing, and that they are not the same as political correctness. If you are going to take on that slightly puritanical tone, it may well have to be the Fens for you - though I should still prefer to see the spirit of High Romance in you develop amongst the Dreaming Spires. It is no accident that Oxford was the refuge of the Cavaliers, whilst that dreary place in the Fens was full of Puritans; indeed, if memory does not play me false, that dreadful fellow Cromwell came from thence.

At any rate, though we shall not agree, it is always a pleasure to discuss these matters with one whose zeal for the Truth is admirable. Take care not to overdo it.

peace,

Anglian

 

[beamishboy]

Dear Beamishboy,

In any event, even supposing you are correct and there were no traditions datable before AD 200, why prefer traditions dated from c. AD 1500?

Hi Anglian, I have evidence to show that I'm right about the dating of Oral Traditions. No, Protestants do not prefer traditions dating from AD 1500. We don't accept Traditions at all if they are not consistent with the NT and they purport to found doctrines.

Irenaeus used to ask by what authority those outside the Church preached, defining the Church by those who could trace their Apostolic succession.

My book will also show how abused the words of the ECFs are. How they have been taken out of context, wrongly read, etc etc. Even if I grant you that Irenaeus asked that in the correct context, the pertinent question I would ask is "what right has one to preach the gospel if he does not practise apostolic teachings or if he accepts non-apostolic doctrines?"

The Bible itself is, as has been explained to you many times, itself part of the Holy Tradition of the Church founded by Christ. That Christ founded a Church is attested to by Scripture. He said it would always prevail; we believe He was right and can point to that Church here and now. Do you believe Our Lord spoke aright? If so, where do you think the Church He founded, and which St. Clement and St. Ignatius thought so important, now is?

As I have already explained to you many times, the Bible is not born out of Tradition. You seem not to understand that your above arguments have been torn down many times by Protestant theologians and apologists and counter-arguments have long been preserved in our Protestantism 101 Manual but since you seem not to understand the Protestant stand despite my having posted valid arguments against them many times, I will include a section of this in my book. I have also explained to you that the word "church" has been given a wrong meaning from what the NT meaning really is. That is one thing I really have to address in my book. What I call the "hijacking of biblical terminology" - the constant use of biblical words giving them a different meaning and then turning to the Bible and saying "There you are, the same word is used and so the Bible must mean what our church has declared since 400 AD!"

By the way, you are well old enough to know that courtesy and politeness cost nothing, and that they are not the same as political correctness.

The beamishboy has not flouted the rules of courtesy any more than most of the other people who post on the forum. But psychologists tell us that we tend to see more courtesy in people who agree with us and less in people who don't. We humans are alas so bound by our prejudices.

At any rate, though we shall not agree, it is always a pleasure to discuss these matters with one whose zeal for the Truth is admirable. Take care not to overdo it.

It is indeed a pleasure to discuss with you even though it is unlikely that we shall agree on many things. It is the hope of the beamishboy that when the book is finally published, you will read it and consider its implications very seriously.

Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir. Amen.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

That is one thing I really have to address in my book. What I call the "hijacking of biblical terminology" - the constant use of biblical words giving them a different meaning and then turning to the Bible and saying "There you are, the same word is used and so the Bible must mean what our church has declared since 400 AD!"

Greetings. So what else is new. Perhaps Peter and the RCC were "raised up" simply for the purpose of YHWH thru His Christ JESUS to show His power thru them

Exodus 9:16 And indeed in sake, this, I cause to stand thee in order to show thee of power of Me, and so that to declare of Name of Me in all of the Land [Romans 9:17]

Romans 9:17 "For is saying the Writing to-the Pharaoh, 'that into it, this, I raise/rouse up thee so that I should be showing in thee the power of Me and so that should be messaged/diaggelh <1229> (5652) the Name of Me in all the Land'" [Exodus 9:16]

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Anglian Dear Beamishboy,

In any event, even supposing you are correct and there were no traditions datable before AD 200, why prefer traditions dated from c. AD 1500?

How come?

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

On a choice of who is interpreting the Apostles aright, I'll go for the Church which canonised the book. On the Protestant arguments against it, no one heard of them before the sixteenth century, so I'm not likely to prefer the late traditions of men and their flawed logic to the the traditions passed on from the Apostles. As we know, poor old Luther even thought for a while that he could make a better choice of what books should be in the Bible; at least he learnt enough humility to draw back from that.

My Church has been worshipping as it does since the time of St. Athanasius, he whose Festal Letter contains the first listing all the NT books as we know have them. Nor can anyone say when our liturgy of St. James was not practised, even as it has been from the beginning. Indeed, my Syriac friends, as I experienced this afternoon, still worship in the original Aramaic - as they have done since the days when Christ walked this earth. Our Liturgy expresses our theology, the saints and martyrs our witness to the Faith, and the Risen Christ at the Eucharist our joy. I would not swap that joy for anything.

peace,

Anglian