Peter Is Not The Rock!

[lionroar0]

Sadly, I do understand misplaced love. Human pride is the love of self. Pride in anything other than God is misplaced love. No Church is God. What did the apostle Paul write? Read I Corinthians 1:26-31 for the answer.

Saul, Saul why do you persecute me?

Jesus disagrees with you.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

I've been asked to post the article from the Guardian newspaper because some people can't open it up. Here is the article. It's very disturbing because a friend of mine who was molested by an RC priest killed himself. It was within the time the current Pope ordered all such cases involving minors to be secret. My friend who was only 10 later killed himself.

Here's the article:

Pope 'obstructed' sex abuse inquiry

Confidential letter reveals Ratzinger ordered bishops to keep allegations secret

• amie Doward, religious affairs correspondent
• The Observer,
• Sunday April 24 2005
• Article history

Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had 'obstructed justice' after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church's investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret. The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001.
It asserted the church's right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II's successor last week.
Lawyers acting for abuse victims claim it was designed to prevent the allegations from becoming public knowledge or being investigated by the police. They accuse Ratzinger of committing a 'clear obstruction of justice'.
The letter, 'concerning very grave sins', was sent from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican office that once presided over the Inquisition and was overseen by Ratzinger.
It spells out to bishops the church's position on a number of matters ranging from celebrating the eucharist with a non-Catholic to sexual abuse by a cleric 'with a minor below the age of 18 years'. Ratzinger's letter states that the church can claim jurisdiction in cases where abuse has been 'perpetrated with a minor by a cleric'.
The letter states that the church's jurisdiction 'begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age' and lasts for 10 years.
It orders that 'preliminary investigations' into any claims of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger's office, which has the option of referring them back to private tribunals in which the 'functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests'.
'Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,' Ratzinger's letter concludes. Breaching the pontifical secret at any time while the 10-year jurisdiction order is operating carries penalties, including the threat of excommunication.
The letter is referred to in documents relating to a lawsuit filed earlier this year against a church in Texas and Ratzinger on behalf of two alleged abuse victims. By sending the letter, lawyers acting for the alleged victims claim the cardinal conspired to obstruct justice.
Daniel Shea, the lawyer for the two alleged victims who discovered the letter, said: 'It speaks for itself. You have to ask: why do you not start the clock ticking until the kid turns 18? It's an obstruction of justice.'
Father John Beal, professor of canon law at the Catholic University of America, gave an oral deposition under oath on 8 April last year in which he admitted to Shea that the letter extended the church's jurisdiction and control over sexual assault crimes.
The Ratzinger letter was co-signed by Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone who gave an interview two years ago in which he hinted at the church's opposition to allowing outside agencies to investigate abuse claims.
'In my opinion, the demand that a bishop be obligated to contact the police in order to denounce a priest who has admitted the offence of paedophilia is unfounded,' Bertone said.
Shea criticised the order that abuse allegations should be investigated only in secret tribunals. 'They are imposing procedures and secrecy on these cases. If law enforcement agencies find out about the case, they can deal with it. But you can't investigate a case if you never find out about it. If you can manage to keep it secret for 18 years plus 10 the priest will get away with it,' Shea added.
A spokeswoman in the Vatican press office declined to comment when told about the contents of the letter. 'This is not a public document, so we would not talk about it,' she said.

So we got a liberal news paper making claims with no contents of the letter.

No substance.

I'm sorry for your loss

Peace

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Word of Yahuweh can't be any plainer than this.

The Savior for whom the Rock was named, asked His disciples the most important question ever posed: "Who do you say (lego - affirm and maintain, advise and teach) I Am (eimi - I exist and am present as)?" To which, a disciple named for the astuteness of his revelation, responded: "Simon (a transliteration of the Hebrew name Shim’own, meaning to listen, understand, discern, regard, and proclaim) Petros (a masculine proper name meaning pebble or stone) gave the answer, ‘The Messiah, the Son of the living God.’" (Matthew 16:15-16)

Affirming this live-saving truth, "Yahushua said (lego), ‘Blessed (makarios - a poetic term denoting transcendent happiness in a life beyond labor and death) are you Shim’own (the one who listens, understands, discerns, regards, and proclaims), son of (bar) Yonah (from yownah, meaning the dove; the name of a Yahudi sent to Nineveh, Assyria whose life and book serve as a prophetic metaphor for Yahushua saving Gentiles), because flesh and blood did not make this manifest (apokalupto - disclose by baring), but My Father who is in Heaven." (Matthew 16:17) As is usually true with Scripture, every name and nuance was carefully chosen, revealing subtle and profound truths.

What follows is important. Petros/Peter isn’t the petra/bedrock. The recognition that "Yahushua is the Messiah, the Son of the living God," is the foundation upon which the ekklesia/called-out assembly would be restored and established. Beyond the evidence sprinkled throughout the Tanach, identifying the Rock with Yahshua, "Petros" was a man and every reference to "petra/bedrock" is feminine.

"Indeed (de), I (kago) say (logos) concerning this (hoti - as a marker of equivalence for identifying and explaining this) to you (soi), you (su) are (ei) Petros (a masculine proper noun meaning pebble or stone), and (kai) upon/by/in/with (epi - "upon" when used with things that are at rest, "by" when used in relationship to people, "with" when used in connection with authority, and "in" used in reference to an observation) this one (taute - singular feminine demonstrative pronoun) Rock (petra - bedrock, a feminine noun; a large stone which projects itself) I shall build by edifying, promoting, and restoring (oikodomeo - rebuild and establish, strengthen and enable, instruct and improve) My (mou) called out gathering (ekklesia)." (Matthew 16:18)

English translations all leave "hoti/concerning this" out of their renderings of Yahshua’s answer. Had it been included, no rational person would have thought that Petros, rather than his answer, was the foundation of the ekklesia. The source of edification and restoration is the Savior, not his flawed and imperfect disciple.

Believing Peter is the Rock is irrational and delusional. The evidence of Yahuweh's Word is irrevocable/irrefutable and supercedes, trumps, pre-empts, negates, refutes, and proves to be a lie all that oppose/contradict it, whether said opposition is human or church dogma.

Getting back to the issue of this thread.....

I've heard the unique, rather new and yes self-serving interpretation of this singular verse by the RCC. They fight hard for it because the entire RCC is based on it. I agree with many here that it's a very, very weak argument at best.

Of course, IF the RCC's interpretation is correct, then the Rock died in 67 AD when Peter did and those "keys" are in Peter's old, dead hands. After all, IF Jesus gave them specifically to the person of Peter on the basis of Peter being Peter, then He gave then to PETER (the RCC can't have it both ways). IF so, then there's NOTHING in the verse that says that the singular, particular Catholic denomination can have the keys when Peter died and then give them to whomever it wants and then that person becomes the Rock on whom Christianity is built. It must pull up some really, really, really obscure stuff from 700 years earlier that has nothing to do with it and say it's IMPLIED in the text, when we all know it text says no such thing. So, EITHER the keys are given to Peter based on His confession, and all who share it share those keys OR Jesus gave them to PETER and that's where they still are, in his cold dead hands.


As with nearly everything in Catholicism, it comes down to ecclesiology for Catholics. It all about power/authority/lordship/infalliblity-unaccountability and the requist "docilic" nature of Catholics to itself. To be Catholic is to quietly accept whatever the Denomination says (CCC 87, etc., etc.). Now, if an institution is to set itself up as infallible/unaccountable, "whoever hears me hears Jesus," it MUST have some reason to justify that remarkable self-claim for itself (especially in the light of all the bold, divine warnings about false teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astray). The RCC and LDS (who share the same ecclesology) do this in the same way: "I'm the Church of Jesus Christ. Jesus Himself founded me. I'm uniquely lead by God and I ultimately infallibly follow . I am the hand and mouth of Jesus today." IF the remarkable self-claim is true, then there would be some credence in just docilicly accepting whatever. But it's a big IF. Really, really big. Catholics and Mormons accept it - and it does make things pretty easy for them (substantiation, etc. all become moot - the only thing that matters is docilicly agreeing). Of course, it's self appointing self as the infallible authority for self. But both denominations attempt to "justify" it the same way. IMHO, they both offer close to nothing to support it but it seems the weaker the substantiation, the louder the claim.





.




.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Saul, Saul why do you persecute me?

Jesus disagrees with you.

Peace

Just as Saul persecuted David in the OT. See any resemblance?

1 Samuel 9:2 And to him he became a son, and name of him Saul/ Sha'uwl, choice and goodly/02896 towb. And there is no man from sons of Yisra'el better from him from shoulder of him and upward tall from all of the people.

Acts 13:9 Saul/sauloV <4569> yet the even Paul/pauloV <3972> being filled of spirit, holy-one, staring into him,

 

[archierieus]

Wow, wow, wow, the beamishboy is most impressed with archierieus' knowledge, incisive debating skills and passion for truth. Further, your patience is most admirable and is exemplary to us all. Glory to God!

Thank-you for your kind words. I do enjoy these types of discussions, and take them quite seriously as part of the quest for truth. And yes, I make a real effort to be civil and stay on point! With God's help, that is. As you well put it, 'Glory to God!'

Dave

 

[archierieus]

Protestants know the Gospel. The affirmation is not aimed at those that either know the Gospel or The Church.

No, it says that the referenced affirmation is not aimed at those who DO NOT KNOW the gospel or the Church. Those who DO know the gospel and/or the Church are INCLUDED in the affirmation. Look at the paragraph in the catechism immediately preceding the one you cited. Secondly, you have assigned a particular interpretation to "or." "And" is also used in the same paragraph. "Or" can have more than one application. For the legislative intent here, we do need an authoritative source, bearing the appropriate imprimatur. Can you cite to one in reference to the intended meaning of "or" here?

But more on this later. I must head out the door at the moment.

Cheers.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Sadly, I do understand misplaced love. Human pride is the love of self. Pride in anything other than God is misplaced love. No Church is God. What did the apostle Paul write? Read I Corinthians 1:26-31 for the answer.

Saul, Saul why do you persecute me?

Jesus disagrees with you.

Peace

Scripture is quite clear that the body of Christ is the Church. Lionroar is correct. So when we Love God we love Him completely.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No, it says that the referenced affirmation is not aimed at those who DO NOT KNOW the gospel or the Church. Those who DO know the gospel and/or the Church are INCLUDED in the affirmation. Look at the paragraph in the catechism immediately preceding the one you cited. Secondly, you have assigned a particular interpretation to "or." "And" is also used in the same paragraph. "Or" can have more than one application. For the legislative intent here, we do need an authoritative source, bearing the appropriate imprimatur. Can you cite to one in reference to the intended meaning of "or" here?

But more on this later. I must head out the door at the moment.

Cheers.

As Revelation is indeed showing

Reve 12:17 And is wrought the dragon upon the woman and came away to do battle with the remnant of the seed of her, the ones keeping the commandments of the God and having the testimony of Jesus [*Christ].

Reve 14:12 Here [*the] endurance of the Saints is, the ones keeping the commands of the God and the faith of Jesus.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

No, it says that the referenced affirmation is not aimed at those who DO NOT KNOW the gospel or the Church. Those who DO know the gospel and/or the Church are INCLUDED in the affirmation. Look at the paragraph in the catechism immediately preceding the one you cited. Secondly, you have assigned a particular interpretation to "or." "And" is also used in the same paragraph. "Or" can have more than one application. For the legislative intent here, we do need an authoritative source, bearing the appropriate imprimatur. Can you cite to one in reference to the intended meaning of "or" here?

But more on this later. I must head out the door at the moment.

Cheers.

The third Bishop of Antioch and disciple of Peter wrote this:

Ignatius of Antioch


"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

 

[JacktheCatholic]

As Revelation is indeed showing

Reve 12:17 And is wrought the dragon upon the woman and came away to do battle with the remnant of the seed of her, the ones keeping the commandments of the God and having the testimony of Jesus [*Christ].

Reve 14:12 Here [*the] endurance of the Saints is, the ones keeping the commands of the God and the faith of Jesus.

AND

The only way to fully know the Gospel, to know the Word, is to have the guidance from Jesus' body... the Catholic Church.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The third Bishop of Antioch and disciple of Peter wrote this:

Ignatius of Antioch


"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

Greetings. Can you show how it looks in the original Latin or Greek [preferably Greek LOL]? Thanks.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Greetings. Can you show how it looks in the original Latin or Greek [preferably Greek LOL]? Thanks.

Her is the English:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

I will look for my other source which I believe has Greek.

* EDIT... I am having trouble finding Greek.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Her is the English:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

I will look for my other source which I believe has Greek.

So it can either be a capital c or little c.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm

The combination "the Catholic Church" (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church."

 

[JacktheCatholic]

So it can either be a capital c or little c.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm

The combination "the Catholic Church" (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church."

In this letter it can be translated upper or lower case 'c'.

Though we know from later letters that it was more likely a upper case 'C' becasue the church took on a name of "Universal" or "Catholic". And in regards to my post it is still not important since the point of that post was to show that the Church is the body of Christ by saying where the church is there is Jesus.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

Hi Anglian,

I believe in the perspicuity of scriptures.

which is declared where in Holy Scripture?

I have seen some of the interpretations of RCs and Orthodox Christians and it is very obvious to me that what they do has nothing to do with interpretation; it's more a re-writing of scriptural passages.

I know this is your opinion, but no one held your opinion (a few heretics apart) until the sixteenth century. You are most welcome to follow the teaching of men. Luther did suggest removing James and 2 and 3 John from the Bible; you should know that for your book. He did not do so; some humility remained to that prideful man. He, at least, also believed in venerating the Virgin; but the Protestant degringolade had only just begun to gather pace then.

You should say rather the church officials AFTER 400AD did not accept Protestant interpretation.

You're going to have to help me out here. Who were these Protestants in the fifth century? The only people I come across contesting the word of the Church were Arians. Neither before 400 nor after, did the Church accept what some in the West came to accept after the sixteenth century. Too late for me.

Honestly Anglian, before I came into CF, I would never have believed that anyone would have interpreted some of the passages the way the RCs and Orthodox interpret them.

You seem to assume you know better than those who established which books were canonical, and that your individual interpretations, unheard of by the faithful for a millennium and a half are correct. We do not think God would let His people live in error for that long. His Church is still there; if you choose to set up your own views as infallible, you are at liberty to do so. But since we do not know by whose authority you say these things, we are also at liberty to stick with God's Church.

To me, it's not the language or the liturgy but does the church practise and believe in the teachings of the NT?

If your book is to work, you will need to understand that for the Orthodox the language and liturgy are the practice and belief of the Church. I know this is hard to grasp if you belong to a Church which changes its language of liturgy every few years or so, and gets through communion in 45 minutes; but it is so. If you every have the chance to go to an Orthodox Liturgy you will see that it it faithfully follows the teachings and the life of Christ, and its doxologies express our thanks for what He has done for us. That book on Liturgy recommended by OrthodoxyUSA would explain that to you.

You obviously don't understand where I stand if you keep talking about the antiquity of your liturgy or the language

We will remain faithful to that which has been passed down to us from Christ and His Apostles. I can understand that those who have not such an heritage will not understand what it means. Those who do are eager to share it with all the world.

Just wait for my book!!! I'll make all things clear. Hehe.

When these things are clear to you, you will find they are not as clear as you think.

peace,

Anglian

 

[beamishboy]

You are mistaking pride with love for God. It is LOVE that you see. You would understand if you were Catholic.

If you want a reality check, the truth is I've never seen any love from RCs in CF. No, there are one or two - I think a lady called Cath or Catherine or CatholicCath (I can't remember) did show some love but apart from her and one or two, my experiences with RCs in CF have all made me really hardened against that denomination. If you really want me to be honest, whenever I see you in a thread, I just know I will be in a rage because you don't argue but you insult. For you to talk about love is to me a great disservice to the other RCs.

 

[beamishboy]

You are mistaking pride with love for God. It is LOVE that you see. You would understand if you were Catholic.

If you want a reality check, the truth is I've never seen any love from RCs in CF. No, there are one or two - I think a lady called Cath or Catherine or CatholicCath (I can't remember) did show some love but apart from her and one or two, my experiences with RCs in CF have all made me really hardened against that denomination. If you really want me to be honest, whenever I see you in a thread, I just know I will be in a rage because you don't argue but you insult. For you to talk about love is to me a great disservice to the other RCs. Let Cath talk about love but you should stay out of it.

 

[WarriorAngel]

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

[/size]

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.

From what i have seen in your recent posts is that you are under the impression that there are no writings prior to 200 AD.
BB, before you 'write' a book, I strongly suggest you do serious research.
Publishers will not look twice at a commentary that disregards many intact writings of ecf's PRIOR to 200 AD such as...

St Clement lived and wrote around 90 - 95 AD.
St Justin Martyr wrote around 130 AD
St Ignatius around 110 AD.
St Ireneaus around 170 AD
St Polycarp around 150 AD [i believe]
St Clement of Alexander 190 AD [died 215 AD]
Even writings from Origen and Tertullian who wrote prior to the set date of 200 AD.

And there are indeed proofs in oral teachings that we stand by today - not only in the Catholic Church but our sister Churches we are schismed with.

Prooving the stand of the protestant church is a daunting task in the face of the Traditions that have stood the test of time vs new teachings that cannot be prooven anywhere in history.

So its not my opinion - its prooven.

However my friend, you on the other hand, have no historical backing on what you are purporting as age old truth.

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

Thats nice BB that you have an opinion...but where is it written in history that backs up your claims??

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.

Actually, according to the continuous [unfettered] teachings since the beginning - including in scriptures - is that Tradition is very important.

In fact - i see no where that Christ commanded the Apostles to write anything down.
It was done so thru the request of the new teachers [Bishops] of the Church so they could proove the teachings of Jesus by what the Apostles already taught orally. ..and keep record.

IN fact, St Luke, and St Mark being students of the Apostles - are actually in the catagory of the ecf's and not necessarily Apostles.

To be quite frank here - the Lord said the Holy Spirit would guide them to TEACH AND RECALL everything they knew...
He did NOT say - the Holy Spirit would help them to write it all down. That was actually something they did later after the Holy Spirit led them to teach orally....for many many years in fact. The earliest written account of the Gospels was St Matthew who wrote ten years later after Christ Rose to Heaven.

See?

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.

I am curious where you reached this platform.

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.

Ok, this was already answered above, and when my 'ecf encyclopedia' site isnt down anymore, i will bring you ecf writings prior to 200 ad if you need.

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.

How do you figure that?
What reason would the ecf's have to write anything down?
How about the Apostles?

The reason is clearly due to combat the heresies and not because they wanted to write it down.
Putting it in writing was only a matter of necessity and not because they had the time or desire to write out a catalogue of teachings.
It just wasnt done like that.

However; the closest catalogue of lessons to being in the clergy, would be the teachings in the Didache.

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.

Not quite the reality of the what is done, BB.
See, the Church defines the doctrines for two reasons:
The necessity to stomp out heresy.
And the necessity to help their generation understand them.

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.

Again BB, the Traditions can be prooven with scriptures.
They can and i have done this before.

I realise you probably do not see them in scriptures, but as the Eunich said to Philip - 'How do i read the scriptures if no man teach me?'

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.

Ok, I am sure you can correct me if i am wrong - but you are really telling me that all the protestant sites you have ever read have shown that Catholics are unable to do this...
But i assure you Tradition can be seen in scriptures which were prior to 200 AD.
And in addition to that - i already showed you the ecf's who wrote prior to 200 AD.
You really should sink your teeth into St Justin Martyr.
OR St Ignatius....now he made it quite succint that we must obey the Bishops - besides the fact Hebrews says the same thing...
Altho the modern translations have changed the actual term prelates in scripures, St Ignatius stands intact.

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.

So you would agree that you are borrowing the canon decided [via Tradition] by the Church..?

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!!!

Again, get the facts absolutely straight before you venture out into that field.
Serious scholars will disregard it if you leave integral information out.

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.
[/color]

[/font]


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?"



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!"



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.



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.

In this case tread carefully in writing anything without serious and deep research.

Which means BB, you have to read everything ever written by the ecf's and you must pull it apart sentence by sentence to make sure you understand it completely.

And when i say ecf's, i am of course referring to the ones prior to 200 AD as well.

 

[JimfromOhio]

&#8220;Upon this rock I will build my church.&#8221; Thou art Petros (Greek), but upon this petra (Greek) I will build my church. Peter wasn&#8217;t the foundation, &#8220;For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus", I Corinthians 3.&#8221; But Peter was one of the chief stones as the building went up (along with other Apostles).

Therefore, Peter was NOT "the Rock" but Christ, Himself spiritually through Peter and other Apostles.

 

[beamishboy]

Dear Beamishboy,

which is declared where in Holy Scripture?

My dear Anglian,

Surely you agree that it's folly to state what you've just stated. Let's take Paul's epistles. They were written to Christians and the epistles were read to all Christians and passed round in churches. That's perspicuity. Nobody writes a letter to another and say in the letter that that letter is perspicuous. Perspicuity is assumed in EVERY letter and book. The statement you've just made is the sort of statement that convinces me that when RCs and Orthodox argue, I just cannot accept what they say because how can any reasonable person ask a question like that? You show me a single letter you've written in which you tell your readers that your letter is perspicuous. You just assume they can read and they will interpret your letter without adding on to your words!

I know this is your opinion, but no one held your opinion (a few heretics apart) until the sixteenth century.

You are again wrong. The Apostles agree with me. Show me a single mention of Marian veneration by the Apostles. They wrote so many letters. Surely if at all they did venerate Mary, that would've been mentioned, if even in passing. Not a squeak accept for the heretical work, the Gospel of James. So, before 300 or 400AD, it's your opinion that was held by a few heretics, not mine.

You're going to have to help me out here. Who were these Protestants in the fifth century?

Are you a curator in a museum? You seem to have a fascination for old things. No, there were no official Protestant in the fifth century. That's not needed. The correct question is "who follows the teachings of the apostles?" The answer must be in today's context, the Protestants. You practise what is preached in the heretical Gospel of James. We practise only what is preached by the Apostles and we stay away from the other gospel that Paul warns us against. In fact Anglian, you will recall that even you have quoted from the heretical Gospel of James. Imagine that! You'll never catch a Protestant doing that.

To me, a true Christian is one who follows apostolic teaching. Not one who can trace some connection to antiquity. Tracing is dangerous. If there is heresy along that line, you are sunk even if you can ultimately trace the line to the most noble believer.

I will try not to be online so much. I need to get away from my CF addiction. So please don't bog me down again with talk about antiquity. Talk to me about truth, about apostolic truth; not antiquity. Show me how your beliefs can be supported by Scriptures (not in the fanciful and quantum-leap way that has so far been shown to me).