Posted on 03/30/2015 8:34:08 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Perhaps you might read the Old Testament and find the same proofs were claimed as promised the same way by the religious authorities of Judaism. They were wrong then... What makes you think you’re interpreting those promises rightly now
Read Matthew 28, Jesus never gave His authority to the OT religious authorities, nor was the Holy Spirit poured out on them.
what is your evidence for the statement that most of the “good churches” ( I assume you mean the Catholic Church ) accepted the Revelation of Peter?
the evidence is quite the contrary.
Most renaisance art was inspired by God. Which pieces do you consider infallible?
No person alive today can be a successor to any of the apostles ... the criterion for apostleship includes
1. Eyewitness to resurrection
2. With apostles from the beginning
3. Signs of an apostle, miracles, wonders, etc.
I am not aware that anyone in the RCC meets these criteria ... or any other church.
The same way you know scripture was.
am not aware that anyone in the RCC meets these criteria ... or any other church
someone also isn’t aware of what the doctrine of apostolic succession means and what it doesn’t mean.
none of those three factors have anything to do with apostolic succession.
the ignorance on the RF is astounding, and from conservatives no less.
Honestly ... the blindness is stunning.
It is unbelievable what an unbeliever will believe ... to remain an unbeliever.
google Wikipedia for “apostolic succession” and educate yourself.
don’t believe what you hear, ignorance isn’t bliss!
1. This comment is irrelevant to the story at hand, since there is no reference to chief priests in this passage, but plenty elsewhere in the gospels, and even references to "the chief priest and the pharisees" which suggest that these terms are not interchangeable.
2. Despite that, I'd be interested in any evidence you have that "When the chief rabbi sat upon the Seat of Moses his words were considered to be infallible."
Do you have a clue as to the difference between “being read” and declared cannon?
I never do ... if something as important as apostolic succession is not in the scriptures ... its a candidate for the trash heap.
Your side argues that Acts 1:15-26 is the basis and model for apostolic succession ... yet it ignores what is plainly in the text.
Rather than believe what is plainly there ... the bait and switch method of shoehorning Catholic belief into the text is performed.
... "one must be ordained" to be a witness of His resurrection ... not actually what the text says.
Acts 1 is not the basis for apostolic succession, that is why I suggested you do a little research about the doctrine.
the doctrine is based on the laying on of hands as Timothy and Titus had done to them and as they were instructed to do to other faithful men, who then laid hands on others, etc etc.
been happening now close to 2,000 years.
Are you sure you want to go that route?
apostolic succession is much more than Acts 1.
Clement of Rome ( who conversed with Peter and Paul ) tells us that the Apostles chose men to lead the Church after they were gone and laid hands on them.
the Scriptures describe this as happening to Titus and Timothy, and also Titus was instructed to do this in Crete.
so yes, I want to go that route.
This is quite apparent ... since the prescription in Acts 1 is ignored.
the Muratorian Fragment represented the canon of scripture for Rome c. 180 A.D. (Some place it earlier).
This Canon has the NT within it minus some missing pieces, but also included the Revelation (Apocalypse) of Peter, a book that was a Gnostic text.
How could infallible Rome possibly have a Gnostic text within their approved Canon? Because they weren’t infallible on matters of faith as this scripture was right under their nose, right in their own back yard.
They had a penchant for declaring others to be “heretics” while they themselves were “heretics.”
The Muratorian Fragment represents the Canon of scripture in Rome, c. 180 A.D. This canon lists the NT, but has some missing pieces. Along with this, they had the Revelation of Peter, a Gnostic text, within the Muratorian fragment.
How could the church in Rome be infallible when they had a Gnostic text right under their nose, in their own backyard, in their own canon they believed to be inspired scripture?
Yeah, the Gnostics were “heretics. But oh, no, they weren’t...not Rome.
The Muratorian fragment represents the canon of scripture for Rome, c. 180 A.D. It contained the NT, but has some missing pieces. It also had the Revelation of Peter, a Gnostic text.
An infallible church in Rome has a Gnostics text right under their own nose within their canon of inspired scripture.
Yeah, the church in Rome sure was infallible all right...
In the end, the Muratorian frgamnet represents the canon of scripture for Rome, c. 180 A.D. It has the NT, minus some missing pieces. It also contains the revelation of Peter, a Gnostic text.
Amazing how a supposedly infallible church in Rome then had a Gnostic text within their own set of inspired scriptures.
Some infallibility all right...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.