Originally posted by Truthseeker
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines
Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.
This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
What is the biblical justification for Peter as the first Pope?
Collapse
X
-
Last edited by TimelessTheist; 09-14-2014, 05:12 PM.Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.
-Thomas Aquinas
I love to travel, But hate to arrive.
-Hernando Cortez
What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?
-Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor
-
Being given the key to death and Hades = given authority over death and Hades?The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu
[T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Comment
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostBeing given the key to death and Hades = given authority over death and Hades?Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.
-Thomas Aquinas
I love to travel, But hate to arrive.
-Hernando Cortez
What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?
-Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor
Comment
-
Originally posted by TimelessTheist View PostWhich verse is that from, again?The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu
[T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Comment
-
Originally posted by TimelessTheist View PostI ignored your Rome rant because it was off topic, but if you insist, no, no one's suggesting that Peter single-handedly founded the Church of Rome, although he 'did' lay down the supporting foundations of it.
Although, yes, it's historical fact that both Paul and Peter, took up permanent residence in, and eventually died in Rome.We also have the evidence in the documents of the Early Church Councils to prove Roman Primacy.
Yes, I know, but they did not receive the actual keys, and thus, the authority that goes with said keys.
Originally posted by One Bad PigAfter Peter stated his opinion, James made the decision. He didn't say, "I think we should do this," He said, "I have made the decision that this is what we'll do." That is authority being wielded, by James. You don't like that conclusion, which is why you keep trying to soften the force of James' words.
It seems like you're trying to say that James made an statement authorative to the Council, in which case, you just refuted your own argument, as your argument states that they're all supposed to have the same authority.
I also note that you still didn't respond to the fact that James both:
1) Referred to Peter's statement in his own statement.
2) Was only stating a way they should go about doing what Peter already said they should do.
That's not a red herring.
Oh, man, I must have just misread the part where Jesus calls Peter Satan just a verse later for promising such a thing, my bad.
Also, how is proclaiming that you know the will of God, and accusing others of "testing God" if they go against you 'not' authoritative?
Originally posted by One Bad Pigf the others in authority agreed with him, then he could absolutely have been able to get away with saying such things. It is apparent from the outcome that they did.
Yes, I'm saying that the "binding and loosening" is not the 'only' power that comes with the Keys.Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom
Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
OBP, you used "consistence." Did you mean "consistency"? If not I'm not sure how it's defined.The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu
[T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Comment
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostOBP, you used "consistence." Did you mean "consistency"? If not I'm not sure how it's defined.Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom
Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Try again, kemosabe. That's not the argument I was making.
Peter did not even found the church in Rome
What evidence is there that Peter took up permanent residence in Rome? And Paul was only there as a prisoner, AFAIR.
The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark 1 Pet. 5:13
As shown by works like Sibylline Oracles, and others, "Babylon" was a common code-word for "Rome".
Rome was one of the four (later five) patriarchal sees, and as the capital of the Roman Empire was naturally given primacy of honor. At no time did it have authority over the other patriarchal sees, however.
And apparently the documents of the early church councils were not considered sufficient, or the medieval church of Rome would not have leaned so heavily on the pseudo-decretals of Isidore.
There were no actual keys. Jesus mentioned the authority which goes with said "keys", which was shared by the other apostles.
lolno. That is not 'exactly' what you said. You're still attempting to minimize the force of James' statement.
More accurately, whoever abridged James' speech only included a reference to what Peter said. We're not getting verbatim reports here; that's not how ancient historians worked. I understand that James referred to Peter's statement. I just don't lend that nearly the weight you do.
If you want to be hyper-literal, then James did not say that at all. The only part he referenced of what Peter said was that God had looked favorably on the Gentiles. You're allowing your adoration of Peter to trump consistence in interpretation.
It has nothing to do with the facts at hand. By the account we have, the decision was unanimous. I agree that councils do not need to be unanimous, but that's neither here nor there.
Whatever you were aiming for, you missed.
It could be Peter's mouth engaging before his brain (not for the first time), though I don't think so. I agree that Peter was an authority; however I disagree that Peter was the authority.
Perhaps because that's not the argument I'm making. If the others in authority agreed with his assessment, then they would refrain from dissenting. These were not people jealous of their own authority, suspicious that one or another of them would attempt to usurp it at their expense.
It's like saying if the a priest gave a perfect theological lecture, and then ending it by saying that he had more authority than the bishops, the Pope, and Paul himself. That would never get by, and neither would what Peter said, no matter what he said before.
In doing so, you're not being consistent; "binding and loosing" without keys must be without keys (even though binding and loosing require authority and keys are symbolic of such), but on the other hand "keys" gets to be associated with every other instance of the word in order to come up with other 'powers' (which you have yet to specify).
(even though binding and loosing require authorityLast edited by TimelessTheist; 09-15-2014, 11:30 PM.Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.
-Thomas Aquinas
I love to travel, But hate to arrive.
-Hernando Cortez
What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?
-Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor
Comment
-
Timeless Theist, I asked myself, "Which one is the strongest argument?" After pondering this question for a while, I could only mentally shrug. To be sure, I should disclose that I am Protestant, so it's possible I am leaning too far toward OBP's argument. However, it seems to me that if Peter was really meant to have authority, the case for that ought to be much less murky than it seems to me. The more the doubt re any claim of authority, the less the actual authority tends to be, I think.The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu
[T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Comment
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostTimeless Theist, I asked myself, "Which one is the strongest argument?" After pondering this question for a while, I could only mentally shrug. To be sure, I should disclose that I am Protestant, so it's possible I am leaning too far toward OBP's argument. However, it seems to me that if Peter was really meant to have authority, the case for that ought to be much less murky than it seems to me. The more the doubt re any claim of authority, the less the actual authority tends to be, I think.Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.
-Thomas Aquinas
I love to travel, But hate to arrive.
-Hernando Cortez
What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?
-Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor
Comment
-
It's murky.βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostIt's murky.Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.
-Thomas Aquinas
I love to travel, But hate to arrive.
-Hernando Cortez
What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?
-Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor
Comment
-
Originally posted by TimelessTheist View PostReally?
Nice try, though.
Alright, maybe I overstated. He didn't take up permanent residence per se, just as Paul didn't, but there is evidence for him ending up in Rome:
The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark 1 Pet. 5:13
As shown by works like Sibylline Oracles, and others, "Babylon" was a common code-word for "Rome".
Yes it did, and we have hard proof to show it, though, once again, that's not the topic right now.
Reading too much James White, I see.
I suppose you're suggesting that the Papacy didn't come into being until those pseudo-decretals came into being, a claim which can be refuted easily....though, once again, that's not the topic here. Yes, the Church holds the early Church Councils as authoritative, and so does the Eastern Schismatic Churches. What are you talking about?
Of course there were not literal keys, but I find it hard to believe you don't understand what I meant by that statement.
No I'm not, you're just overstating the force of his statement to attempt to make it support your case.
Well, just because they only recorded a part of it, doesn't necessarily mean they changed the actual language of it, though, it's curious that he did reference Peter in his statement.
Actually, no. Peter's decision was that they should not circumcise the Gentiles, nor discriminate against them.
James said basically the same thing, and then added, at the end, that they should instead instruct them to obey the Commandments, saying, quote: "that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God." It's basically just a restatement, and extension, of what Peter already said, there's nothing 'non-literal' about it. Also, when was I ever hyper-literal? Was it because I mentioned Peter standing, as I remember telling you that that wasn't hard evidence.
A red herring would be if I used that to bait you into a completely different argument, refuted that argument, and then claimed that I refuted the previous argument by refuting the new one. It's not a red herring.
Your argument was that Peter made claims to authority before (although, promising that he would keep Jesus safe isn't really a claim to authority in the sense that this is), however, you miss the point that he was reprimanded, by Jesus himself no less, for making a claim to an authority he did not possess. No sort of reprimandation, or even calling out of Peter, happened at the Council.
If it Peter was making an illicit claim to authority, then at least one of the Council members should have made a statement against said illicit authority. They debated and argued for some time before Peter spoke, why would they stop after such a claim was made, an illicit claim, as you say? Your argument that Peter was 'an' authority fails, as his statement was addressed at all the Council, including the other apostles, which you claim, have the same authority as Peter.
I'm not suggesting they were, however, there's a difference between irrational paranoia, and rationally seeing a blatant error. If one of the apostles made a claim that was clearly wrong, especially a claim like 'this', that is, a claim of authority above the other apostles, which, according to you, is not true,, they would be sure to refute the claim and put him in his place, just as Paul did with Peter, and just as Jesus did before him, and seeing as how his claim to authority, itself, was an error according to you, the Council would've called him out on it, as a Church Council, especially the 'first' Church Council, would not let heresy be declared, unopposed.
It's like saying if the a priest gave a perfect theological lecture, and then ending it by saying that he had more authority than the bishops, the Pope, and Paul himself. That would never get by, and neither would what Peter said, no matter what he said before.
Well, 'binding and loosing' was given to other apostles 'without' the Keys to Heaven, however, 'keys' are used symbolically in the Bible to refer to authority, therefore, Peter received the same powers as the other apostles, but also received the authority that comes with the keys. What's inconsistent about this, exactly?Of course the apostles had authority, they were the apostles chosen by Christ himself, however, the fact that Peter was the only one to receive the keys, in exclusion to the others, means that he had authority over the other authorities. Once again, I don't see how this is hard to understand, if they all had the same authority, they should have all received the keys.Last edited by One Bad Pig; 09-16-2014, 09:14 PM.Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom
Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by TimelessTheist View PostNot any more murky than the texts in support of the Trinity, really.Last edited by robrecht; 09-17-2014, 01:35 PM.βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostI don't think the Trinity was understood all that well to the first readers of the New Testament texts, otherwise why would there have been so many disputes in the first few centuries of the church? Even after the definition of these dogmas and doctrines at early councils, there are still disagreements. Personally, I think it is still a little murky.Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.
-Thomas Aquinas
I love to travel, But hate to arrive.
-Hernando Cortez
What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?
-Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment