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
See more
See less

What is the biblical justification for Peter as the first Pope?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Yes, really.
    I honestly have no idea how one could read Acts and come away with the idea that Peter founded the church of Rome. There was already a church when Paul got there (well after he wrote them an epistle), and the Jews there seem to not have encountered an apostle before (Acts 28).
    You missed the point. Your argument stated that the Catholic position was that Peter founded the Church of Rome, after I pointed it out, you said it wasn't, then I proved it was with that quote from your argument.

    Oh, I agree he ended up there.
    Okay then.

    I'd be interested in seeing this alleged proof (elsewhere is fine).
    Alright then, elsewhere.

    The split between East and West began about the time they were forged, that much is clear. Though there were differences between East and West before then, they weren't worthy of splitting over until Rome demanded that the East conform to it. .
    Kind of oversimplifying the schism, aren't you?

    I understand what you meant; I disagree with it. I was just poking you a bit for your poor choice of wording there.
    Alright then.

    Before admitting it wasn't hard evidence, you made a huge deal about it - just like you're making a huge deal about only Peter explicitly getting keys.
    I never made a huge deal about it. In my first post about it, I stated it wasn't hard evidence.

    That was not my argument. My argument was that Peter had a history of voicing strong opinions, and not necessarily appropriate ones. In the cultural context, Peter's rebuke of Jesus was shockingly inappropriate.
    Yeah, I know. It was also my point that Peter was rebuked that time, and a time later by Paul, for making such statements, yet no one said anything at the Council.

    As unlikely as it may seem to you, my aim is to read the text for what it says, not for what polemical use I can make of it. In my opinion, James stating his decision is easily the most authoritative part of the passage. I have no axe to grind against Peter.
    My aim is also to read the text for what it is, and Peter's speech is easily the most authoritative part of the passage. I don't remember saying you had an axe to grind against Peter.

    Peter did not make a decision. Peter proffered his strong opinion (I don't think he had any weak ones).
    He clearly was making a decision, I don't see how that's averted just because he didn't actually use the word "decision". He wasn't just suggesting what the Council should do, he was telling them what to do.

    Once Peter has had his say, the 'apostle to the Gentiles' relates his missionary efforts. It's possible that no one spoke up because they dared not go against Peter's authority, but it's also possible (and more likely, IMO) that no other apostle spoke up because no one had a serious disagreement with Peter's statement.
    You're ignoring the fact that Peter made declarative statements about the will of God, and challenged anyone who disagreed with his decision as "testing God". How is that not a claim to authority?

    Also, I thought your position was that he 'wasn't' making a claim to authority, in which case, there would have been no reason for the apostles to speak up in the first place, so which argument are you trying to make: Did he make a claim to authority, and the apostles just ignored it because they agreed with him, or did he 'not' make a claim to authority?

    You're reading an impressive amount of fantasy into Peter's statement. I quite honestly don't see it as Peter arrogating authority to himself at all; it's just Peter being Peter.
    Well, 'Peter being Peter' before, got him rebuked every time, however, here is the only time when that didn't happen, and in a setting in which every apostle and elder was present, including Paul, who rebuked him in the past.

    Again, if any of the other authorities had an issue with it, I'm pretty sure that would have shown up in the text.
    Exactly.

    Peter had no more and no less authority than the other apostles during Jesus' ministry, though he was one of the innermost three. Peter will have no more and no less authority than the other apostles in the Judgment, when the twelve apostles will sit on 12 thrones judging the tribes of Israel. Why should Peter have more authority in between? The other apostles were no less 'sent' than Peter was.
    Question begging. To prove that, you'll have to answer why exactly, Peter making declarative statements about the will of God, and accusing those who went against his decision with 'testing God's will' is anything but an authoritative statement, which you've failed to do since the beginning of this conversation.

    I think you're investing too much freight in the keys. The important bit was the authority to bind and loose; the keys are merely symbolic of that. The keys are only mentioned once in the gospels, and only in the connection of binding and loosing. The authority of the apostles to bind and loose, on the other hand, is referred to three times.
    What makes you think the binding and loosing are the end-all powers of the keys anyway? They're mentioned once along-side of the keys, and three other times without the keys.
    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


    • #77
      Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
      I know it was disputed a lot, that was my point.
      Oh, OK. So you concede that the textual evidence for anything more than a Petrine primacy of honor is 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


      • #78
        Understanding what is meant by "binding" and "loosening" could be important here. One thing I would like to suggest is that maybe "locking" and "unlocking" are better translations in the context than "binding" and "loosening." It is still not clear to me what Jesus meant by that, however. What things are being locked or unlocked? Did Jesus mean to be very general? I doubt that, it's too vague.
        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


        • #79
          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
          Oh, OK. So you concede that the textual evidence for anything more than a Petrine primacy of honor is murky?
          As murky as every other doctrine.
          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


          • #80
            Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
            You missed the point. Your argument stated that the Catholic position was that Peter founded the Church of Rome, after I pointed it out, you said it wasn't, then I proved it was with that quote from your argument.
            Wait. . . What? Where did I say it was not the Catholic position that Peter founded the church of Rome? Or are you trying to argue something else here?

            I said, "Peter did not even found the church of Rome."
            You replied, "[N]o one's suggesting that Peter single-handedly founded the Church of Rome, although he 'did' lay down the supporting foundations of it."
            You first misrepresented what I said, then went on to claim that Peter did indeed lay down the supporting foundations - which implies the very base. It's possible that you meant something else, but the words you used quite confirmed my contention of Catholic beliefs. Anyhow, you only responded to about a quarter of what I said.
            Kind of oversimplifying the schism, aren't you?
            Since it's kind of not the topic of this thread, I didn't want to spend too much time on it. I will grant that neither side was blameless in the split.
            I never made a huge deal about [Peter standing to address the council]. In my first post about it, I stated it wasn't hard evidence.
            True, you did state that. However, your language prior to that made it a big deal. If you didn't think it was all that important, why did you use such emphatic language?
            Yeah, I know. It was also my point that Peter was rebuked that time, and a time later by Paul, for making such statements, yet no one said anything at the Council.
            Peter was rebuked when the other party disagreed sharply with him. Peter's assertion that Jesus was the Christ was quite bold, and yet the other disciples did not rebuke him for that. At the council, it seems that no one disagreed sharply with him.
            My aim is also to read the text for what it is, and Peter's speech is easily the most authoritative part of the passage.
            Then your aim is errant. I'm not familiar with anti-Catholic polemic, but my first reaction to your initial posts was to re-read the passage to make sure we were reading the same thing. You're distorting the episode almost beyond recognition.
            I don't remember saying you had an axe to grind against Peter.
            You didn't. I just wanted to make that clear.
            He clearly was making a decision, I don't see how that's averted just because he didn't actually use the word "decision". He wasn't just suggesting what the Council should do, he was telling them what to do.
            No, he wasn't. Peter told the council what he thought of making the Gentiles conform to the Jewish law, in typical no-holds-barred Petrine fashion.
            You're ignoring the fact that Peter made declarative statements about the will of God, and challenged anyone who disagreed with his decision as "testing God". How is that not a claim to authority?
            Based on the rest of Peter's portrayal in Scripture, I'm quite confident that Peter would've been equally brash as a layman. It also has bearing on why I think it's absurd to couch Peter's speech as a 'decision.'
            Also, I thought your position was that he 'wasn't' making a claim to authority, in which case, there would have been no reason for the apostles to speak up in the first place, so which argument are you trying to make: Did he make a claim to authority, and the apostles just ignored it because they agreed with him, or did he 'not' make a claim to authority?
            Whether Peter was making a claim to authority or not, those in authority would have had sufficient reason to speak up had they disagreed with the statement.
            Well, 'Peter being Peter' before, got him rebuked every time, however, here is the only time when that didn't happen, and in a setting in which every apostle and elder was present, including Paul, who rebuked him in the past.
            No, it didn't. It only got him rebuked when he was wrong. Walking on water didn't get him rebuked (though taking his eyes off Jesus drew one).
            Originally posted by One Bad Pig
            Peter had no more and no less authority than the other apostles during Jesus' ministry, though he was one of the innermost three. Peter will have no more and no less authority than the other apostles in the Judgment, when the twelve apostles will sit on 12 thrones judging the tribes of Israel. Why should Peter have more authority in between? The other apostles were no less 'sent' than Peter was.
            Question begging. To prove that, you'll have to answer why exactly, Peter making declarative statements about the will of God, and accusing those who went against his decision with 'testing God's will' is anything but an authoritative statement, which you've failed to do since the beginning of this conversation.
            I've said repeatedly that you're mischaracterizing Peter's statement. I think I've addressed this sufficiently above.
            What makes you think the binding and loosing are the end-all powers of the keys anyway? They're mentioned once along-side of the keys, and three other times without the keys.
            Which should give you the idea that perhaps binding and loosing are more important than the concept of keys, which isn't addressed elsewhere in the gospels (I think you'll agree that Luke 11:52 is not relevant), or anywhere else in the New Testament outside of Revelation, where the keys are in Jesus' hands and involve powers very likely not delegated to Peter. Note that Revelation 3:7 quotes from Isaiah 22; since that "key" is explicitly in Jesus' hand, it is inappropriate to link its powers with Peter.
            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


            • #81
              Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
              Understanding what is meant by "binding" and "loosening" could be important here. One thing I would like to suggest is that maybe "locking" and "unlocking" are better translations in the context than "binding" and "loosening." It is still not clear to me what Jesus meant by that, however. What things are being locked or unlocked? Did Jesus mean to be very general? I doubt that, it's too vague.
              Most of the early church fathers understood it as the power of forgiving sins. But, it is much more likely to have been a reference to rabbinic authority by which various rulings were made, which would also have the force of allowing and disallowing people from being part of the observant community. If you look at the larger context of Matthew 18, you will see a lot of communal matters that local authorities would need to be concerned with, some of which are certainly related to forgiveness. Some try to see Mt 18 (all of the apostles, binding & loosing) as more a matter of local church issues, whereas Mt 16 (Peter, keys, binding & loosing) is speaking of the church in general. Maybe there's a little bit of that. If Matthew's gospel was written in Antioch, as is oftentimes thought, there may have been some sense in which they thought of Peter as their own most prominant founder, 'though not the original founder, just as in Rome people might have looked to both Peter and Paul as their most important early witnesses to the faith. Roman Catholic apologists who try to read too much of the papacy into Peter's role generally miss the great importance of the local churches. I don't think there was much of a universal structure in the earliest churches.
              Last edited by robrecht; 09-17-2014, 09:19 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


              • #82
                Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                As murky as every other doctrine.
                So do you think that the more precisely defined dogmas and doctrines to be better than the ambiguous and murky scriptures, which speak in a more personal and communal experiential register rather than the more rarefied intellectual realm of propositional statements?
                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


                • #83
                  Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                  So do you think that the more precisely defined dogmas and doctrines to be better than the ambiguous and murky scriptures, which speak in a more personal and communal experiential register rather than the more rarefied intellectual realm of propositional statements?
                  Actually, my point was that it's not murky, as the other doctrines are not murky either.
                  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


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                    Actually, my point was that it's not murky, as the other doctrines are not murky either.
                    That's what I thought you meant initially (see my Post #74), but you seemed to correct me. So, if you do not think the texts concerning the Trinity are in any way murky, how do you account for the need of a few centuries of dispute for the trinitarian doctrines and dogmas to be defined and the continued disagreements among the churches since then?
                    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


                    • #85
                      Wait. . . What? Where did I say it was not the Catholic position that Peter founded the church of Rome?
                      You said that it was, I corrected you, then you ended it by saying that you weren't trying to argue that Peter founded the Church of Rome in the first place, which I then proved that you were, indeed, trying to argue that with a quote.

                      It's possible that you meant something else, but the words you used quite confirmed my contention of Catholic beliefs.
                      I did mean something else.

                      True, you did state that. However, your language prior to that made it a big deal. If you didn't think it was all that important, why did you use such emphatic language?
                      How? I stated that Peter standing up could be seen as a show of authority, but literally one sentence later, in the same post, I said it wasn't hard evidence. How could anyone possibly misconstrue that?

                      Peter was rebuked when the other party disagreed sharply with him. Peter's assertion that Jesus was the Christ was quite bold, and yet the other disciples did not rebuke him for that. At the council, it seems that no one disagreed sharply with him.
                      Eh, that's my point. No one rebuked Peter when his assertions were correct, and he was not rebuked at the Council, so.....

                      Then your aim is errant. I'm not familiar with anti-Catholic polemic, but my first reaction to your initial posts was to re-read the passage to make sure we were reading the same thing. You're distorting the episode almost beyond recognition.
                      I believe the only one distorting the episode here is you. Your habit to read "polemic" into pretty much every argument against your Schism is kind of grating as well.

                      No, he wasn't. Peter told the council what he thought of making the Gentiles conform to the Jewish law, in typical no-holds-barred Petrine fashion.
                      Well, by that same logic, James wasn't making a decision, he was just telling the Council what he thought about making Gentiles conform to Jewish law. I really don't see how you could read Peter's strong language and come away with he was just putting a suggestion out there....not that James wasn't telling the Council what to do as well, but the thing is that James was only expanding on what Peter already said the Council should do.

                      Based on the rest of Peter's portrayal in Scripture, I'm quite confident that Peter would've been equally brash as a layman. It also has bearing on why I think it's absurd to couch Peter's speech as a 'decision.'
                      Well, that might work for him simply claiming to know the will of God, but accusing the others of testing God if they went against his decision is clearly an authoritative statement. He would only be able to make said statement, without getting rebuked or refuted that is (At a Church Council no less, the very establishment dedicated to keeping the faith snuffing out heresy and error), would be if he had higher authority than the others.

                      Whether Peter was making a claim to authority or not, those in authority would have had sufficient reason to speak up had they disagreed with the statement.
                      Exactly my point. Nobody spoke up.

                      No, it didn't. It only got him rebuked when he was wrong. Walking on water didn't get him rebuked (though taking his eyes off Jesus drew one).
                      Once again, that's exactly my point.

                      I've said repeatedly that you're mischaracterizing Peter's statement. I think I've addressed this sufficiently above.
                      I'm not. Challenging the others in the Council, including the other apostles, with testing God if they went against him, is something he could not have gotten away with saying if they were all the same authority, especially at a Church Council, no less. It's clearly an authoritative statement.

                      Which should give you the idea that perhaps binding and loosing are more important than the concept of keys, which isn't addressed elsewhere in the gospels (I think you'll agree that Luke 11:52 is not relevant), or anywhere else in the New Testament outside of Revelation, where the keys are in Jesus' hands and involve powers very likely not delegated to Peter. Note that Revelation 3:7 quotes from Isaiah 22; since that "key" is explicitly in Jesus' hand, it is inappropriate to link its powers with Peter.
                      So....the binding and loosing is more important than the concept of the keys is because they're mentioned less? I don't see the logic in that.

                      Note that Revelation 3:7 quotes from Isaiah 22; since that "key" is explicitly in Jesus' hand, it is inappropriate to link its powers with Peter.
                      Except, you know, the fact that Jesus gives the keys to Peter. That seems like a more than adequate reason to link its powers with Peter.
                      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


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                        So, if you do not think the texts concerning the Trinity are in any way murky, how do you account for the need of a few centuries of dispute for the trinitarian doctrines and dogmas to be defined and the continued disagreements among the churches since then?
                        People are often irrational, and some people's aversions to the truth are strengthened greatly when it comes to matters of faith.
                        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


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                          You said that it was, I corrected you, then you ended it by saying that you weren't trying to argue that Peter founded the Church of Rome in the first place, which I then proved that you were, indeed, trying to argue that with a quote.
                          I'm beginning to think you have difficulties in the area of reading comprehension. Do make the attempt to follow the arguments presented, please.
                          How? I stated that Peter standing up could be seen as a show of authority, but literally one sentence later, in the same post, I said it wasn't hard evidence. How could anyone possibly misconstrue that?
                          You are mischaracterizing your statements to the extreme. "Could be?" lawl. You were quite emphatic.
                          Eh, that's my point. No one rebuked Peter when his assertions were correct, and he was not rebuked at the Council, so.....
                          You just said, "Well, 'Peter being Peter' before, got him rebuked every time, however, here is the only time when that didn't happen. . . ." That was indisputably not your point. If you can't even keep your own position straight, there's little point in continuing this discussion.
                          Well, by that same logic, James wasn't making a decision, he was just telling the Council what he thought about making Gentiles conform to Jewish law.
                          Huh? No. James explicitly made a decision.
                          I really don't see how you could read Peter's strong language and come away with he was just putting a suggestion out there....not that James wasn't telling the Council what to do as well, but the thing is that James was only expanding on what Peter already said the Council should do.
                          Where have I said Peter was "putting a suggestion out there"? Hint: I haven't. I agree that Peter's language was strong.
                          Well, that might work for him simply claiming to know the will of God, but accusing the others of testing God if they went against his decision is clearly an authoritative statement. He would only be able to make said statement, without getting rebuked or refuted that is (At a Church Council no less, the very establishment dedicated to keeping the faith snuffing out heresy and error), would be if he had higher authority than the others.
                          We're going to have to agree to disagree on this, I think. You're equating 'bold' with 'authoritative' and I'm not seeing any warrant for that equation. Peter was bold well before he had any authority whatsoever. Do you dispute that?
                          Exactly my point. Nobody spoke up.
                          Which IMO does not mean what you think it means.
                          Once again, that's exactly my point.
                          No it's not. Once again, you said, "Well, 'Peter being Peter' before, got him rebuked [b]every time[b], however, here is the only time when that didn't happen. . . ." I've given you two examples why your assertion is wrong. It takes a heaping helping of chutzpah to claim what I'm saying was your point all along. Did you think I wouldn't notice your volte-face, or are you just being sloppy again?
                          I'm not. Challenging the others in the Council, including the other apostles, with testing God if they went against him, is something he could not have gotten away with saying if they were all the same authority, especially at a Church Council, no less. It's clearly an authoritative statement.
                          Again, bold is not equivalent to authoritative.
                          So....the binding and loosing is more important than the concept of the keys is because they're mentioned less? I don't see the logic in that.
                          You don't think it's logical that more important things should be repeated?
                          Except, you know, the fact that Jesus gives the keys to Peter. That seems like a more than adequate reason to link its powers with Peter.
                          Way to fail to interact with my argument. I gave reasons why Is. 22, for example, should not be connected with Peter. Feel free to offer a more likely interpretation. You have yet to actually proffer, by the way, the alleged 'additional powers' granted by the keys and scriptural support for the same.
                          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


                          • #88
                            I'm beginning to think you have difficulties in the area of reading comprehension. Do make the attempt to follow the arguments presented, please.
                            My response to your argument:

                            I 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.
                            Your response?

                            Try again, kemosabe. That's not the argument I was making. Further, the foundations had already been laid before Peter got there.
                            Once again, nice try.

                            You are mischaracterizing your statements to the extreme. "Could be?" lawl. You were quite emphatic.
                            Once again, no I wasn't. I stated literally right afterwards that it wasn't hard evidence. Literally one sentence afterwards. You're trying very hard to discredit me by using things that turn out to be absolutely nothing.

                            You just said, "Well, 'Peter being Peter' before, got him rebuked every time, however, here is the only time when that didn't happen. . . ." That was indisputably not your point. If you can't even keep your own position straight, there's little point in continuing this discussion.
                            Alright then, I can see how you got that, then. Sorry. However, the argument still stands.

                            Huh? No. James explicitly made a decision.
                            Naaaah. That was just James being hyperbolic, you know, just like Peter's statement was, apparently.

                            Where have I said Peter was "putting a suggestion out there"? Hint: I haven't. I agree that Peter's language was strong
                            You said he was just giving his opinion, which is essentially the same as making a suggestion.

                            We're going to have to agree to disagree on this, I think. You're equating 'bold' with 'authoritative' and I'm not seeing any warrant for that equation. Peter was bold well before he had any authority whatsoever. Do you dispute that?
                            No, I'm not equating bold with authoritative. This is not just a bold statement, it's a clear challenge of authority to the others. Peter claiming that going against his decision was "testing God" only makes sense if he has more authority on such matters than the rest of them, otherwise, it makes no sense whatsoever. It's like a Senator claiming that those who decide against him are going against the Senate as a whole, he's just one Senator, not the whole Senate.

                            Which IMO does not mean what you think it means.
                            Then what does it mean, exactly?

                            You don't think it's logical that more important things should be repeated?
                            Why would it be? If only one person received the keys, then why would it need to be mentioned more than that one time?

                            Way to fail to interact with my argument. I gave reasons why Is. 22, for example, should not be connected with Peter. Feel free to offer a more likely interpretation. You have yet to actually proffer, by the way, the alleged 'additional powers' granted by the keys and scriptural support for the same.
                            You stated that there was no reason to link its powers with Peter, and I proved otherwise. The fact that the keys are in Jesus' hands is not a problem. Where do think the doctrine that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth comes from in the first place?
                            Last edited by TimelessTheist; 09-19-2014, 12:52 AM.
                            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


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                              People are often irrational, and some people's aversions to the truth are strengthened greatly when it comes to matters of faith.
                              Or they just have different views than your own. Doesn't mean they have an irrational hatred of the truth.
                              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


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                                Once again, nice try.
                                I already explained to you in post #80 that you mischaracterized my argument. You ignored that. Try reading it again for comprehension, because your response in post #85 bears no coherent resemblance to what took place. Hint: I never said "singlehandedly."
                                Once again, no I wasn't. I stated literally right afterwards that it wasn't hard evidence. Literally one sentence afterwards. You're trying very hard to discredit me by using things that turn out to be absolutely nothing.
                                I understand you stated that right afterwards. However, that does not mitigate the emphatic language used in your initial description of the passage, and your continued emphasis on Peter's speech belies your protestation. If it's not hard evidence, why do you keep insisting that yours is the only reading that makes any sense? And I'm not trying to discredit you at all, much less 'very hard'; I don't see any need to do so.
                                You said he was just giving his opinion, which is essentially the same as making a suggestion.
                                No, it's not. An opinion is much more forcefully stated.
                                No, I'm not equating bold with authoritative. This is not just a bold statement, it's a clear challenge of authority to the others. Peter claiming that going against his decision was "testing God" only makes sense if he has more authority on such matters than the rest of them, otherwise, it makes no sense whatsoever. It's like a Senator claiming that those who decide against him are going against the Senate as a whole, he's just one Senator, not the whole Senate.
                                Yes, you are. Your response makes that quite evident. I disagree that Peter is consciously asserting any authority whatsoever.
                                Then what does it mean, exactly?
                                It means that no one disagreed (or at least openly disagreed) with his statement. That's all.
                                Why would it be? If only one person received the keys, then why would it need to be mentioned more than that one time?
                                Why did the feeding of the 5,000 need to be mentioned more than one time? Why did the crucifixion need to be mentioned more than one time? Important concepts tend to be repeated.
                                You stated that there was no reason to link its powers with Peter, and I proved otherwise.
                                No, you haven't. You've made some assertions regarding the keys, but have yet to provide an iota of support other than a vague reference to Is. 22. You haven't even divulged the other alleged powers of the keys, much less proved them.
                                The fact that the keys are in Jesus' hands is not a problem. Where do think the doctrine that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth comes from in the first place?
                                If the keys are in Jesus' hands, then the power invested in them is not delegated. And it would be nice if you would at least attempt to explain why the powers invested in those keys are appropriately given to Peter.
                                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

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X