BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Matthias replaced Judas. He wasn't a successor.

---

You are arguing a distinction without a difference.

What is a successor? From Oxford - "a person or thing that succeeds another."
What does succeeds mean? From Oxford - "take over a throne, inheritance, office, or other position from."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And apostolic succession and authority is nowhere in Scripture. And even if there were such a thing, clearly, a Gnostic source one hundred years after the apostles died definitely does NOT qualify. Clearly, icon veneration was NOT apostolic. You are arguing a battle that you've already lost.

---

Celebrating Christmas is not found in scripture, but I bet you do that.

Once again, you are making an argument that doesn't hold water because sola scriptura is NOT biblical either and it is false.

Finally, the Church CAN demonstrate Apostolic Succession with the following:

The aforementioned Acts 1:20-26 - when Mattias replaces/succeeds Judas.

2 Tim 2:2 - - "and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well."

Acts 6:6 "They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them."

1 Tim 4:14 - Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through prophecy when the body of elders laid their hands on you.

2 Tim 1:6 For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.

Titus 1:5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you

Finally with respect to "Gnostic texts", I am not sure what you are referring to. I don't think you understand what that word means. Please elaborate.

The Gnostics were a groups of religious sects that generally emphasized personal spiritual knowledge (gnosis) above the authority and traditions. The believed that salvation came from this "hidden knowledge."

Gnosticism was condemned by the early Church, quickly.

St Clement of Rome, writing in the first century, states that the apostles appointed bishops and deacons to succeed them.
Irenaeus, 180-185 AD, listed, in Against Heresies, the Bishops of Rome as a defense against Gnostic teachings.

I could list several others, but it's VERY clear from the Bible and the Church Fathers that Apostolic Succession is valid.

Please cite a Church Father that rejected Apostolic Succession.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So, you're saying that the high priest Caiphus was the infallible intepreter of Scripture for the Jews?

---

You are creating another one of your strawman posts again.

Where did I say that Caiphus was an infallible interpreter?

I stated -

"The authority was given to Moses from God and continued through the priests and prophets of ancient Israel."

In Biblical typology, the New is ALWAYS superior to the Old. If Moses and some priests and prophets had authority given to them by God, it stands to reason that Peter and his successors would also have that same authority.

---

So you're admitting here that you dodged my question? My question was "What was the infallible interpretive authority for the Jews for their Scripture (Tanakh) during their entire history before Jesus?"

Steering you back to the point that you're obviously dodging is not a "straw man".

So, what's your answer to the question now, now that you're conceding that the priests were NOT the infallible interpreters of Scripture for the Jews? Who was their infallible interpreter?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Matthias replaced Judas. He wasn't a successor.

---

You are arguing a distinction without a difference.

What is a successor? From Oxford - "a person or thing that succeeds another."
What does succeeds mean? From Oxford - "take over a throne, inheritance, office, or other position from."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And apostolic succession and authority is nowhere in Scripture. And even if there were such a thing, clearly, a Gnostic source one hundred years after the apostles died definitely does NOT qualify. Clearly, icon veneration was NOT apostolic. You are arguing a battle that you've already lost.

---

Celebrating Christmas is not found in scripture, but I bet you do that.

Once again, you are making an argument that doesn't hold water because sola scriptura is NOT biblical either and it is false.

Finally, the Church CAN demonstrate Apostolic Succession with the following:

The aforementioned Acts 1:20-26 - when Mattias replaces/succeeds Judas.

2 Tim 2:2 - - "and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well."

Acts 6:6 "They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them."

1 Tim 4:14 - Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through prophecy when the body of elders laid their hands on you.

2 Tim 1:6 For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.

Titus 1:5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you

Finally with respect to "Gnostic texts", I am not sure what you are referring to. I don't think you understand what that word means. Please elaborate.

The Gnostics were a groups of religious sects that generally emphasized personal spiritual knowledge (gnosis) above the authority and traditions. The believed that salvation came from this "hidden knowledge."

Gnosticism was condemned by the early Church, quickly.

St Clement of Rome, writing in the first century, states that the apostles appointed bishops and deacons to succeed them.
Irenaeus, 180-185 AD, listed, in Against Heresies, the Bishops of Rome as a defense against Gnostic teachings.

I could list several others, but it's VERY clear from the Bible and the Church Fathers that Apostolic Succession is valid.

Please cite a Church Father that rejected Apostolic Succession.

---

NOTHING you're presenting here shows that original apostolic authority was carried in succession. What you're doing is a motte-and-bailey fallacy.

And still, nothing you're arguing establishes a gnostic text who's stated author is a lie as apostolic in origin, from which you draw your dogmas. You're in a losing battle.

" In Biblical typology, the New is ALWAYS superior to the Old."

If we apply that logic, then the Protestant Reformation proves superior to the older Roman Catholic Church.

I was raised to believe that when Jesus quoted the ancient Scriptures, he confirmed their authority.

Also, the issue in this thread is not Scripture but those who put human Tradition equal to or above Scripture.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear, it's as if you forgot all our previous discussions on the difference between Peter the man and Petros the faith of the Church.

Please look at the whole chapter, including the part where Christ calls Peter 'Satan'.

You can't take the part you like and ignore the part you dislike.

---

Jesus didn't change Simon's faith's name. He changed his name to ROCK - Peter.

With respect to Jesus calling him Satan, have you forgot about our Luke 22:31-32 when Jesus says,

"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."

Jesus is praying for Peter's restoration and future leadership role in strengthening the other disciples.

All this happened at the night of the Last Supper AFTER his confession in Matthew 16:18.

Briefly, in John 21, Jesus allows Peter to redeem himself of his three-fold denial with his three-fold profession of his love for Jesus. After each profession, Jesus charges him (and him alone) to feed his lambs, tend and feed his sheep. This again is Jesus' entrusting Peter with a leadership role as the chief Shepard among the apostles.

Finally, please provided your commentary on the ancient Jewish custom of 'binding and loosening" and what specifically did Jesus mean by this.

Oldbear83 said:

---

" In Biblical typology, the New is ALWAYS superior to the Old."

If we apply that logic, then the Protestant Reformation proves superior to the older Roman Catholic Church.

I was raised to believe that when Jes us quoted the ancient Scriptures, he confirmed their authority.

Also, the issue in this thread is not Scripture but those who put human Tradition equal to or above Scripture.

---

Well, if your logic is true, then, the Amish proves superior to Protestantism. And LDS proves superior to the Amish. And Seventh-Day Adventists proves superior to the Amish. And the Salvation Army proves superior to the SDA. And finally, the Church of Scientology proves superior to the Salvation Army.

Maybe we should all go work for Tom Cruise and John Travolta. ; )

Please note that I was referring to BIBLICAL typology. Not historical foundations of churches.

Finally, AGAIN, I have never said that Tradition is ABOVE the Bible. I've merely claimed that without an infallible interpreter, an infallible document is worthless.

Someone has to be the arbiter of Truth when dealing with faith and morals. The Church argues that Jesus made Peter and the Church that arbiter.

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" In Biblical typology, the New is ALWAYS superior to the Old."

If we apply that logic, then the Protestant Reformation proves superior to the older Roman Catholic Church.

I was raised to believe that when Jes us quoted the ancient Scriptures, he confirmed their authority.

Also, the issue in this thread is not Scripture but those who put human Tradition equal to or above Scripture.

---

Well, if your logic is true, then, the Amish proves superior to Protestantism. And LDS proves superior to the Amish. And Seventh-Day Adventists proves superior to the Amish. And the Salvation Army proves superior to the SDA. And finally, the Church of Scientology proves superior to the Salvation Army.

Maybe we should all go work for Tom Cruise and John Travolta. ; )

Please note that I was referring to BIBLICAL typology. Not historical foundations of churches.

Finally, AGAIN, I have never said that Tradition is ABOVE the Bible. I've merely claimed that without an infallible interpreter, an infallible document is worthless.

Someone has to be the arbiter of Truth when dealing with faith and morals. The Church argues that Jesus made Peter and the Church that arbiter.

---

Please re-read my post. I was responding to your false claim that newer is 'always superior to the old'.

I was making the point that newer>older does not appear in Scripture as a rule. In fact, Christian references comparing Christ to Adam instead affirm that the old is not lost, but the new is consistent with the old.

God does not forget His words or need to revise them.

And no, it was not Christ nor His Church which made Peter their idol, but the Romans, somehow forgetting that it was Paul, not Peter, who founded the first Christian congregation in Rome. Christ praised the faith of Peter, and it was that faith which built the Church, not Peter the man himself

My point is that God chooses people to be His servants in various times and places, and the leaders of the Christian church were many in number, places and works. It is human hubris that demands one human be given primacy, to the point of pretending he is 'the Vicar of Christ'.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Please re-read my post. I was responding to your false claim that newer is 'always superior to the old'.

I was making the point that newer>older does not appear in Scripture as a rule. In fact, Christian references comparing Christ to Adam instead affirm that the old is not lost, but the new is consistent with the old.

---

Forgive my misunderstanding. My simple (and original) point is that in BIBLICAL typology, the New is always superior to the Old. I never meant to imply that the Old was lost. It is not.

Quoting St Augustine, around 419-420 AD, said:

"The New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New"

As you know, there are dozens, if not hundreds of prefigurements about Jesus. Baptism, the Eucharist, Mary, the Christ's sacrifice, etc. are all prefigured in the OT. Each time in the NT, the previously mentioned items are superior to their OT prefigurement.

Oldbear83 said:

---

And no, it was not Christ nor His Church which made Peter their idol, but the Romans, somehow forgetting that it was Paul, not Peter, who founded the first Christian congregation in Rome. Christ praised the faith of Peter, and it was that faith which built the Church, not Peter the man himself

---

All the research that I can find indicates that Peter started preaching in Rome in AD 42, with Paul arriving in Rome later because his Letter to the Romans was written (most likely in AD 57) to the community that he had not visited yet.

But in the grand scheme of things, it is irrelevant who arrived first. BOTH are credited with developing the Church in Rome.

Having said that, we do know that Peter is credited with being the first Bishop of Rome.

Oldbear83 said:

---

My point is that God chooses people to be His servants in various times and places, and the leaders of the Christian church were many in number, places and works. It is human hubris that demands one human be given primacy, to the point of pretending he is 'the Vicar of Christ'.

---

We'll have to agree to disagree here. I have cited several biblical passages and provided context for Peter being the leader of the Church. I have also cited historical evidence from early Church fathers like Irenaeus of Lyon (189 AD) -

Against Heresies 3:3:2 - that all churches must agree with the Church of Rome, "over which Peter and his papal successors preside."

Several protestant scholars, such as, W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann, they write, "To deny the preeminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from the preeminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would've been a far less consequence."

This is not "human hubris". It is what we believe Christ, himself, established.

Finally, I just rhetorically as you, does your church have a leader? I'm sure it does. Whether your congregation has 20 people or 2000 families, it has to have a leader.

My church, St. Jerome's in Waco has about 1000-1400 family registered (not saying that they all attend.) We have one leader, our priest, Fr. James. He reports to the Bishop (Daniel Garcia) of Austin, who reports to the Bishop of Rome (Pope Leo.) Someone has to lead 1.2 billion Catholics.

All organizations have to have a leader. It's how things get done. It's in our human nature.

We simply believe that Christ left someone in charge to lead and grow his Church. You disagree. Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So, you're saying that the high priest Caiphus was the infallible intepreter of Scripture for the Jews?

---

You are creating another one of your strawman posts again.

Where did I say that Caiphus was an infallible interpreter?

I stated -

"The authority was given to Moses from God and continued through the priests and prophets of ancient Israel."

In Biblical typology, the New is ALWAYS superior to the Old. If Moses and some priests and prophets had authority given to them by God, it stands to reason that Peter and his successors would also have that same authority.

---

So you're admitting here that you dodged my question? My question was "What was the infallible interpretive authority for the Jews for their Scripture (Tanakh) during their entire history before Jesus?"

Steering you back to the point that you're obviously dodging is not a "straw man".

So, what's your answer to the question now, now that you're conceding that the priests were NOT the infallible interpreters of Scripture for the Jews? Who was their infallible interpreter?

---

It's obvious that Roman Catholics can't answer this question. Because there was NO infallible interpretive "office" for the Jewish people with regard to their Scriptures.

The question then becomes: why, then, do you Roman Catholics believe one must exist for the church?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It's obvious that Roman Catholics can't answer this question. Because there was NO infallible interpretive "office" for the Jewish people with regard to their Scriptures.

The question then becomes: why, then, do you Roman Catholics believe one must exist for the church?

---

In Biblical typology, the New is always superior to the Old.

We didn't have infallible interpreter in the prior to Jesus, I can only assume, because we had NO infallible person prior to Jesus.

Jesus established the Catholic Church and it's teaching authority is protected by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals.

Is the bible the pillar and foundation of truth?

Coke Bear: " In Biblical typology, the New is always superior to the Old."


You never supported that, you just keep repeating it as if that makes it true.

I have already demonstrated how that notion falls apart when applied to Church History.

Going back to your comments regarding Peter, you quoted Christ telling Peter this:

"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."

Note first that Jesus is speaking to Peter, but not as their leader, but as one in particular need (Jesus knowing Peter would deny Christ three times). Note also that Peter is asked to strengthen his brothers 'after you have turned back', so this is not Peter leading the disciples but merely the first man rescued from drowning helping the ones also in peril.

Finally, notice Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his brothers. Not his congregation nor people in his charge, but his equals.

This is not Jesus making Peter tops of the team. This is Jesus speaking to Peter about a trial he must face.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It's obvious that Roman Catholics can't answer this question. Because there was NO infallible interpretive "office" for the Jewish people with regard to their Scriptures.

The question then becomes: why, then, do you Roman Catholics believe one must exist for the church?

---

In Biblical typology, the New is always superior to the Old.

We didn't have infallible interpreter in the prior to Jesus, I can only assume, because we had NO infallible person prior to Jesus.

Jesus established the Catholic Church and it's teaching authority is protected by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals.

Is the bible the pillar and foundation of truth?

---

And on what basis is this teaching authority of the church infallible? What or who is this infallible teaching office comprised of? Does this square with failings of the church clearly evident in Scripture?

Bracing for the non sequiturs....

" Someone has to be the arbiter of Truth when dealing with faith and morals. "

Yes, that is one reason why we have Scripture.

Picking one human to tell everyone else what to do ends at Christ. Every other human fails at this kind of thing, especially those led to believe they are better than their brothers.

God is the arbiter of truth and the Bible is His Word. The Church, The Pope, all others bow to Scripture. God inspiredall pf Scriptire via the Holy Ghost. It was meant to be taken literally unless it specifies otherwise. When God says the sky is blue, Je doesn't mean that it's orange. We will be held acvountable for what it actually says, not by some.reinterpretation meant to change the actual meaning to fit a fakse doctrine.
.

Please take the time to read his first post if you haven't yet

I hope you all had a great weekend

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear: " In Biblical typology, the New is always superior to the Old."


You never supported that, you just keep repeating it as if that makes it true.

I have already demonstrated how that notion falls apart when applied to Church History.

---

I'm not sure what "support" that you require.

Biblical typology is not a Catholic-only belief. It is understood and accepted by many other Christians, including Calvinists and many other protestants.

It is clear that the new types are superior to the old.

• St Paul states that Christ is the "last Adam" in 1 Cor. 15:45.
• 1 Peter 3:20-21 says that Noah's Ark foreshadowed something greater: our salvation through baptism.
• Jonah's three days in the whale's belly prefigure Christ's three days in the tomb.
• Melchizedek's offering of bread and wine prefigures the Eucharist Gen. 14:17-20.
• St. Paul calls Adam a "type" of Christ in Rom 5:14
• In Hebrews 10:1, the author says that the Old Testament events are not mere history but shadows of the "good things to come"

Of course, we could discuss dozens of other examples.

My notion does fall apart here with respect to Church history. We are speaking of Biblical Typology. Not history.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Going back to your comments regarding Peter, you quoted Christ telling Peter this:

"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."

Note first that Jesus is speaking to Peter, but not as their leader, but as one in particular need (Jesus knowing Peter would deny Christ three times). Note also that Peter is asked to strengthen his brothers 'after you have turned back', so this is not Peter leading the disciples but merely the first man rescued from drowning helping the ones also in peril.

Finally, notice Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his brothers. Not his congregation nor people in his charge, but his equals.

This is not Jesus making Peter tops of the team. This is Jesus speaking to Peter about a trial he must face.

---

We'll have to disagree about this one. This passage can be reconciled with the "Both/And" theory.

You have stated that this isn't " leading the disciples but merely the first man rescued from drowning helping the ones also in peril." Where was there "peril"? Also isn't that what a leader does?

St Ambrose on his Commentary on Luke interprets the "sifting" (Luke 22:31) as a test allowed by God. He famously notes that "The devil tempts that he may ruin; God tests that He may crown". We give crowns to rulers.

St Augustine had similar thoughts on this specific passage as well.

Finally, this isn't the only other passage that Jesus calling Peter. He does it again during their encounter at charcoal fire when he charges Peter with feeding and tending his sheep and lambs. That's his charge to lead the others.

An important point during this passage is the fact that the heavy net (153 fish representing all the nations) was pulled ashore by Peter all by his self when all of the others struggled to even get it close to the shore.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And on what basis is this teaching authority of the church infallible?

---

Of course, it has its foundations when Jesus said that His Church would not fail in Matthew 16:18-19. But more to your point, the infallibility of the church's teaching authority is based on Jesus's promise to his apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth (John 16:13).

"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come."

Also Christ commissions them to teach all nations ensuring them that he would be with them always Matthew 28:19-20 in the Great Commission.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What or who is this infallible teaching office comprised of?

---

The infallible teaching authority is knows as the Magisterium. It is comprised of the Pope and the bishops united to him.

It is exercised in two ways

Papel Infallibility when the Pope, as the successor of St Peter and the Vicar of Christ, proclaims a doctrine of that or moral ex cathedra.
Ecumenical Councils when the bishops of the world (in communion with the Pope) gather in ecumenical councils and definitively proclaim a doctrine of faith or morals.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Does this square with failings of the church clearly evident in Scripture?

---

Please cite ONE specific "'failing' of the church clearly evident in Scripture" so that we can discuss that Also, please cite how a "failing" would negate the Church's teaching authority that Jesus gave to his Church.

Now, is the bible the pillar and foundation of truth?

You continue to conflate A leader with THE leader.

Oldbear83 said:

---

You continue to conflate A leader with THE leader.

---

Do you believe that Christ came to earth just to be a good teacher?

Jesus came to earth to proclaim the Gospel which the Good News of God's kingdom entering the world that saves God's people through the life, death, and resurrection of himself.

To do this, He established a Church. He didn't come to write a book. It was the Church that complied letters and scrolls (from the OT) into the Book.

Someone has to lead that Church or else it would fall into disarray. It didn't, because Jesus created a Church with Peter as the Rock, his foundational representative on earth. He promised that it wouldn't.

St Ignatius of Antioch says as much in 107 AD in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans

"Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church"

This demonstrates that as early as 107 AD, we had an early leadership structure in place.

Church's (all organizations) have to have a leader.

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Someone has to be the arbiter of Truth when dealing with faith and morals. "

Yes, that is one reason why we have Scripture.

Picking one human to tell everyone else what to do ends at Christ. Every other human fails at this kind of thing, especially those led to believe they are better than their brothers.

---

Who gets the final say in that interpreting the scripture? Your church? BTD17's made-up church? Mothra's church? It is a specific person in that church? Is it voted on by committee?

The Church doesn't necessarily claim that it is ONE person that gets to make all the decisions about scripture. That's why it's called the Magisterium.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And on what basis is this teaching authority of the church infallible?

---

Of course, it has its foundations when Jesus said that His Church would not fail in Matthew 16:18-19. But more to your point, the infallibility of the church's teaching authority is based on Jesus's promise to his apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth (John 16:13).

"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come."

Also Christ commissions them to teach all nations ensuring them that he would be with them always Matthew 28:19-20 in the Great Commission.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What or who is this infallible teaching office comprised of?

---

The infallible teaching authority is knows as the Magisterium. It is comprised of the Pope and the bishops united to him.

It is exercised in two ways

Papel Infallibility when the Pope, as the successor of St Peter and the Vicar of Christ, proclaims a doctrine of that or moral ex cathedra.
Ecumenical Councils when the bishops of the world (in communion with the Pope) gather in ecumenical councils and definitively proclaim a doctrine of faith or morals.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Does this square with failings of the church clearly evident in Scripture?

---

Please cite ONE specific "'failing' of the church clearly evident in Scripture" so that we can discuss that Also, please cite how a "failing" would negate the Church's teaching authority that Jesus gave to his Church.

Now, is the bible the pillar and foundation of truth?

---

- "the infallibility of the church's teaching authority is based on Jesus's promise to his apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth (John 16:13)". His apostles. Not perpetually in the church in the form of an infallible teaching office. In the Bible, the church always had to be corrected from error, and therefore must always go back to Scripture, the word of the apostles. You are making the argument for sola scriptura.

- the doctrine of papal infallibility is completely useless. Popes have made erroneous statements in their official decrees. If you say "well, they weren't speaking ex cathedra", then you're picking and choosing, demonstrating its uselessness.

- it's already been proven that your ecumenical councils were in error, with regard to both the canon and icon veneration.

- both Paul and Jesus had to severely rebuke the churches for their failings. If you don't know this already, you just don't know Scripture. In each of those situations, it was either an original apostle or Jesus himself giving the correction, NOT some church teaching office. No teaching office exists in Jesus' letters to the seven churches of Revelation. Jesus gave his direct word through a prophet (John) to each of the churches himself. Notice there was absolutely no pope also.

- Scripture says Jesus' church is the "pillar and foundation" of truth". This does NOT mean that it is infallible in its ways and never needs correction. Scripture is clear on that. Protestantism is that correction. And there is nothing in Scripture that supports the infallibility of the apostles' word being passed in succession to successors to the apostles, who then can create new truths that aren't in Scripture. Yet another in a long, long list of your non sequiturs.

Circular argument. 'Our team says we are right'

Matthew 16:23 still needs to be addressed. By your logic, if Peter the man is the Church meant by Jesus in verses 18-19, then Satan is somehow in charge of the Church moments later in verse 23.

The only sound interpretation is that Jesus was talking about faith in both places.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Circular argument. 'Our team says we are right'

Matthew 16:23 still needs to be addressed. By your logic, if Peter the man is the Church meant by Jesus in verses 18-19, then Satan is somehow in charge of the Church moments later in verse 23.

The only sound interpretation is that Jesus was talking about faith in both places.

---

Or that Peter wasn't literally Satan.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Someone has to be the arbiter of Truth when dealing with faith and morals. "

Yes, that is one reason why we have Scripture.

Picking one human to tell everyone else what to do ends at Christ. Every other human fails at this kind of thing, especially those led to believe they are better than their brothers.

---

Who gets the final say in that interpreting the scripture? Your church? BTD17's made-up church? Mothra's church? It is a specific person in that church? Is it voted on by committee?

The Church doesn't necessarily claim that it is ONE person that gets to make all the decisions about scripture. That's why it's called the Magisterium.

---

The problem is your claim to Papal infallibility.

You have, to your credit, admitted that Popes, like all men, are human and make mistakes. There have even been evil Popes, just as there are evil ministers and priests and deacons and so on. This does not, of course, condemn the congregations for human fallibility, but we also cannot take on someone's word that a Pope is infallible just because he holds the office.

Scripture can rightly be weighed by basic rules:

1. God does not contradict Himself.

2. Jesus' rule - if it were so, He would have told you

3. Scripture is a trustworthy way to test a man. The opposite is not so.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Circular argument. 'Our team says we are right'

Matthew 16:23 still needs to be addressed. By your logic, if Peter the man is the Church meant by Jesus in verses 18-19, then Satan is somehow in charge of the Church moments later in verse 23.

The only sound interpretation is that Jesus was talking about faith in both places.

---

Or that Peter wasn't literally Satan.

---

Just so. Peter was not personally Satan, he was rebuked because his faith failed. Neither is Peter personally the Church, he was praised because he spoke in obedience to faith.

Faith is the Church in this context, not any mortal man.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Circular argument. 'Our team says we are right'

Matthew 16:23 still needs to be addressed. By your logic, if Peter the man is the Church meant by Jesus in verses 18-19, then Satan is somehow in charge of the Church moments later in verse 23.

The only sound interpretation is that Jesus was talking about faith in both places.

---

Or that Peter wasn't literally Satan.

---

Just so. Peter was not personally Satan, he was rebuked because his faith failed. Neither is Peter personally the Church, he was praised because he spoke in obedience to faith.

Faith is the Church in this context, not any mortal man.

---

I've never heard anyone claim he was personally the Church. Only that he was the rock on which it was built.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Circular argument. 'Our team says we are right'

Matthew 16:23 still needs to be addressed. By your logic, if Peter the man is the Church meant by Jesus in verses 18-19, then Satan is somehow in charge of the Church moments later in verse 23.

The only sound interpretation is that Jesus was talking about faith in both places.

---

Or that Peter wasn't literally Satan.

---

Just so. Peter was not personally Satan, he was rebuked because his faith failed. Neither is Peter personally the Church, he was praised because he spoke in obedience to faith.

Faith is the Church in this context, not any mortal man.

---

I've never heard anyone claim he was personally the Church. Only that he was the rock on which it was built.

---

Same thing, Peter was not Satan, nor the foundation of the Church.

Kind of obvious if you pay attention.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Circular argument. 'Our team says we are right'

Matthew 16:23 still needs to be addressed. By your logic, if Peter the man is the Church meant by Jesus in verses 18-19, then Satan is somehow in charge of the Church moments later in verse 23.

The only sound interpretation is that Jesus was talking about faith in both places.

---

Or that Peter wasn't literally Satan.

---

Just so. Peter was not personally Satan, he was rebuked because his faith failed. Neither is Peter personally the Church, he was praised because he spoke in obedience to faith.

Faith is the Church in this context, not any mortal man.

---

I've never heard anyone claim he was personally the Church. Only that he was the rock on which it was built.

---

Same thing, Peter was not Satan, nor the foundation of the Church.

Kind of obvious if you pay attention.

---

A literal rock, no. Foundation of the Church, yes.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Circular argument. 'Our team says we are right'

Matthew 16:23 still needs to be addressed. By your logic, if Peter the man is the Church meant by Jesus in verses 18-19, then Satan is somehow in charge of the Church moments later in verse 23.

The only sound interpretation is that Jesus was talking about faith in both places.

---

Or that Peter wasn't literally Satan.

---

If the "rock" himself, the one upon which Jesus built his church was speaking for Satan at that moment, then this is THE clearest indicator that what Jesus had said just moments before, that "the gates of Hell shall not prevail" against his church, it did NOT mean that the church would be guided infallibly by whichever men was to folllow Peter in succession. Or any other apostle for that matter.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Circular argument. 'Our team says we are right'

Matthew 16:23 still needs to be addressed. By your logic, if Peter the man is the Church meant by Jesus in verses 18-19, then Satan is somehow in charge of the Church moments later in verse 23.

The only sound interpretation is that Jesus was talking about faith in both places.

---

Or that Peter wasn't literally Satan.

---

Just so. Peter was not personally Satan, he was rebuked because his faith failed. Neither is Peter personally the Church, he was praised because he spoke in obedience to faith.

Faith is the Church in this context, not any mortal man.

---

I've never heard anyone claim he was personally the Church. Only that he was the rock on which it was built.

---

Same thing, Peter was not Satan, nor the foundation of the Church.

Kind of obvious if you pay attention.

---

A literal rock, no. Foundation of the Church, yes.

---

Stubborn and wrong, you are.

Ignore all evidence in your way, you do.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Circular argument. 'Our team says we are right'

Matthew 16:23 still needs to be addressed. By your logic, if Peter the man is the Church meant by Jesus in verses 18-19, then Satan is somehow in charge of the Church moments later in verse 23.

The only sound interpretation is that Jesus was talking about faith in both places.

---

Or that Peter wasn't literally Satan.

---

Just so. Peter was not personally Satan, he was rebuked because his faith failed. Neither is Peter personally the Church, he was praised because he spoke in obedience to faith.

Faith is the Church in this context, not any mortal man.

---

I've never heard anyone claim he was personally the Church. Only that he was the rock on which it was built.

---

Same thing, Peter was not Satan, nor the foundation of the Church.

Kind of obvious if you pay attention.

---

A literal rock, no. Foundation of the Church, yes.

---

Peter means a rock, but Jesus IS the Rock, not Peter. On this Rock I will build my church is referring to Christ.