BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

**Here's a question for you**: how did the Jews during the time before Jesus know which books were the words of God, and thus were Scripture? In other words, how did the Jewish people know that the book of Isaiah was the word of God?

---

That was a debate that was raged until a time around 200 AD. Many canons existed during that time. The Sadducees and Pharisees had different canons. The Jews in the Diaspora had a wider canon, and the Essenes had a different list of books too.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

** Second question**: who interpreted Isaiah 53 for the Jewish people, and did they interpret this as talking about Jesus?

---

I have no clue. I'm sure many Rabbis and different groups interpreted in many ways.

Jesus - I have no clue. I imagine those that converted to Christianity did. Those that remained Jews, didn't.

Good afternoon, Coke Bear;

I am sorry to see that my position causes you such anger. Surely you remember I said that I am compelled to respond to errors which could cause harm; it's concern for a brother which moves me, not the proud desire to have the last word.

That said, your starting comment:

" Are you hellbent on having the LAST word? Fine, this is my last response to you on this specific topic. Reply all you want after this."

does not convey the sense of a Christian speaking to another Christian. Jesus said 'come, let us reason', after all, not 'get your mad on and throw a rant'. I do not mean to embarrass you in pointing that comment out, but if you still feel a rising rage when reading my post, it may be better for you to wait and calm yourself before responding. That said, we were having a discussion and debate, and even if no one concedes, the exchange can be useful for Christians so long as we speak in humble respect for the topic and the message.

You continue to cite the same Scriptures as before, just as I do. Our difference is in interpretation, although it's important not to pretend something is said when it is not, nor to cut out passages which disrupt your opinion.

We can at least agree that Peter was a faithful follower of our Lord Jesus Christ, and he would want both of us to seek out the Holy Spirit in these matters.

Thank you and may your day be blessed.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

1) If you can refute my claim, then why do you keep avoiding my questions? Go ahead, let's hear your answer to my question about water baptism vs. the Eucharist for salvation.

---

Once again, that is not the purpose of this specific post. This one is to discover what you consider as sola scriptura.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

2) If you can't understand that Jesus saying that "everything must be fulfilled" in the Scripture is AFFIRMING the infallible truth of those Scriptures and that they are from God himself, then I can't help you there. This is another example of an intellectual impasse that hampers having worthwhile discussions with you. Frankly, it's quite puzzling, how you can't make the connection.

---

It is NOT saying that those are the ONLY scriptures that are infallible.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

3) Jesus affirmed the word of his apostles. Mark and Hebrews were written by those who were either apostles or who knew their teaching.

---

Where does the bible teach that? This is a tradition.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4) Tradition has been proven false many times on this thread, for example with regard to icon veneration. You're just not either intelligent or honest enough to realize it. Again, which makes for unworthwhile discussions.

---

Proven by whom, you? What is your authority? You completely misunderstand or misconstrue what icon veneration is. This is not the nature of this post. The tradition that I speak of is the Apostolic tradition that is the living deposit of faith that is handed on by Christ to the Apostles, transmitted through the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The apostles passed on tradition long before there was a bible.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

5) You're trying your best, but you're just not able to argue around this incontrovertible fact: today, all we have that came from the apostles is in Scripture and nowhere else. The councils did not have the "authority" to decide which books were authentic - that was an inherent trait of the works themselves, not something that was decreed by a council of men.

---

Another circular argument from you. No where does scripture say that Mark and Hebrews are scripture. The Church could have included Clement I, who is IN the bible and knew the apostles. It could have used the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), written by those that knew the apostles. The Church discerned what is scripture. Not the scripture itself.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

6) It's not a subset of Relativism. It doesn't meet the primary requirement to be relativism, e.g. there needs to be a rejection of an absolute standard of truth.

Regardless, the truth of sola scriptura does not depend on whether it can lead to agreed upon truth, but only that the only source of infallible truth comes from Scripture because it's God-breathed. Even the interpretation of your "Tradition" isn't even agreed upon (and it never was throughout the history of the councils), so ironically, what you're arguing about sola scriptura can be used to argue against Tradition as well.

---

I don't understand. I agree that the Bible is an infallible truth, but I don't understand how it's the ONLY infallible truth. Where does the Bible claim that it is the ONLY infallible source?

You and I can read the same passages and derive completely different beliefs from them. How do we determine what is true? If we can't determine what it true, then it is worthless because anyone can make up what they want using bible passages. Is this exactly what happened when those who defended slavery in England and the States prior to the Civil war?

---

You're just recycling the same arguments like a broken record, and they've all been answered. You are demonstrating that you have no intent on absorbing anything but what your church tells you to believe and say. And you've demonstrated that you can't even remember the answers.

I'm trying to get you to THINK for yourself instead of being a robot. But sadly, you desire the former.

Here's the only salient thing from your response: you dodged my question yet again. You keep saying you can "refute" my point, but you keep avoiding it. And we all know why.

So either "refute" my point, or stop wasting people's time by continually going in circles.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm not "making up" anything. You were asserting that there was no difference between "preeminent in importance and consequentiality" and "preeminence in rank or authority". There clearly is, and it's just not worth arguing with you if you can't understand this.

If you don't want to be criticized for intellectual shortcomings, then please try not to repeatedly argue using concepts you don't even understand and can't apply correctly, and repeatedly failing to understand simple reasoning like you did above.

---

I may have intellectual shortcomings, but your post introduced the word "consequentiality" into a post that wasn't addressed to you CLAIMING that the quote from protestants scholars meant something different.

Your post CHANGED the WORD to fit your meaning.

The exact quote was "preeminent position of Peter among the disciples".

It means, "holding the highest rank, status, or importance above all others in a particular field, profession, or context."

Protestant John MacAuthur says that the Greek (in Matt 10:2), "Protos, doesn't refer to the first in a list. It speaks of the chief, the leader of the group."

I'm glad that you feel that this isn't worth arguing about.

---

Here, your memory of what had been argued, only a few posts before, is already being skewed in real time. Read my response again and again if you have to, to realize your mistake.

You can't even understand that the definition of "preeminent" isn't what's at issue, but rather the KIND of preeminence. Let me give you a hint - do you see that word "OR" in your definition? Let me focus you even further, as you may need the help - "highest rank.....OR importance".

Here's the definition from Bing: "surpassing all others; very distinguished in some way".

"Preeminence" is NOT exclusively in regards to "rank" or "authority". Stop looking at everything through your
Catholic lens.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

**Here's a question for you**: how did the Jews during the time before Jesus know which books were the words of God, and thus were Scripture? In other words, how did the Jewish people know that the book of Isaiah was the word of God?

---

That was a debate that was raged until a time around 200 AD. Many canons existed during that time. The Sadducees and Pharisees had different canons. The Jews in the Diaspora had a wider canon, and the Essenes had a different list of books too.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

** Second question**: who interpreted Isaiah 53 for the Jewish people, and did they interpret this as talking about Jesus?

---

I have no clue. I'm sure many Rabbis and different groups interpreted in many ways.

Jesus - I have no clue. I imagine those that converted to Christianity did. Those that remained Jews, didn't.

---

If you have no clue, then isn't it possible that the Israelites DID NOT have an infallible office to determine what was Scripture, and what wasn't?

And to focus the second question even further: did the ruling authority of the Jews interpret that Jesus was the fulfillment of Isaiah 53? Have they ever, even until today? Let me save you from all your hedging and dodging with your "I don't knows" - the answer is definitive and obvious, so if you can't answer this, you're dishonest.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm not "making up" anything. You were asserting that there was no difference between "preeminent in importance and consequentiality" and "preeminence in rank or authority". There clearly is, and it's just not worth arguing with you if you can't understand this.

If you don't want to be criticized for intellectual shortcomings, then please try not to repeatedly argue using concepts you don't even understand and can't apply correctly, and repeatedly failing to understand simple reasoning like you did above.

---

I may have intellectual shortcomings, but your post introduced the word "consequentiality" into a post that wasn't addressed to you CLAIMING that the quote from protestants scholars meant something different.

---

Read the quote from the authors that you referenced, again:

"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."

The authors' conception of "preeminence" here is directly tied to Peter's consequentiality. That's why I used the word. "Consequentiality" does not have to result only from a positon of rank or formal authority.

I'm not going to keep doing this for you. You're gonna have to either wise up, or read and think more slowly before you type. This is what I mean by you hampering the discussion by having it be put on hold as we go on these time consuming diversions to correct your basic logical, comprehension, and thinking errors.

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

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm not "making up" anything. You were asserting that there was no difference between "preeminent in importance and consequentiality" and "preeminence in rank or authority". There clearly is, and it's just not worth arguing with you if you can't understand this.

If you don't want to be criticized for intellectual shortcomings, then please try not to repeatedly argue using concepts you don't even understand and can't apply correctly, and repeatedly failing to understand simple reasoning like you did above.

---

I may have intellectual shortcomings, but your post introduced the word "consequentiality" into a post that wasn't addressed to you CLAIMING that the quote from protestants scholars meant something different.

Your post CHANGED the WORD to fit your meaning.

The exact quote was "preeminent position of Peter among the disciples".

It means, "holding the highest rank, status, or importance above all others in a particular field, profession, or context."

Protestant John MacAuthur says that the Greek (in Matt 10:2), "Protos, doesn't refer to the first in a list. It speaks of the chief, the leader of the group."

I'm glad that you feel that this isn't worth arguing about.

---

Here, your memory of what had been argued, only a few posts before, is already being skewed in real time. Read my response again and again if you have to, to realize your mistake.

You can't even understand that the definition of "preeminent" isn't what's at issue, but rather the KIND of preeminence. Let me give you a hint - do you see that word "OR" in your definition? Let me focus you even further, as you may need the help - "highest rank.....OR importance".

Here's the definition from Bing: "surpassing all others; very distinguished in some way".

"Preeminence" is NOT exclusively in regards to "rank" or "authority". Stop looking at everything through your
Catholic lens.

---

So, would it be fair that you are looking that this quote through a protestant lens when stating that it is NOT concerning authority or rank?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If you have no clue, then isn't it possible that the Israelites DID NOT have an infallible office to determine what was Scripture, and what wasn't?

And to focus the second question even further: did the ruling authority of the Jews interpret that Jesus was the fulfillment of Isaiah 53? Have they ever, even until today? Let me save you from all your hedging and dodging with your "I don't knows" - the answer is definitive and obvious, so if you can't answer this, you're dishonest.

---

God didn't give the Jews an infallible authority.

Jesus gave that infallible authority to His Church. The Catholic Church.

It's demonstrated in scripture:

• John 16:13 - "When he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you all."
• 1 Tim 3:15 - The church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."

Jesus was clear about Church Authority -

• Luke 10:16 - "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me. "

What happened to the Jews without infallible authority? We had significant fragmentation of the Jews. We had the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and the Zealots ALL read the same torah and reached radically different conclusions.

The same thing has happened in protestantism. Without an infallible authority, we have dozens, if not hundreds, of denominations that all believe something different.

Anyone can start a new non-dom church and believe whatever they want. Who's to tell them that they are wrong?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You're just recycling the same arguments like a broken record, and they've all been answered. You are demonstrating that you have no intent on absorbing anything but what your church tells you to believe and say. And you've demonstrated that you can't even remember the answers.

I'm trying to get you to THINK for yourself instead of being a robot. But sadly, you desire the former.

Here's the only salient thing from your response: you dodged my question yet again. You keep saying you can "refute" my point, but you keep avoiding it. And we all know why.

So either "refute" my point, or stop wasting people's time by continually going in circles.

---

The topic at hand is your version of sola scriptura.

I'm trying to understand it. I'm asking you questions to better understand your version.

I sincerely don't understand why your version of sola scriptura has efficacy when people derive two completely divergent thoughts from the same passage.

My questions are:
How does your version square different beliefs of the same passage?
Where does scriptura make the claim that it is the ONLY infallible source?

I had to ask five times before you provided your version. Hopefully, you will answer these questions after this, the second time.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm not "making up" anything. You were asserting that there was no difference between "preeminent in importance and consequentiality" and "preeminence in rank or authority". There clearly is, and it's just not worth arguing with you if you can't understand this.

If you don't want to be criticized for intellectual shortcomings, then please try not to repeatedly argue using concepts you don't even understand and can't apply correctly, and repeatedly failing to understand simple reasoning like you did above.

---

I may have intellectual shortcomings, but your post introduced the word "consequentiality" into a post that wasn't addressed to you CLAIMING that the quote from protestants scholars meant something different.

---

Read the quote from the authors that you referenced, again:

"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."

The authors' conception of "preeminence" here is directly tied to Peter's consequentiality. That's why I used the word. "Consequentiality" does not have to result only from a positon of rank or formal authority.

I'm not going to keep doing this for you. You're gonna have to either wise up, or read and think more slowly before you type. This is what I mean by you hampering the discussion by having it be put on hold as we go on these time consuming diversions to correct your basic logical, comprehension, and thinking errors.

---

I believe that you are trying too hard to link consequence to preeminence. That's not what the author is saying.

Consequence is linked to the impact of identifying Peter's "behavior" (failures), not his preeminence.

You even italicized the last sentence which explains the whole point.

Read the last sentence independently -

Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would've been a far less consequence."

Because Peter WAS/IS a person of preeminence (authority or rank or importance), his behaviors were of more consequence.

Again, why are you so focused on a quote that I addressed in a post that I addressed to someone else?

You didn't reference the John MacArthur quote that I listed, but that really doesn't matter.

Like you said, there's no point in you wasting your time on " time consuming diversions to correct my basic logical, comprehension, and thinking errors."

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm not "making up" anything. You were asserting that there was no difference between "preeminent in importance and consequentiality" and "preeminence in rank or authority". There clearly is, and it's just not worth arguing with you if you can't understand this.

If you don't want to be criticized for intellectual shortcomings, then please try not to repeatedly argue using concepts you don't even understand and can't apply correctly, and repeatedly failing to understand simple reasoning like you did above.

---

I may have intellectual shortcomings, but your post introduced the word "consequentiality" into a post that wasn't addressed to you CLAIMING that the quote from protestants scholars meant something different.

Your post CHANGED the WORD to fit your meaning.

The exact quote was "preeminent position of Peter among the disciples".

It means, "holding the highest rank, status, or importance above all others in a particular field, profession, or context."

Protestant John MacAuthur says that the Greek (in Matt 10:2), "Protos, doesn't refer to the first in a list. It speaks of the chief, the leader of the group."

I'm glad that you feel that this isn't worth arguing about.

---

Here, your memory of what had been argued, only a few posts before, is already being skewed in real time. Read my response again and again if you have to, to realize your mistake.

You can't even understand that the definition of "preeminent" isn't what's at issue, but rather the KIND of preeminence. Let me give you a hint - do you see that word "OR" in your definition? Let me focus you even further, as you may need the help - "highest rank.....OR importance".

Here's the definition from Bing: "surpassing all others; very distinguished in some way".

"Preeminence" is NOT exclusively in regards to "rank" or "authority". Stop looking at everything through your
Catholic lens.

---

So, would it be fair that you are looking that this quote through a protestant lens when stating that it is NOT concerning authority or rank?

---

I didn't say that "preeminence" did NOT concern authority or rank. I said that it didn't HAVE TO. You are the one who was saying it DID have to. Because it's how you're forcing the Roman Catholic conclusion from what those authors stated. You're the only one with a lens here. Again, this is another example of you trying to debate every little issue or utterance and diverting from the main point, and doing so with a flawed understanding of what was even argued. And it wastes everyone's time having to constantly correct your errors.

If by "protestant lens" however, you mean looking at it through facts, logical reasoning, accurate church history, and Scripture, then yes, I am looking at it through that lens. Peter's "preeminence" as supreme leader over the Christian church is just not something that's supported in Scripture or history. It doesn't play out that way in the New Testament church, and it is devoid of substantive historical evidence.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If you have no clue, then isn't it possible that the Israelites DID NOT have an infallible office to determine what was Scripture, and what wasn't?

And to focus the second question even further: did the ruling authority of the Jews interpret that Jesus was the fulfillment of Isaiah 53? Have they ever, even until today? Let me save you from all your hedging and dodging with your "I don't knows" - the answer is definitive and obvious, so if you can't answer this, you're dishonest.

---

God didn't give the Jews an infallible authority.

Jesus gave that infallible authority to His Church. The Catholic Church.

It's demonstrated in scripture:

• John 16:13 - "When he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you all."
• 1 Tim 3:15 - The church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."

Jesus was clear about Church Authority -

• Luke 10:16 - "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me. "

What happened to the Jews without infallible authority? We had significant fragmentation of the Jews. We had the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and the Zealots ALL read the same torah and reached radically different conclusions.

The same thing has happened in protestantism. Without an infallible authority, we have dozens, if not hundreds, of denominations that all believe something different.

Anyone can start a new non-dom church and believe whatever they want. Who's to tell them that they are wrong?

---

This shows you really don't understand Scripture. Jesus was talking to the disciples in John 16:13, not the whole church. It's plainly obvious from Scripture that the church was NOT without significant error, as Paul's letters and Jesus' letters to the seven churches clearly reveal. And from whom did those churches receive their correction? The pope? No. From Paul, and from Jesus themselves.

If the Jews didn't have an infallible authority to decide what is Scripture, then how did they get it right, according to Jesus himself? Therefore, you've defeated your own argument that an infallible authority is necessary to decide Scripture. Read that again and again, if you have to. Because I'm sure you're logic will fail you in understanding this as it has all others.

"Whoever listens to you, listens to me...." - yes, HIS APOSTLES. And the only thing we have that today that we know is from the apostles, is in Scripture and nowhere else. Thank you, you've made the argument for sola scriptura.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You're just recycling the same arguments like a broken record, and they've all been answered. You are demonstrating that you have no intent on absorbing anything but what your church tells you to believe and say. And you've demonstrated that you can't even remember the answers.

I'm trying to get you to THINK for yourself instead of being a robot. But sadly, you desire the former.

Here's the only salient thing from your response: you dodged my question yet again. You keep saying you can "refute" my point, but you keep avoiding it. And we all know why.

So either "refute" my point, or stop wasting people's time by continually going in circles.

---

The topic at hand is your version of sola scriptura.

I'm trying to understand it. I'm asking you questions to better understand your version.

I sincerely don't understand why your version of sola scriptura has efficacy when people derive two completely divergent thoughts from the same passage.

My questions are:
How does your version square different beliefs of the same passage?
Where does scriptura make the claim that it is the ONLY infallible source?

I had to ask five times before you provided your version. Hopefully, you will answer these questions after this, the second time.

---

See, THIS is why I said you have intellectual shortcomings and pure dishonesty. I showed the forum where I HAD ALREADY GIVEN YOU the definition of sola scriptura before, and where YOU DIRECTLY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT I HAD, straight from your mouth. And now you're carrying around the lie that you had to repeatedly ask me before I gave it. You are so full of it.

Have some humility over your mistakes, and stop lying to save face.

You're asking the same questions, over and over, like a broken record. I've told you many times already that scripture does NOT have to claim it is the only infallible authority. It is the only infallible authority by its own nature, being God-breathed. And I've already told you that sola scriptura does not have to "square" people's different interpretations. That has NOTHING to do with the truth of the concept. And you continually fail to acknowledge that your own Catholic tradition is based on councils where there were many, even passionate disagreements over the interpretation of their own tradition! Even today, there isn't agreement in your church over its Tradition! The same argument you're trying to make against sola scriptura is fully applicable to your church. What's sad is you can't process all this, and you'll probably repeat the same things again down the road.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm not "making up" anything. You were asserting that there was no difference between "preeminent in importance and consequentiality" and "preeminence in rank or authority". There clearly is, and it's just not worth arguing with you if you can't understand this.

If you don't want to be criticized for intellectual shortcomings, then please try not to repeatedly argue using concepts you don't even understand and can't apply correctly, and repeatedly failing to understand simple reasoning like you did above.

---

I may have intellectual shortcomings, but your post introduced the word "consequentiality" into a post that wasn't addressed to you CLAIMING that the quote from protestants scholars meant something different.

---

Read the quote from the authors that you referenced, again:

"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."

The authors' conception of "preeminence" here is directly tied to Peter's consequentiality. That's why I used the word. "Consequentiality" does not have to result only from a positon of rank or formal authority.

I'm not going to keep doing this for you. You're gonna have to either wise up, or read and think more slowly before you type. This is what I mean by you hampering the discussion by having it be put on hold as we go on these time consuming diversions to correct your basic logical, comprehension, and thinking errors.

---

I believe that you are trying too hard to link consequence to preeminence. That's not what the author is saying.

Consequence is linked to the impact of identifying Peter's "behavior" (failures), not his preeminence.

You even italicized the last sentence which explains the whole point.

Read the last sentence independently -

Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would've been a far less consequence."

Because Peter WAS/IS a person of preeminence (authority or rank or importance), his behaviors were of more consequence.

Again, why are you so focused on a quote that I addressed in a post that I addressed to someone else?

You didn't reference the John MacArthur quote that I listed, but that really doesn't matter.

Like you said, there's no point in you wasting your time on " time consuming diversions to correct my basic logical, comprehension, and thinking errors."

---

Your are trying too hard to to de-link consequence and preeminence..... when the authors you quoted DID EXACTLY THAT (they linked them). You are just unable to properly comprehend and process what was said.

You: "Consequence is linked to the impact of identifying Peter's "behavior" (failures), not his preeminence." -- his failures were impactful and thus consequential, BECAUSE OF his preeminence. Read the first part of the author's last sentence - "If he had been a LESSER FIGURE...." They're saying that if Peter had been a nobody, his failure would not have mattered. Goodness sakes.

Good GRIEF, is this what you're going to keep doing? And you wonder why I say you have intellectual shortcomings that are hampering the discussion? Does the entire thread need to be put on hold on go on these diversions in order to explain all the mistakes in thinking you're making, which is seemingly on every single point?

God help us.

Have a blessed Lazarus Saturday and Palm Sunday. The one man in history to have two graves.

Have a great weekend everyone. Attend Easter Sunday Service.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

1) If you can refute my claim, then why do you keep avoiding my questions? Go ahead, let's hear your answer to my question about water baptism vs. the Eucharist for salvation.

---

Once again, that is not the purpose of this specific post. This one is to discover what you consider as sola scriptura.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

2) If you can't understand that Jesus saying that "everything must be fulfilled" in the Scripture is AFFIRMING the infallible truth of those Scriptures and that they are from God himself, then I can't help you there. This is another example of an intellectual impasse that hampers having worthwhile discussions with you. Frankly, it's quite puzzling, how you can't make the connection.

---

It is NOT saying that those are the ONLY scriptures that are infallible.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

3) Jesus affirmed the word of his apostles. Mark and Hebrews were written by those who were either apostles or who knew their teaching.

---

Where does the bible teach that? This is a tradition.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4) Tradition has been proven false many times on this thread, for example with regard to icon veneration. You're just not either intelligent or honest enough to realize it. Again, which makes for unworthwhile discussions.

---

Proven by whom, you? What is your authority? You completely misunderstand or misconstrue what icon veneration is. This is not the nature of this post. The tradition that I speak of is the Apostolic tradition that is the living deposit of faith that is handed on by Christ to the Apostles, transmitted through the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The apostles passed on tradition long before there was a bible.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

5) You're trying your best, but you're just not able to argue around this incontrovertible fact: today, all we have that came from the apostles is in Scripture and nowhere else. The councils did not have the "authority" to decide which books were authentic - that was an inherent trait of the works themselves, not something that was decreed by a council of men.

---

Another circular argument from you. No where does scripture say that Mark and Hebrews are scripture. The Church could have included Clement I, who is IN the bible and knew the apostles. It could have used the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), written by those that knew the apostles. The Church discerned what is scripture. Not the scripture itself.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

6) It's not a subset of Relativism. It doesn't meet the primary requirement to be relativism, e.g. there needs to be a rejection of an absolute standard of truth.

Regardless, the truth of sola scriptura does not depend on whether it can lead to agreed upon truth, but only that the only source of infallible truth comes from Scripture because it's God-breathed. Even the interpretation of your "Tradition" isn't even agreed upon (and it never was throughout the history of the councils), so ironically, what you're arguing about sola scriptura can be used to argue against Tradition as well.

---

I don't understand. I agree that the Bible is an infallible truth, but I don't understand how it's the ONLY infallible truth. Where does the Bible claim that it is the ONLY infallible source?

You and I can read the same passages and derive completely different beliefs from them. How do we determine what is true? If we can't determine what it true, then it is worthless because anyone can make up what they want using bible passages. Is this exactly what happened when those who defended slavery in England and the States prior to the Civil war?

---

You're just recycling the same arguments like a broken record, and they've all been answered. You are demonstrating that you have no intent on absorbing anything but what your church tells you to believe and say. And you've demonstrated that you can't even remember the answers.

I'm trying to get you to THINK for yourself instead of being a robot. But sadly, you desire the former.

Here's the only salient thing from your response: you dodged my question yet again. You keep saying you can "refute" my point, but you keep avoiding it. And we all know why.

So either "refute" my point, or stop wasting people's time by continually going in circles.

---

The resident Pharisee-in-Chief is the master of begging the question. Plus ca change …

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The "preeminent position" of Peter, as cited by those authors, does not necessarily have to mean preeminent authority. It could merely be referring to his preeminent importance. In fact, that seems to be exactly what they are saying in that quote - that Peter was the most consequential, not that he had a higher rank.

---

This sounds like another distinction without a difference" fallacy.

---

There's a significant difference between being consequential and having authority.

This is yet another example of your intellectual shortcomings that really hamper discussions.

---

Grace wins..

Plant seeds..

All things according to His will and timing

---

The enemy sows seeds of his own. His seeds need to be broken so as not to choke out the seeds of grace.

---

It's clear that you continue your seed planting for the Father of Lies. Well done thou good and faithful servant.

Tomorrow is Easter. Find a good Bible Believing Church and attend.

HE IS RISEN INDEED!!!

Colossians 1:12-17 KJV
[12] giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: [13] who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: [14] in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: [15] Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: [16] for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: [17] and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I didn't say that "preeminence" did NOT concern authority or rank. I said that it didn't HAVE TO. You are the one who was saying it DID have to. Because it's how you're forcing the Roman Catholic conclusion from what those authors stated. You're the only one with a lens here. Again, this is another example of you trying to debate every little issue or utterance and diverting from the main point, and doing so with a flawed understanding of what was even argued. And it wastes everyone's time having to constantly correct your errors.

---

This is hilarious! Can you not see the irony in your post? I'm NOT trying to debate EVERY little issue.

YOU JUMPED into a post that was NOT addressed to YOU.

It's clear what the protestant authors meant - that Peter was in charge.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If by "protestant lens" however, you mean looking at it through facts, logical reasoning, accurate church history, and Scripture, then yes, I am looking at it through that lens. Peter's "preeminence" as supreme leader over the Christian church is just not something that's supported in Scripture or history. It doesn't play out that way in the New Testament church, and it is devoid of substantive historical evidence.

---

I have looked at history. I see a Church founded by Jesus that was led by Peter and his successors. You refuse to accept that history of this reality. The Church didn't magically pop into existence in 325AD.

Feel free to have the last word on this thread. Don't worry about me "trying to debate every little issue" on this specific point. I won't respond to another comment on this topic.

" Peter was in charge"

Were that true, there would be verses where we either see Jesus clearly saying Peter was the boss, or at least verses in Acts and further on where the apostles referred to Peter as the boss.

Funny how silence is what we find, or worse, individual apostles acting with the authority of the Holy Spirit without direction from Peter.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I didn't say that "preeminence" did NOT concern authority or rank. I said that it didn't HAVE TO. You are the one who was saying it DID have to. Because it's how you're forcing the Roman Catholic conclusion from what those authors stated. You're the only one with a lens here. Again, this is another example of you trying to debate every little issue or utterance and diverting from the main point, and doing so with a flawed understanding of what was even argued. And it wastes everyone's time having to constantly correct your errors.

---

This is hilarious! Can you not see the irony in your post? I'm NOT trying to debate EVERY little issue.

YOU JUMPED into a post that was NOT addressed to YOU.

It's clear what the protestant authors meant - that Peter was in charge.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If by "protestant lens" however, you mean looking at it through facts, logical reasoning, accurate church history, and Scripture, then yes, I am looking at it through that lens. Peter's "preeminence" as supreme leader over the Christian church is just not something that's supported in Scripture or history. It doesn't play out that way in the New Testament church, and it is devoid of substantive historical evidence.

---

I have looked at history. I see a Church founded by Jesus that was led by Peter and his successors. You refuse to accept that history of this reality. The Church didn't magically pop into existence in 325AD.

Feel free to have the last word on this thread. Don't worry about me "trying to debate every little issue" on this specific point. I won't respond to another comment on this topic.

---

Do YOU understand that anyone can respond to any comment, even if it wasn't addressed to them??

How very odd, that you don't even know how this forum works. It just goes to prove that you do in fact have issues with basic perception, thinking, and understanding.

What's "hilarious" is your denial that you don't argue against every utterance. We have pages and pages in this thread and in others of you writing ridiculously long posts where you're responding to every sentence that was uttered, posts that I'm quite sure no one reads.

The quote you provided from those authors did NOT definitively say that Peter's "preeminence" was in regards to his authority, rank, or power. You're simply your presupposition into it. I argued the point, and you had no valid response.

Your "history" is being read the same way - through your Catholic lens of presuppositions. A perfect example of this is your view that if the office of the pope started centuries after Jesus, it means that the church "popped into existence" at that time, as if the church isn't the church without the pope and without Roman supremacy. This is just a ridiculously bad take. "Hilariously" bad, you might say.

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Peter was in charge"

Were that true, there would be verses where we either see Jesus clearly saying Peter was the boss, or at least verses in Acts and further on where the apostles referred to Peter as the boss.

Funny how silence is what we find, or worse, individual apostles acting with the authority of the Holy Spirit without direction from Peter.

---

Now hold on a minute there, don't you know the rules set by CokeBear?? You can't respond to a post that wasn't addressed to you personally!!

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You're asking the same questions, over and over, like a broken record. I've told you many times already that scripture does NOT have to claim it is the only infallible authority. It is the only infallible authority by its own nature, being God-breathed. And I've already told you that sola scriptura does not have to "square" people's different interpretations. That has NOTHING to do with the truth of the concept. And you continually fail to acknowledge that your own Catholic tradition is based on councils where there were many, even passionate disagreements over the interpretation of their own tradition! Even today, there isn't agreement in your church over its Tradition! The same argument you're trying to make against sola scriptura is fully applicable to your church. What's sad is you can't process all this, and you'll probably repeat the same things again down the road.

---

We both agree that scripture is infallible.

We just disagree that scripture is the ONLY infallible source.

You completely misunderstand tradition and the councils. Dogma never changes. Doctrine can develop yet never contradict. Disciplines can change.

Your version of sola scriptura is worthless. It's circular argument to claim by its own nature that it is the only infallible source. The Quran claims is the literal, uncreated word of Allah (God) revealed to Muhammad. By your standard, the Quran is also an infallible source.

Finally, scripture never tells us what scripture is or how to discern it. Scripture never tells us that Matthew or Hebrews is scripture.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If the Jews didn't have an infallible authority to decide what is Scripture, then how did they get it right, according to Jesus himself? Therefore, you've defeated your own argument that an infallible authority is necessary to decide Scripture. Read that again and again, if you have to. Because I'm sure you're logic will fail you in understanding this as it has all others.

---

Which Jews got it right? Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, or the Zealots? They all had different canons and VERY different interpretations of those canons.

This tells us nothing of the NT. Jesus wasn't around to affirm any of the books of the NT.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

This shows you really don't understand Scripture. Jesus was talking to the disciples in John 16:13, not the whole church. It's plainly obvious from Scripture that the church was NOT without significant error, as Paul's letters and Jesus' letters to the seven churches clearly reveal. And from whom did those churches receive their correction? The pope? No. From Paul, and from Jesus themselves.

"Whoever listens to you, listens to me...." - yes, HIS APOSTLES. And the only thing we have that today that we know is from the apostles, is in Scripture and nowhere else. Thank you, you've made the argument for sola scriptura.

---

Actually, you just made the case for apostolic succession. The apostles appointed successors as they passed away. We see the in Acts as Matthias replaced Judas.

Do you really think that Jesus just gave authority to the 12 and didn't intend for it to pass to others? That would negate what he said in Matt 16:18. Acts confirm that His Church did continue.

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Peter was in charge"

Were that true, there would be verses where we either see Jesus clearly saying Peter was the boss, or at least verses in Acts and further on where the apostles referred to Peter as the boss.

Funny how silence is what we find, or worse, individual apostles acting with the authority of the Holy Spirit without direction from Peter.

---

Well, well, here is at least something we seem to at least partially agree on.

Not having been in on the early stages of this thread, I recognize that I am open to being completely ignored, especially since a quick scan has already indicated much of what I say below. However, this is a subject that is been of some personal interest for some time so I wanted to at least state my take. I am not the "expert" some of you seem to be. However, your critiques of what I have said below could be an opportunity for me to gain a better understanding of this topic, especially the Catholic side, but hopefully both interpretations of this subject. Here we go:

Jesus never explicitly says that Peter will be "the head of His church."

Matthew 16:1819 Jesus tells Peter:
"You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church… I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven…"This is the closest Jesus ever comes to giving Peter a unique role.

But Jesus does not say:

• Peter is the "head" of the church.
• Peter will have authority over the other apostles.
• Peter will be the leader after His ascension.

Jesus Himself is the Head of the Church and the New Testament is very consistent:

• Christ is the head of the church (Ephesians 1:2223; 5:23; Colossians 1:18).
• No apostle is ever called the head.

Peter's Role in Acts: Peter clearly has a prominent role:

• Preaches at Pentecost (Acts 2)
• Performs early miracles (Acts 3)
• Speaks for the apostles (Acts 45)
• Opens the gospel to Gentiles (Acts 10)

But even in Acts:

• Leadership becomes shared (Acts 15 council)
• James (the Lord's brother) appears to lead the Jerusalem church
• Paul confronts Peter when he is wrong (Galatians 2)

So Peter's role appears to be more foundational, and not "head."

According to the Bible, Jesus gives Peter a special role in the early church, but He never calls Peter the head of the church. Scripture consistently teaches that Christ alone is the head, while the apostlesincluding Peterserve as foundational witnesses.

Thanks BUDOS, well said.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If the Jews didn't have an infallible authority to decide what is Scripture, then how did they get it right, according to Jesus himself? Therefore, you've defeated your own argument that an infallible authority is necessary to decide Scripture. Read that again and again, if you have to. Because I'm sure you're logic will fail you in understanding this as it has all others.

---

Which Jews got it right? Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, or the Zealots? They all had different canons and VERY different interpretations of those canons.

This tells us nothing of the NT. Jesus wasn't around to affirm any of the books of the NT.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

This shows you really don't understand Scripture. Jesus was talking to the disciples in John 16:13, not the whole church. It's plainly obvious from Scripture that the church was NOT without significant error, as Paul's letters and Jesus' letters to the seven churches clearly reveal. And from whom did those churches receive their correction? The pope? No. From Paul, and from Jesus themselves.

"Whoever listens to you, listens to me...." - yes, HIS APOSTLES. And the only thing we have that today that we know is from the apostles, is in Scripture and nowhere else. Thank you, you've made the argument for sola scriptura.

---

Actually, you just made the case for apostolic succession. The apostles appointed successors as they passed away. We see the in Acts as Matthias replaced Judas.

Do you really think that Jesus just gave authority to the 12 and didn't intend for it to pass to others? That would negate what he said in Matt 16:18. Acts confirm that His Church did continue.

---

You're just arguing in circles, repeating arguments already answered and defeated. Your arguments always are filled with terrible logic, complete non sequiturs and bad eisegesis. And sadly, you're not capable of basic logic and reasoning, or intellectually honesty, to even realize or acknowledge it. So obviously, there's nothing that can be said that will have an effect. I gave you a chance, but I just can't keep correcting your continual errors in thinking.

I hope you all had a great Resurrection Day!

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If the Jews didn't have an infallible authority to decide what is Scripture, then how did they get it right, according to Jesus himself? Therefore, you've defeated your own argument that an infallible authority is necessary to decide Scripture. Read that again and again, if you have to. Because I'm sure you're logic will fail you in understanding this as it has all others.

---

Which Jews got it right? Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, or the Zealots? They all had different canons and VERY different interpretations of those canons.

This tells us nothing of the NT. Jesus wasn't around to affirm any of the books of the NT.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

This shows you really don't understand Scripture. Jesus was talking to the disciples in John 16:13, not the whole church. It's plainly obvious from Scripture that the church was NOT without significant error, as Paul's letters and Jesus' letters to the seven churches clearly reveal. And from whom did those churches receive their correction? The pope? No. From Paul, and from Jesus themselves.

"Whoever listens to you, listens to me...." - yes, HIS APOSTLES. And the only thing we have that today that we know is from the apostles, is in Scripture and nowhere else. Thank you, you've made the argument for sola scriptura.

---

Actually, you just made the case for apostolic succession. The apostles appointed successors as they passed away. We see the in Acts as Matthias replaced Judas.

Do you really think that Jesus just gave authority to the 12 and didn't intend for it to pass to others? That would negate what he said in Matt 16:18. Acts confirm that His Church did continue.

---

You're just arguing in circles, repeating arguments already answered and defeated. Your arguments always are filled with terrible logic, complete non sequiturs and bad eisegesis. And sadly, you're not capable of basic logic and reasoning, or intellectually honesty, to even realize or acknowledge it. So obviously, there's nothing that can be said that will have an effect. I gave you a chance, but I just can't keep correcting your continual errors in thinking.

---

This describes you perfectly.

"People who constantly argue seek control and power over others. You cannot reason with them, so it's better to withdraw from an argument than try to prove them wrong." ~Nicola Davies

BUDOS said:

---

"People who constantly argue seek control and power over others. You cannot reason with them, so it's better to withdraw from an argument than try to prove them wrong." ~Nicola Davies

---

sounds like dust your sandals off and leave town..