BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
DallasBear9902 said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
DallasBear9902 said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
DallasBear9902 said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
FLBear5630 said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Coke Bear said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Coke Bear said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Coke Bear said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Please FOCUS. I didn't ask what YOU think the primary reading shows, I asked whether you agree that the belief that Peter was the "rock" was NOT a constant belief of the early church, given the historical evidence I just provided?
I believe 100% in the word of Jesus that Peter IS the rock that Christ established His Church, in light of your "evidence."
1) Jesus literally said it. The prima facie reading proves that. I go with Jesus here.
2) I've provided 1st & 2nd century evidence from Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus that the Church in Rome had primacy and a list of the original bishops of Rome from Peter forward.
3) I will also listen to the magisterium which has proclaimed this for nearly 2000 years. It has been practiced and believed for this entire period.
Finally, I do reject what a 20th/21st century scholar has claimed, especially when I have not read the greater context his statement was made.
I'll trust Jesus. He said so.
If you won't answer the question, don't you see you're only proving that I'm right?
Is there ONE Roman Catholic out there who will discuss this with me honestly? Please, just ONE??
That is a clear answer to your supposed question. If someone else doesn't think so, please let me know.
Question for you, when did you stop betting your wife?
No, it isn't an answer to my question. Good grief.
The lovely Marisa Tomei demonstrates it very well,
If ANY one (protestant or Catholic) feels that I did sufficiently answer the "question" with my beliefs, please let me know. I sincerely mean that.
Your question was phrased in the same vein as "when did you stop betting your wife?"
I don't know what question you have in mind, but the real question was this: given that the historical evidence shows that a majority of patristic writers did NOT view Peter as the "rock" of Matthew 16, then isn't it true that the view that Peter was the "rock" was NOT what the Catholic church "constantly" and "always" believed as the Roman Catholic Church claims?
If anyone feels that your answer, which was telling me that YOU personally believe Peter was the "rock", is an actual answer to that question, then they can please let me know, too. And then I can add them to the clueless list.
Is that list attached to your Keys?
By the way, you are so full of **** it is pathetic. You seem to get off on trying to undermine people's believes by throwing out cherrypicked infromation. Buy a Catechism it will explain every aspect of the Catholic faith. Here is a website in the Vatican. This is the Catholic Position which is correct, regardless of yoursadn Tammy Faye's thoughts
The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church
I guarentee YOU have not found anything new.
The Roman Catholic position is correct, because official Roman Catholic sources say so?
Unbelievable.
If that is unbelievable to you wait until you hear this one:
Sola Scriptura is correct because people say it is.
Too bad no one ever said that.
That is what YOU said. You said Sola Scriptura is reasoning based on theoretical deduction. A theoretical assumption based on deduction. Not based on empirical evidence or observation.
In other words, that it is true because you say it is.
You really aren't good at understanding words, ideas and concepts. A proper Catholic education would have helped you in this regard.
The empirical, observed evidence that sola scriptura is based on is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That put a stamp on his authority as being from God. He in turn, put his stamp of authority on his disciples: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." *Therefore*, the word of the original apostles is the direct, infallible word of God. *And since* all the church has in its possession that is the word of the original apostles is in Scripture, then the only thing that can serve as the infallible rule of faith is Scripture.
This is not a "theoretical deduction". It's quite revealing that you would call Jesus' resurrection a "theory". If this is what results from a "proper Catholic education", then thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll pass.
You struggle with words and ideas. Here is what you said on 5/23/25 at 2:57 central. You can find your own words and your own post (with my emphasis added).:
Quote:
Sola scriptura is an a priori, logical truth.
a priori: adj. relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience; adv; in a way based on theoretical deduction rather than empirical observation.
Even if you prefer a more church centric definition of apriori, here you go:
From what is before, that is, from cause to effect. Reasoning from principles to conclusions, or from prior knowledge to consequences; therefore deduction. A basic premise of Catholic morality in reducing general norms to specific practice.
So, in three posts about Sola Scriptura you go from (paraphrased for simplicity):
1. it is a [logical deduction].
2. Nobody ever said [it is a logical deduction].
3. It is is not a [logical deduction], but BTD is going to use (faulty) deductive logic to establish that it is true.
(Hint: when you use words like "therefore" & "and since" as in your post on 5/24/25 at 1:20 am central, you are using a crude form of deductive logic. You are using certain premises that are not explicitly revealed in the Bible to arrive to a conclusion. Your postings make it clear that you hate it when the Catholic Church does this, but here you find yourself. I have italicized and added asterisks to your usage for ease of reference in the quote above.)
Here is your misunderstanding: it is an a priori truth because it is based purely on this logic, simply stated:
- If quality A is in B;
- and B is the only thing we know for sure in existence that has quality A;
- then all things need to be measured against B for us to know if it has quality A
Let A = infallible, "God-breathed", direct word of God
Let B = Scripture
This is the logic I was referring to. It is pure logic, and does not proceed from observation or experience. It is true in of itself. However, you responded by saying that the "reasoning behind sola scriptura is BASED on theoretical deduction". That's saying something different, in my mind. The BASIS of the reasoning is in the truth of the first two premises. But because BOTH Protestants and Catholics already agree on it's truth (I documented this and starred it in another comment as the starting point for all my logic in ths discussion about sola scriptura) the premises are accepted as true, and the logical conclusion (sola scriptura) proceeding from it is a priori truth. However, the BASIS of the truth of sola scriptura comes from premises actually being true to begin with - which is not a priori truth but proceeds from actual, historical, observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus.
To put it simply, the reasoning behind sola scriptura, between us Protestants and Catholics, is a priori logic because we accept the truth of the premises. However, the BASIS of the reasoning behind sola scriptura is in the actual truth of the premises, which is based on historical truth (observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus).
Pedantic enough for ya? If that's where you wanna go, then I can accomodate. I knew it might be an issue to make logical statements when you Catholics forget that the agreed upon starting point is in the infallibility of Scripture, which is why I made the effort to document it.
You are flailing both in form and substance. It would be easier to admit that you should not have used the phrase a priori, but I don't think you are capable of that....Instead you choose to dig a deeper hole.
Form: By definition, an a priori, a logical deduction, is derivative of the premises and exists apart from the premises, otherwise it does not have to be deduced. Hence, sola scriptura, which you correctly maintain is an a priori, is already violating its very principle of sola scriptura.
Substance: the following premise is wrong:
Quote:
- and B is the only thing we know for sure in existence that has quality A;
Let A = infallible, "God-breathed", direct word of GodLet B = Scripture
The Gospel of John tells us that Jesus gave his disciples teachings and performed signs that are not recorded in and are outside of the Scriptures.* Others have also pointed out that Jesus in his teachings refers to oral traditions under the old covenants that are not recorded in Scripture. So we know for sure that there are in existence God-breathed, infallible teachings and miraculous revelations outside of the Scriptures.
We can also confidently take the position that Jesus almost certainly provided spiritual direction to people on a personal level in the course of his ministry and that spiritual direction was not recorded in the Scriptures. That is also a strong indicator that there are in existence infallible, God-breathed teachings outside of the Scripture.
Finally, every time a Christian (of any stripe) believes they have discerned and are acting accordance with God's will, especially after prayer, they are relying on private revelation outside of Scripture.
*You have backed yourself into a corner here, but strictly read, your logical framework implies two very troubling things:
First, your framework implies teachings and actions of the apostles in organizing the early Church before the Scriptures were written (let alone canonized) are in violation of sola scriptura since they were working without scriptures? There are three main gaps here: first, when Jesus sends the apostles out to the villages to spread the good news and heal the sick, they are, by definition relying on oral tradition of what Jesus has taught them. This is the "A gap". After the Ascension, the apostles go about building the Church and spreading the good news but the Scriptures were not yet finalized or fully completed at the time of the Ascension. Are you really suggesting that the Apostles were without the cover of Jesus and the Holy Spirit during this "B gap" since they did not have Scriptures to rely on? Finally, the Scriptures are not canonized for a few hundred years, after the Apostles died, what we'll label as the "C gap". Lots of important Church doctrines widely accepted throughout western Christianity are more fully or firmly developed throughout the C gap, in particular the understanding of the Triune God and of Jesus's nature as both fully divine and fully man. Out of respect, I won't presume your church adheres to the Nicene Creed, but you are implying some troubling things here.
Second, you are unintentionally implying that the teachings Jesus gave the disciples that are not recorded in the Bible would have no authoritative weight to a third-party if quoted by the disciples orally or if used by the apostles to influence the creation of the early Church. I doubt that is what you mean to suggest, but you are playing with fire here.
