Guest racer Posted July 15, 2002 Share Posted July 15, 2002 astralis, I know I've asked this before, and maybe I missed your answer. But, can you quote from the NT Jesus, an apostle, or author "citing" or "quoting" from the Deuterocanonicals? If so, would you? :???: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest astralis Posted July 15, 2002 Share Posted July 15, 2002 I think that what we have here, is men such as Jude and Peter, who had authority, refered to Apocryphal books where they were correct and/or to provide illustrations for the arguments they were presenting. That does not necessarily imply that the Apocryphal books were, themselves, authoritative. How do you know and what are you basing it on? If the books were a part of Christianity for 1500 years before Reformists cut them out, why do you think Christians for 1500 years were wrong. The Apostles NEVER said they were not authoritative and even today some Jews still use the Apocrypha as authoritative. Why do you say they aren't authoritative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chazn Posted July 15, 2002 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 21 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/21/2002 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 15, 2002 I'm surprised that in the midst of all of your discussions no one ever presented Gal.2:11 ff to the table. "11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? "We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified." The context here, points to the fact that Peter, even after the resurrection and pentecost, where he was filled with the Holy Spirit, not only lacked the character that would be necessary to accompany infallibility but was, in his judgement, not infallable. <"You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?> I have neither the time nor inclination to get into the OT texts where attempts have been made to use them as proof texts for the support of this doctrine. Nevertheless the use of these texts for this purpose is really nothing more than a reflection of bad hermaneutics. Munari: I would agree with you that God superintended the writing of the 66 books of the protestant canon. But God certainly did not superintend your interpretation. And I respectfully oppose the RCCs interpretation as well. I recommend, as I have before, that you take a Berean approach to the scriptures and interpret it for yourself in the context out of which they were written, and without having any "leader" (Pope or otherwise) interpret it for you. As far as I am concerned the above text from Galatians says it all... Case Closed. Shoin Genicht. It's all over! Peter was not infallible. Nor were any of his alleged replacements. Again... a beautiful example of the violation of Paul's admonision to abstain from vain speculations, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest racer Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 Chazn, I'm surprised that in the midst of all of your discussions no one ever presented Gal.2:11 ff to the table. Hate to burst your bubble, but actually I did, under the heading of "Papal Infallibility" back on July 6, 2002: Paul rebuked Peter to his face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chazn Posted July 16, 2002 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 21 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/21/2002 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 16, 2002 <Hate to burst your bubble, but actually I did, under the heading of "Papal Infallibility" back on July 6, 2002:> Racer, Sorry about that but in light of the fact that I'm merely a recent sojourner to this web sight and saw no mention of the Galatians text anywhere in this thread, I alluded to it. I find it both sad and amusing that RCs attempt to explain away the obvious of this text. It is also interesting that they attempt to use more obscure texts (relative to this and other issues) in an effort to argue their case. To be honest, since all people tend to believe what they want to believe. The question is not "why do you interpret this text this way?" but "what is keeping you from interpreting the text correctly, and without a preset bias?" The issue ceases to be an intellectual issue but a heart issue. If you want to engage in "intellectual" bla bla :blush: go ahead. But I think that God has a preferable way of going about things. He said "If they do not receive your message then shake the dust off your feet." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest astralis Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 Racer, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest racer Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 astralis, I didn't see your quote and if I had I would have engaged you in debate, like you Chazn, for that quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest racer Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 Chazn, I didn't see your quote and if I had I would have engaged you in debate, like you Chazn, for that quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chazn Posted July 16, 2002 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 21 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/21/2002 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 16, 2002 Chazn, I didn't see your quote and if I had I would have engaged you in debate, like you Chazn, for that quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest astralis Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 Need I say more? Could you tell me who established this line of thought in regards to the Pope? What makes you think that character has to be tied to infallibility? Peter was evil before he converted. Jesus asked Him SEVERAL times if he loved Him. His actions were rubuked by Paul. Yet, Jesus gave him the keys to bind and loosen. This line of though in regards to the Pope started with Jesus. And if you can put yourself in the mind of a Catholic (this is a big if) then you will see that not even a bad pope can bring down His Church (remember that we believe it was founded by Jesus) for it will always be protected even from the Gates of hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts