Recent content by RedFan

No. I think Paul's gospel is largely (not entirely) consistent with that of the original apostles -- although he did not learn at their feet. But even if the two "traditions" largely coalesce, it does not follow that the "tradition" referenced in Second Thessalonians is the "apostolic" one...

I see 2 Thess. 3:6 as indicating that the traditions Paul had in mind in this letter were those taught BY PAUL and those he brought to Thessalonika with him (Silas, Timothy). Why MUST it be the apostles' tradition instead?

You too. How do we know whether Paul is speaking of apostolic traditions here, or his own?

You're gonna have to show me that one. WHERE?

Has the voice of God ever told you anything about who wrote or didn't write any of the books of the NT? If so, please share your insight.

Wow. I don't know of any serious scholars who think the apostle Peter wrote 2 Peter. Do you?

No, and no, and no. I am saying that the "gates" of hell are entry points and defensive barricades, and they "prevail" against an attacker only by keeping it out. Hell is the attackee in Jesus's comment, not the attacker.

I wonder if we can all agree that the assault on the "gates of hell" has yet to be mounted. The prophecy that those gate will not withstand the Church's assault (not the Church repelling Satan, but Satan's gates being unable to repel the Church) is the end game. We're not there yet.

And the question I posed is, WHY?

But those things are good things to do even if not an attempt to "earn" anything. Indeed, we are commanded to do a number of things that "earn" no salvation in the doing. The ritual of water baptism, like circumcision before it, signifies the ritual participant's membership in the people of...

"by the Apostles" plural? Not by Peter alone? What did Iggy know that we don't?

Okay, I'll ask you the question John might have asked in 66 C.E. if you and he were having the conversation: Why could only the bishop of Rome qualify to be pope?

I would challenge your use of "Therefore." Are you a sola scriptura guy?

Obviously dead popes don't appoint successors, although they could appoint a successor while alive. Peter's successor, if elected or unanimously acclaimed, must have been elected or unanimously acclaimed the Bishop of Rome by some subset of Church leaders. Where is the legitimacy in that? I...

Sure, but it hardly follows that Peter's appointment of a successor (as opposed to by election by other elders/bishops/apostles still alive) was the intended succession protocol. Indeed, we don;t know what the original succession protocol even was. We have no clear proof that Peter appointed...