Search results

In the United States at least, judicial efforts to construe the Constitution's Establishment Clause ("Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion") and Free Exercise Clause ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof") have lead to the doctrine we commonly call "separation...

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...

No need to limit this to apostles. EVERYONE who does not yet know something cannot yet teach it. Duh! Well, Peter did not understand the need to reach out to Gentiles until the Cornelius incident (not learned from Paul). That doesn't render every word he preached prior to that incident...

If A seeks to assert ecclesiastical authority over B, but lacks power (be it physically or by persuasion and fear of damnation) to force B's submission, then it is B's choice whether to submit to A's authority. If A doesn't seek to assert such authority over B, then A's power to force...

I'm not seeing what this has to do with Peter's primacy, much less that of his successors.

So, the Hebrew script for "vav" looks like a nail -- and now everyone thinks it's a type for the Crucified Christ! Sorry, that's wishful thinking at best. The language was spoken before it was written, and however "vav" originally sounded (a matter for speculation) someone created the written...