foundsheep Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Whats funny is Luther in Works uses a psuedonym for the epistle of james by calling it the "epistle of straw" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[jas] Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Does this mean you recognize the Authority Jesus gave Peter? The authority as a leader in the early church? Absolutely. It's obvious from the book of Acts that he had authority in the church at that time anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[jas] Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Or his removale of multiple books and part of the book of Daniel. See above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 I'm quite aware of the meaning of the words. What I'm asking is what real difference does it make to this discussion? Your kidding right. Well assuming your not -- a divinely inspiped work has some of the author in it, His writting style his vocabulary his inaccurate facts( like a hare chewing the cudd) but it retains its spiritual integrity and communicates the Spiritual truths which God wanted communicated. However it must be interpreted i light of the person who wrote its culture, writing style etc. A Divinely written work would have only Gods style, it would persumably still be limited by Human concepts but would be free of any factual errors and without the need for interpretation based on the writers cultural influance. The Ten commandments are the only thing I can recall off hand that where actually pened by GODS hand. They are very differant from most of the rest of scripture. As the Bible was inspired itstead of directly penned it requires interpretation and therefore an authoritative body to interperat it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foundsheep Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 ,Dec 11 2003, 11:22 PM] The authority as a leader in the early church? Absolutely. It's obvious from the book of Acts that he had authority in the church at that time anyway. Hmmm, did Peter have the New Testament or Oral Teachings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[jas] Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 (edited) Strawman arguments ... are arguments where you create a scenario that is false and easy to rebut and then take it apart. My bad, I obviously don't remember the names for the different kinds of bad arguments from my communications unit a few years ago. Edited December 12, 2003 by [jas] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[jas] Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Your kidding right. Well assuming your not -- a divinely inspiped work has some of the author in it, His writting style his vocabulary his inaccurate facts( like a hare chewing the cudd) but it retains its spiritual integrity and communicates the Spiritual truths which God wanted communicated. However it must be interpreted i light of the person who wrote its culture, writing style etc. A Divinely written work would have only Gods style, it would persumably still be limited by Human concepts but would be free of any factual errors and without the need for interpretation based on the writers cultural influance. The Ten commandments are the only thing I can recall off hand that where actually pened by GODS hand. They are very differant from most of the rest of scripture. As the Bible was inspired itstead of directly penned it requires interpretation and therefore an authoritative body to interperat it. I understand the difference, and of course I see the value in taking it in light of the author's context. But why does there have to be a third party involved? Why can't I interpret it in light of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Because I can look back and see the historical factors used to determine which books would become part of the canon, and *verify* it. They didn't sit around praying and come up with a list (although don't get me wrong, I'm sure the spirit did guide them You should read some of the records of those councils I assure you there is a lot more debate of the ir Theological merits than of their Historical ones. Not to mention the occasional fist fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[jas] Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Hmmm, did Peter have the New Testament or Oral Teachings? He *wrote* part of the new testament. I think we know the answer to that. He was, however, there when it all happened. And also had the prophecy etc. in the old testament to guide him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[jas] Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 You should read some of the records of those councils I assure you there is a lot more debate of the ir Theological merits than of their Historical ones. Not to mention the occasional fist fight. Any online sources where I can see these? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin D Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 ,Dec 12 2003, 01:22 AM] The authority as a leader in the early church? Absolutely. It's obvious from the book of Acts that he had authority in the church at that time anyway. Which continues on through Apostolic succession. Pope John Paul II is a successor of the Apostle Peter (you can trace it back, historically). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[jas] Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Which continues on through Apostolic succession. Says who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 I understand the difference, and of course I see the value in taking it in light of the author's context. But why does there have to be a third party involved? Why can't I interpret it in light of that? Well lots of reasons first and formost you have no authority to do so. Can you show me in Scripture anywhere that it says the individual is to interperate. I can show you many places it speaks of the apostles authority. You are not an apostle, Bishops are. That is really all that should need be said. since Linus took over from peter it was believed that the Authority of the Apostles came down through their successers. You ar enot one of them. More thanthat Gods revelation didn't just stop. Much has continued to be revealed (why is that such a difficult thing to accept) and therefore all must be interpreted in light of revelation in Total. Finally if e have no Body in authority then each of us has our own interpretation, right now there are 22,000 protestant denominations they can't all be right about their interpretatinon so how do you know that yours is correct? You don't but we do know that the Catholic Churches is correct because it is She who was given the Authority to interprete by God Himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Any online sources where I can see these? You know, I don't know. I look into it for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin D Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 ,Dec 12 2003, 01:41 AM] Says who? Says who? This was done for 1500 years, till Martin Luther came along and ruined things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now