|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: All scripture is given by inspiration of God.
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Superb Eutychus.
I'm fascinated by how this is developing with mousethief's input.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well yes, and Jamat ain't going to like this, but it seems to me that, at their best, the RCs and Orthodox don't descend into false dichotomies as much as some of the more conservative Protestants do.
I have friends who accuse both RCs and Orthodox of 'switching off their brains' when it comes to Tradition - 'The Church teaches it, I believe it despite my personal reservations ...'
However, some of them seem to do the same when it comes to their own small t - tradition. That's more the case with those who don't even seem to realise that they represent a tradition, but it is a charge that can sometimes be levied somewhat wider than that, I think.
Whether we ratchet things up as high as Big T or operate within a small t tradition, it strikes me that there is indisputably something about Eutychus's points e) and f) that we need to consider.
As to whether Jamat and Martin are polar opposites ... I think there are more polar extremes out there than either of these guys.
There is a broad continuum between absolutely wooden fundamentalism on the one hand (and Jamat is by no means as far along that spectrum as some) and Spongiformity on the other.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Superb Eutychus.
I'll take that as a "yes" to my question... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
No community has actively driven me out, I have withdrawn, although I remain involved where I can and will be able to do more soon. I MISS services. I love the Eucharist.
Where does the Church fit in for you, Martin? Does it remain a safe mother within which you can think heretical thoughts, or have you gone beyond her into isolation? How does it mesh with your thought trajectory?
[ 15. January 2018, 10:29: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Your analysis of my position (deist beyond Christ, theist in Him) is as good as it gets.
Church. Hmmmm. If I had the money I'd move to Waterloo and attend and utterly immerse myself in Steve Chalke's literal Oasis. Also I've never been disappointed by a Cathedral service, including Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral (RC). Was blown away by a most Marian service at St. Pancras once.
Went to choral evensong a couple of months ago in a high church nearby. Too many wordy hymns. "...differs from the cathedral style in being 'Classic FM' rather than 'Radio 3'". Yeahhhh. Need time to fellowship, get to know people and there isn't any. Time. There will be soon, but...
Every Friday night except the first of the month and even some of them if needed I go to the charevo Anglican church I mainly attended since changing cities in 2009 (twice on Sunday for the first year and probably more - on the basis of always go to your local), having become a confirmed Anglican in 2005, to volunteer with the homeless. It's oxygen. Gets me out of myself like nothing else. With more opportunity coming we'll go Sundays. Despite everything ![[Smile]](smile.gif) Despite being the dangerously near operative word. I do NOT want to be isolated. Therein, in every way, is death. I'm enough of a loner (surprising? Intro-extro. Or extro-intro? A solitary plant spotter anyway.) as it is.
For a couple or three years I attended the church I could spit on with a following wind, a nice little MOTR Anglican village one. That was least problematic. The city church regarded us as liberals. We moved back to the city 2 years ago. Tried a more local church plant of the main city church. Too mother and child oriented for me and my wife. One big Sunday school.
I've been to other non-conformist services for special occasions. Never say never again, but... And the Deobandi Mosque. THAT was awesome.
I regard the Church (ALL of her over time and space) as my mother, yes. I can't have a real relationship with her (except in the Friday night interactions), a real conversation apart from here and with my wife. I am the beneficiary of her 2000 year continuity, of her Tradition to say the least. I couldn't exist without her.
I'm not entitled to any expectations along the subversive trajectory, except here and more remotely. At least here there is two-way analytical, reflective communication.
As do I, pick the bones out of that!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Yeah, well just imagine living with those sorts of dilemmas and having a flock in your charge. My problem is seeing where everyone else around me will be theologically in a generation's time (at least, that's what's happened over the last 20 years or so) and struggling to bridge the gap whilst having nobody IRL to bounce ideas off - you just get blank looks (apart from Mrs Eutychus, thankfully).
Aside from that, though, inasmuch as your theology owes a debt to the Church and you recognise the need for meeting together, it seems important to me that your (one's) theology is capable of incorporating some form of local church (gathering together).
If your theology - especially, here, of inspiration of Scripture - takes you on an arc out of church altogether, I think it's rather like sawing off the branch you're sitting on, isn't it? The Church is what's got Scripture this far. You have to be missing something (generic you here).
To put it another way, in order not to drift into pure relativism or illuminism, and in order to be eschatolocially meaningful, reinterpretation needs to be taken on board by a community in some form of continuity with the historic Church. I think.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Stone me E.! You have no up-line? No peer group? It's normal for the clergy to be more liberal than their flock, but not alone surely?
Fellowship outside bad coffee after services would be nice. We had a great small group in the village. Kept my wife going far more than services. No such thing in the city church any more. Not allowed. I wasn't allowed to go to the local one in 2009. Had to drive miles. And I did. Nowt ter do wi' me that. Charevo control freakery.
My theology can't take me out of the Church. I got it IN the Church. Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Steve Chalke are in the Church. Just not in Leicester.
They will NEVER allow public discussion of the reinterpretation of eschatology, prophecy, sovereignty. Any more than Big-T can heterosexist patriarchy. Whilst allowing BENNY FFFFFFFF.....lamin' HINN! to have a say. He came to Leicester on a 'word' and we were all encouraged to go. I'd rather set fire to myself. Mark Stibbe was bad enough before his sordid fall. Andrew White was just eccentric.
So no, I won't pay for any of that.
And if I were so enlightened, how come I know that I am appallingly limited in love?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I didn't say you were illuminated, as we say here. But there has to be a way for bleeding-edge theology to bring the Church along with it, otherwise it's a dead end. And it has to recognise its roots.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
All it takes is another millennium or ten along the trajectory. Whether the Church has any part in that, I can't see.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Yeah but you have to take people with you. Joshua made sure everyone got across the Jordan, didn't he?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Until Pope Joshua I then!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Well seriously (dragging us off-topic here a bit) I think that's what Francis is trying to do, isn't he? Drag the RC Church kicking and screaming into the 21st century with a leaf taken out of the evo piety book?
I nicked my insights about the inspiration of interpretation from conversations with our local RC archbishop (although he nicked them from Paul Ricoeur, a good protestant).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The last shall be first: Ricouer! Wonderful stuff. Sorry, I've gone through the thread, but could you point out your aye, aye, aye alliteration; Insights about the Inspiration of Interpretation? Or reiterate them? I know they're there, but I'm old and dim. And the first shall be last: Francis, well said. Happy to regard him as my Pope. Which for a former Whore AND Her (Reform) Daughters man is saying a lot. Could you elaborate on evo piety? Anti-materialist, inclusive traditionalism?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Gee D:I would not say that all scripture is given by inspiration of God, for a start. A better definition is that scripture was composed by people especially inspired by God and that their writings are generally accepted as containing teaching to instruct and guide
What seems to be the difference to you. Why change from 2tim3:16? This establishes scriptural authority and function pretty tightly.
A good false dichotomy. Were the Torah writers and editors especially inspired to attribute millions of deaths to God the Killer? I see that they WERE especially inspired despite that, transcendently despite where they were in social evolution. Even in dreadfully wonderful stories like Abraham under the Terebinth Trees at Mamre, with God acceding to his every request for mercy to the five cities He was about to nuke. As they evolved, God got better. He completely spared Nineveh. Funny that.
What is more tragic than funny is the pathos of attempts to discover an inescapable God not believed in, somehow, within a metanarrative not believed in but inescapable also. Anyone who tries to play with the rules cannot be legitimately part of the game.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
A fine chiasmus.
Rule number 1. The rocks lie.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Rule number 2. The entire universe lies.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Rule number 3. The bible is a flat cookbook that must be swallowed whole and no matter how randomly bitten off, in what sequence, is always the same in plain meaning. Every permutation of the elements of the original perfectly dictated whole is the same.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Jamat, I assume that when you said inescapable God not believed in you were not suggesting that Eutychus, Martin60 and others were non-belivers.
How would you interpret the saying "You are Peter and on ts rock I shall build my church". In the way that the majority of Christians since then have interpreted it, that is to give primacy to Peter and then the church at Rome which Peter established?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Oooh. Do you need a postmodern hand there Jamat?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Jamat, I assume that when you said inescapable God not believed in you were not suggesting that Eutychus, Martin60 and others were non-belivers.
How would you interpret the saying "You are Peter and on ts rock I shall build my church". In the way that the majority of Christians since then have interpreted it, that is to give primacy to Peter and then the church at Rome which Peter established?
Uh-oh ...
You do realise, Gee D that Jamat grew up Roman Catholic?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
How would you interpret the saying "You are Peter and on ts rock I shall build my church". In the way that the majority of Christians since then have interpreted it, that is to give primacy to Peter and then the church at Rome which Peter established?
I realize that Roman and Eastern Rite Catholics comprise the majority of Christians, both now living and, I’d guess, historically. But that interpretation is pretty much limited to them, and perhaps some Anglicans, mainly of the Anglo-Catholic persuasion, isn't it? It's not the Orthodox interpretation, as I understand it, nor is it the understanding of any Protestant or Oriental churches. So I’m not quite sure what the point here is.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Gamaliel, yes, I did know that.
Nick Tamen, IAs you can see, I'm aware of Jamat's background. Of course, we'll never know the exact numbers, but I'd be very surprised if the majority of Christians had not followed Rome's teaching on this point. Given Jamat's background and his present position, I'd like to know how he interprets it now.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Jamat, I assume that when you said inescapable God not believed in you were not suggesting that Eutychus, Martin60 and others were non-belivers.
How would you interpret the saying "You are Peter and on ts rock I shall build my church". In the way that the majority of Christians since then have interpreted it, that is to give primacy to Peter and then the church at Rome which Peter established?
What I meant was that If God is an issue, then he is inescapable. The wrestle for enlightenment continues..everyone comes at it from viewpoints which occasionally may intersect.
The Matt 16:14-18 is interesting. ISTM that the revelation given to Peter is the rock on which the church stands but that Peter himself was given ‘keys’ to unlock that revelation. We seein Acts how his words bring immediate change to the crowds in Acts 2 and later how he spearheaded the first offering of the gospel to the gentiles in the Cornelius story. It was on his testimony that the rest of apostles accepted this. It is if he used the ‘keys’ and after that, the door stayed open.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What I meant was that If God is an issue, then he is inescapable. The wrestle for enlightenment continues..everyone comes at it from viewpoints which occasionally may intersect.
With this I heartily agree.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Jamat, I assume that when you said inescapable God not believed in you were not suggesting that Eutychus, Martin60 and others were non-belivers.
How would you interpret the saying "You are Peter and on ts rock I shall build my church". In the way that the majority of Christians since then have interpreted it, that is to give primacy to Peter and then the church at Rome which Peter established?
What I meant was that If God is an issue, then he is inescapable. The wrestle for enlightenment continues..everyone comes at it from viewpoints which occasionally may intersect.
The Matt 16:14-18 is interesting. ISTM that the revelation given to Peter is the rock on which the church stands but that Peter himself was given ‘keys’ to unlock that revelation. We seein Acts how his words bring immediate change to the crowds in Acts 2 and later how he spearheaded the first offering of the gospel to the gentiles in the Cornelius story. It was on his testimony that the rest of apostles accepted this. It is if he used the ‘keys’ and after that, the door stayed open.
Hmmmm. Your inescapable God is Killer. God the Baby Drowner. For 'sin'.
Aye, the revelation given to Peter is that by the Father, that Jesus is the anointed Son of the living God. This is the key to the taking of the abused keys to the Kingdom from the scribes and Pharisees.
Peter was never in Rome of course.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Martin--
Why do you believe that Peter was never in Rome?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I had missed Martin's reply (blame the beach holiday). AFAIK, the evidence we have is that Peter was crucified upside down in Rome.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
There is no biblical or historical evidence. Which is rather odd.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I might be wrong, but one of the gripes the Antiochian Orthodox seem to have with Rome (alongside the usual reservations that the Orthodox have about the See of Peter) is that they claim Peter as their founder ...
I'm not sure about the historical evidence. I'd like to see sources for and against on that one, but it may be a tangent too far.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Perhaps no historical evidence along the lines of a death notice in the tTmes, or a centurion record of those executed during that year. But a strong, very strong, tradition for the best part of 2 millenia.
And yes, Peter is the traditional founder of the church at Antioch as well as at Rome.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
A self serving tradition. And not a word about it in the Bible. Most odd.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
"Peter" was originally called "Simon"; According to John 1; 42 it was Jesus who gave him the 'nickname' of "Cephas", in Greek "Petros", in English in effect "Rocky".
On this basis it would be a plausible paraphrase of Matt 16; 18 that Jesus is responding to Peter's confession of Jesus as "The Christ, the Son of the Living God" with the idea "See how appropriate it is that I named you 'Rocky' because your confession just now is the 'Rock' on which the church will be built".
As a personal 'Rock' it is noteworthy that Peter almost immediately fails when, a few verses later, Jesus starts teaching about how he must fulfil his Messiahship by being killed by the Jewish authorities, and Peter comes back with "Mercy on you, Lord; this must never happen to you!"
To which Jesus replies "You get behind me Satan, (instead of being a rock) you are (now) a snare to me; for you are not minding things divine, but things human".
The big difficulty in the Petrine claim for Rome is simply in the transfer from something applied to Peter being turned ultimately into a claim of rather absolute authority for 'successors' - and as the mention of Antioch rather shows, one line of succession only, with nothing anywhere in the Bible to confirm that arrangement and lots of later history to show it up as a self-serving thing on the part of later bishops of Rome in disputes far later and arguably more about secular worldly authority in a state church than about spiritual authority....
Plus of course the rather obvious that when either the Popes or the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs are clear that the Bible is the Word of God, who should we choose when those somewhat self-proclaimed authorities appear to contradict Scripture??
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
AIUI there is a strong tradition for Peter as bishop of Rome though probably not the first. One list gives a predecessor in the post as one 'Linus', possibly derived from the Celtic name 'Llyn', and there is a pleasant though of course far from guaranteed legend that 'Llyn' was a relative of or from the household of the exiled British king Caractacus!
The only 'evidence' for him not being in Rome would appear to be I Peter 5; 18 where he refers to a 'joint-elect in Babylon' in the end-of-epistle sign off greetings. Protestants were later very keen, in a dubious attempt to undermine the papacy, to see this as evidence of Peter not being in Rome - but AIUI the consensus is that like John in Rev 17, Peter is in fact referring to Rome anyway. (John's meaning is made fairly clear by a reference to 'seven hills' on which "Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots..." is sitting!)
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
AIUI there is a strong tradition for Peter as bishop of Rome though probably not the first. One list gives a predecessor in the post as one 'Linus', possibly derived from the Celtic name 'Llyn' . . . .
Linus is mentioned in the closing of 2nd Timothy. Unless I’m mistaken, those sources that list Linus as the first bishop of Rome do not have him as a “predecessor” to Peter. Peter just isn’t in the list at all, or is called “apostle” rather than “bishop.” As I recall, those sources describe Linus as being ordained to the episcopate by Peter and/or Paul.
But yes, the earliest of the sources naming the bishops of Rome comes 100+ years after Peter and Linus.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Thanks Nick; I was going off a somewhat distant memory about Linus. Linus is not hugely important; my main point was the second para., about Where the idea of Peter 'in Babylon rather than Rome came from'
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
A self serving tradition. And not a word about it in the Bible. Most odd.
I accept that there's nothing about it in the Bible, and so have no problem at all in relying on tradition. I know that the Eastern and most Oriental Orthodox churches do not accept the Catholic interpretation (it would be strange if they did) but AFAIK, they do not dispute the foundation of both the Roman and Antiochian churches by Peter. I can see no problem in his founding both.
And I do not find it odd that there's no mention in the Bible. There's none of much of the earliest days of the churches there.
[ 20. January 2018, 01:41: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
This seems to be straying from inerrancy. If you want to discuss St Peter either relate it to inerrancy or please go discuss it somewhere else. Kerygmania for the Bible verse and Purgatory for anything else about Peter not directly relating to the Dead Horse.
Thanks
Louise
DH host
hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Sorry Louise, this seems to be a case not of posts crossing but simultaneous ones. My correction and your post went together.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
This is simply nonsense. Once again, if interested, I suggest you investigate further. If you are not and in point scoring mode, then there is no point in further interactions.
OK, I haven't forgotten this and have finally composed a response which is on the Kerygmania thread.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Sorry for my part Louise.
I suggest that it shows another main danger of believing the OP. As well as having to deal with the flat cookbook of the random here a little there a little, the same yesterday today and forever, God the Killer one has to deal with vast institutions, powers, built after centuries on a sentence, segued by a possible code word.
Two errors for the price of one.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
So the Pope and Eastern Orthodox patriarchs are 'self-appointed' and Protestant leaders/pastors and Bible commentators somehow aren't ...
How does that work?
But then I did think this will heading off on a tangent ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
This is simply nonsense. Once again, if interested, I suggest you investigate further. If you are not and in point scoring mode, then there is no point in further interactions.
OK, I haven't forgotten this and have finally composed a response which is on the Kerygmania thread.
Thanks, I read that.
You seem to present the historical picture, (in a limited way,) as evidence that the Bible could not use a 360 day prophetic year.
It is clear that calendars changed in the ancient world. Apparently, in 701BC there was a major adjustment of the Babylonian calendar. However, I do not think that citing such changes makes your point.
It seems though, that despite the lengthening of the year for practical purposes, the Bible stuck with the 360 days. It is internally consistent as we see this in Daniel 9, 11 and 12 and previously in Genesis as mentioned before and also in the NT in Revelation where 3.5 years is described as 1240 days?
When God is specifying his programme, it seems that he has provided this consistency and it seems Robert Anderson demonstrated this. By the way, his book, ‘The Coming Prince’, you can get on kindle as I saw it there the other day.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So the Pope and Eastern Orthodox patriarchs are 'self-appointed' and Protestant leaders/pastors and Bible commentators somehow aren't ...
How does that work?
But then I did think this will heading off on a tangent ...
I don't know about others but for me the point is precisely that I don't claim authority - not for myself. The Word of God has the authority, and when I interpret I have to convince and satisfy those to whom I speak or write, and I have to pay attention to the questions of others. I don't get to say that because I'm the successor of Peter, or have some other institutional place, my ideas are infallible and my interpretation, my 'tradition' overrules yours just because of who I am. And BTW, Hosts, I see that as a very relevant part of what it means that the Scriptures are inspired/inerrant/etc. The Word rules, the interpreter doesn't - not in the way that the papacy suggests.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So the Pope and Eastern Orthodox patriarchs are 'self-appointed' and Protestant leaders/pastors and Bible commentators somehow aren't ...
How does that work?
But then I did think this will heading off on a tangent ...
If that was derived from what I said, might I ask how?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
It seems to me that a logical interpretation of the Peter / Rock / build MY church passage would indicate that the ROCK Jesus was referring to was not Peter, but Himself.
quote:
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church;
The conversation is actually broken by the comment [and Jesus answered and said unto him].
That which flesh and blood had not revealed unto Peter was that [Jesus was The Christ, the Son of the living God]. This is the important clause that Jesus is referring back to, when He says "Upon THIS rock I will build MY church. Not Peter's church,,but Christ's church.
quote:
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The keys to the kingdom were not given specifically to Peter. They are obviously given to ALL Christ's disciples. They ALL also have the authority to bind or loose. John 20:23.
Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
This final anecdote returns us to the key statement in the passage. That Jesus Christ is the rock upon which the church is built.
Matt. 7:24, (alegory) Luke 8:6,13, (alegory) Rom. 9:33, 1 Cor. 10:4, 1 Pet. 2:8. 1 Cor. 3:11. Eph. 2:20. Deut. 32:4, Ps. 18:31,
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
That last post is precisely what Louise suggested less than ten posts ago would be appropriate if this were a Kerygmania thread. It is not. I'll assume the writer inadvertently missed Louise's post when he was composing. But none of the Hosts will be as gentle from here on in.
John Holding
Dead Horses Host
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
A tangent but within the OP. I DO accept the inspiration of the NT as a basis for the findings of the ecumenical councils of course. I'm not just a Jeffersonian, red-letter bible deist.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Martin, my comments were directed more at Steve than they were at you, but I think you were the one who introduced the Papacy into the discussion.
Anyhow, we've discussed this many times before, Steve Langton and myself so I'm not going to go over old ground now, save to make the observation that we could have another irregular verb parsing going on here:
- Your interpretation is flawed because you are self-appointed guardians of orthodoxy.
- My interpretation isn't flawed because I can self-evidently interpret the Bible better than you can.
The irony of that is, as always, lost on those who argue that way.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Indeed G., indeed. What?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
