What Iam in your eyes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter historyfan81
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Simply put (looking it from a objective sense )

We don’t for somethings at least in some matters

The church can be wrong is another debate

Now from a faith point of view yes it’s the church can be infalibale.

From other points only some church traditions are “infalibale”
 
Last edited:
historyfan81 said:
From other points only some church traditions are “infalibale”
Click to expand...
Those which She codifies- that is why Lord told Peter that “gates of Hades” will not prevail against His Church. Gates of Hades is surely also made up of lies and false traditions.
 
Yes this is why I say I thestic piont of view that does make sense .
To believe the church is infalibale.

That said until objectivity or overwhelming evidence can be found that is for now a belive .
And I can and do respect that
But I dislike it when they claim it as fact
 
Last edited:
I say you are an atheist who came up with a story to get some college or high school essay done.
 
I study biomedical engineering so … I don’t think I would require theology for a papper I my career
 
Last edited:
historyfan81 said:
I study biomedical engineering so … I don’t think I would require theology for a papper I my career
Click to expand...
It depends on how you study it. You might need it in order to prove certain procedures as acceptable from a theological point of view.
Interesting also how you fend off my hidden labelling. A non atheist would have his spirit jump off and claim otherwise. Don’t you think?
 
Philosophy I take it on third year iam in second and been then i don’t think I would need this or I would have asked another question for that regard

For me this just something I like and it matters to me to see different opinions about it .

it nothing to my University

“Interesting also how you fend off my hidden labelling. A non atheist would have his spirit jump off and claim otherwise. Don’t you think?”
Yes because being labeled an athiest is such a bad thing .

( Edit : this following sentence is an example)

how dare you call me an athiest IAM a pious man

( Is that the reaction you expected?
If so why? )

Ans yes I do believe in God because I have been convinced about his existence due to the historical life and the evidence of the resurrection
 
Last edited:
that was an exmple I could not have made it more clear
 
Last edited:
You seem to be responding to me, but you didn’t answer my question. Where does Scripture say that Scripture is the highest authority? Chapter and verse, please.

And, provide the Sacred Tradition which you claim is in error. Because the New Testament is based upon the Sacred Tradition of Jesus Christ. So, if you can prove that Sacred Tradition is false, you will prove that the New Testament is false. But you can’t, because Sacred Tradition is infallible. It is the Word of God.
 
i never argued. For self-fulfilling scripture

I said “it’s the earliest, VERFIED SOURCE” therefore It’s the most reliable.

And let’s see for clarity ad hoc means:

Is part of a historical analysis ,it’s to add suppositions to a hypothesis , the more suppositions the more ad hoc and the less believable that hypothesis is

Unknown/ vagueness or can’t be verified: ( both sides are ad hoc and no side catholic or skeptic can claim as fact what the sources meant do to vagueness and or other details)

The early second and third century fathers though transutination?

By reading them, it seems like 100% yes, but going through the linguistically and historical context

It becomes too vague to give a 100% verdict so no side can claim this one as fact.

So no side can claim 100% that they did or didn’t

At least when you read these sources in their proper historical context.

It’s not till 300 AD where its explicitly teaches this

But since there are vague mentions the skeptic cant claim that the concept evolved over time as there is no evidence that it did

But the catholic (historically at least) can’t prove that they were being metaphorical or literal

Unknown but more evidence to the idea that the concept evolved over time for the skeptic

As there are no source or unrelated themes that the catholic use for “argument”

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

Not a single mention, not even vagueness like the previous nada,till the 5th century

(It is admitted that the doctrine as defined by Pius IX was not explicitly noted before the 12th century. )

Where we get things like Conception of the Most Holy and All Pure Mother of God was celebrated in Syria on December 8 perhaps as early as the 5th century. The title of achrantos (spotless, immaculate, and all-pure) refers to the holiness of Mary, not specifically to the holiness of her conception

Aguistine says

“As regards the mother of God,” he says, “I will not allow any question whatever of sin.” It is true that he is here speaking directly of actual or personal sin. But his argument is that all men are sinners; that they are so through original depravity; that this original depravity may be overcome by the grace of God, and he adds that he does not know but that Mary may have had sufficient grace to overcome sin “of every sort”

Since the Muslims believe something similar, it adds more evidence that this thinking did come from the 5th century and could not come later than the 6th

The catholic can argue that it existed prior potting to the father’s use of

Holy, or super innocent which are even more vague than the trabsutination , and dont even point to being sinless and can’t be used to show that they indeed believed this

Due to the lack of sources prior to certain century and the extreme vagueness and lack of correlation of the tittles

The skeptic can claim that this concept was not though by the early Christians but he can’t claim it as fact
 
Last edited:
Overwhelming evidence or many contradictory ecclesiastical or secular sources .the skeptic has more evidence. While the catholic has to deal with this evidence contradictory sources and many ad hoc explanation.

Papal supremacy

While once sees papal primacy very explicitly and early

Since Around the year 100, described the Church of Rome as presiding, and "occupying the first place

It’s not the same with papal supremacy

Catholic theologian Francis A. Sullivan, , claims "expressed agreement with the consensus of scholars that available evidence indicates that the church of Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century.

he research of Jesuit historian Klaus Schatz led him to claim that, “If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no.” But he believes it likely that 'there very quickly emerged a presider or ‘first among equals.’"

Roman bishops who tried to exert authority as supreme heads were severely reprimanded by other bishops.

This is explefied by the filioque

By the filoque if the pope had supreme authority , when he said iam the pope and I don’t need a council to determine this matter since Iam the supreme authority , to the eastern bishops and the patriarch of Constantinople.

If papal supremacy was though early on this argument would not happen or would have been smaller as the pope only had to show the sources where they claim that he is the supreme and undisputed authority

The evidence for being a concept that evolved over time is so big

Those historians even created phases of papal supremacy

Being

First phase of papal supremacy and Second phase of papal supremacy

Raging from late antiquity through the middle ages.
 
  1. Peter founding the Church of Rome.
There is enough evidence to say that he went there. But there is to an argument that he didn’t found the church of rome and merely took over once in the city

this is very long , but in summary to say peter founded the church of Rome , we have to argue that he visited at least to time and later left and returned

(This contradicts a source that said he lived there for 25 years)

We also have to assume the Nazarene inscription takes place before the expulsion of the Jews of Rome by emperor Claudius.

And that peters first visit took place in 42 to 44 AD approx. and that Luke mentioned Asia Minor Anatolia and Syria but despite being reality close in time didn’t mention Rome or even Italy

Also there has to be an explanation as to Why would Clement of Rome not mention more than one visit

Not only that but the more you try to explain it the more ad hoc it becomes

The extra supposition one must add to explain the initial hypothesis.
  1. Emperor Claudius expulsion has to be later down in the timeline (late 40s to early 50s) if its earlier peter can’t go or has no real reason to go.
  2. Peter traveled to the city of Rome more times during a certain period
  3. sources don’t mention multiple visits because unknown reasons.
  4. The Nazarene inscription has to predate the expulsion of the Jews
  5. Luke doesn’t mention this because he though Syria, Asia minor and Greece where more important to mention but not Italy
  1. Clement of Rome does not mention it for unknown reasons.
  1. paul doesn’t mention peter because unknown reason , or that he was not in the city at the time , which implies more visits.
  1. There has to be another explanation as to why a source say that he lived 25 years there , despite this contradicting the multiple visits argument and the historical context of the expulsion of the Jews .
 
historyfan81 said:
i never argued. For self-fulfilling scripture
Click to expand...
Again, the website says that this is a response to me. But I never said anything about self fulfilling Scripture. I asked you to provide the proof that Scripture is the highest authority, from Scripture. That is your claim and I quote.
historyfan81 said:
The Bible is the word of God and has the highest authority ,…
Click to expand...
I don’t remember any of the other statements in this post of yours. So, stick to the question I’ve asked. Provide the chapter and verse where this is taught.
historyfan81 said:
Overwhelming evidence or many contradictory ecclesiastical or secular sources .the skeptic has more evidence. While the catholic has to deal with this evidence contradictory sources and many ad hoc explanation.
Click to expand...
Provide the proof.
Papal supremacy…
Click to expand...
Where does Scripture deny this? You’ve posted a whole slew of statements but not one word from Scripture. You seem to think that we must simply accept your unsupported testimony. But we don’t. Scripture says that Jesus Christ appointed St. Peter to rule His flock. Where does Scripture say that this changed or deny it?
While once sees papal primacy very explicitly and early…
Click to expand...
Thank you. You have just disproved your own objection.
  1. Peter founding the Church of Rome.
There is enough evidence to say that he went there. But there is to an argument that he didn’t found the church of rome and merely took over once in the city
Click to expand...
An argument is not proof. And we have the Early Church’s testimony that St. Peter went there and set up His episcopacy there.

Basically, you have nothing but your own opinion. We have Scripture, Tradition, history, archaeology and every form of evidence to substantiate the true history of Christianity which states the Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church.
 
Papal surprmacy where is your proof

Yes my staments from to 2 catholics , the filioque example , and even historians pointing out papal surprmacy is a concept that evolved over time in to phases raging from late antiquity to the middle ages .

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory/chapter/the-development-of-papal-supremacy/

So yes I would not Call it my unsoported view.

Also … Do you know that papal primacy and supremacy are not the same right ?

So I have not disproven myself .

On peter .

A hypotesis is just an observation.

Simply put like I mention in my post peter most likely went to Rome .

Evidence for him funding the church of Rome has problems . Like I said

one can’t explain the timeline , since by the time of the espitle to the Romans the church of rome was already there and there is no mention of Peter.

The expulsion of the Jews by emperor clauduis was do to the debates of the nature of chirst

Even if we use the later date of late 40s to make peter the founder one must assume that he founded it prior to this in early or mid 40s AD .

Which no source claims that he did

For the argument that peter took over once he arrived .
One analyzes 1 Peter and based on the dates just says peter arrived late 50s approx ( after the epistele to the Romans )

Took over and stayed there till his death .

This explains amost everything and fits with the timeline of events with out any problems

but only adds one extra assumptions
There has to be a reason as to why sources claimed he did found the Church in the city .

Compared to the 8 extra supposition for peter founding the church of Rome .

You do have history in some of your traditions but not all of them .

And even less so with archeology .

I can’t claim all Catholic tradition is flase since there are enough evidence for some but for others there is no evidence so it’s unknow and for the 2 I mentioned there is enough evidence to contradict it .

Unless you want to argue the historical concencus then go ahead I would really like a response to Peter founding the church of Rome in a way that makes the theory plasubible and less ad hoc

This is the good thing about science and other things with enough proof it can correct it’s self .

And a. Person I will says this because I don’t think your a bad person

Think before you do something because it’s ok to like your religion it’s good .

But you have been a little argresive and quick to jump to conclusions

For example when you said I debukend my self with papal primary , when I said and even a google search agrees that papal surprmacy is not the same thing as papal primacy.

Anyway I don’t want to figth just a debate I mean we can have that right ?
 
Last edited:
historyfan81 said:
Evidence for him funding the church of Rome has problems
Click to expand...
Historical sources say he did. What other sources are you looking for?

The NT wasn’t written with a modern historian perspective or audience. It exists to convey the teachings of the Apostles. So it has things like, the same story told with different details. Does that make the truth it conveys, less reliable? Christian Tradition has many of the same things associated to it. That is, what is conveyed in Tradition is relevant to the truth handed on. The details will vary. You and I, or anyone else, 2000 years later, do not have enough information to construct a historical timeline.

Also, if Peter wasn’t actually, physically, in Rome, why does that matter?

I suppose you can subscribe to Christian primitivism. It has its own problems, sort of like neopagans, who attempt to reconstruct a religion based on writings. It’s a guess, and in the end, is a construction of ones own design that can only approximate at best, but more likely is nothing more than parody.

Good luck with that. For this former atheist, in a tech career, the evidence is such that RC or Orthodox churches are the closest thing to a historical, 1st century Christianity. What you’ve got going is a modern revision. You don’t have, and never will have, enough information to build a Christian religion from scratch that can be called authentic.

The continuity is there, in the liturgy, which includes the sacraments. The sacrament of Holy Orders is such that, we know Peter ordained successors, and we know they ruled the Church. From my archaeology 1010 course many years ago, a primary source for reconstructing a culture is to investigate and interview the descendants of that culture. Why? Because they have knowledge that has been handed on, that doesn’t exist in artifacts or ancient clips of writings.

The evolution of the primacy is a concern, why? The Church was not founded and then frozen in time. It is living, and has and still does, change over time. Either you believe by faith that it is guided to all truth, by the Holy Spirit, or you don’t.

If you don’t, then indeed, you run into the Protestant problem, the one that says Jesus can’t abide our failings or our sins, and so He did leave us as orphans. And so we just wander, looking for where He might be.

The wandering can have good intent, and can have a good outcome. It can also be a waste of years.

As a convert, I can say, you don’t know how good you’ve had it. The wandering should have a purpose that is at least founded on, reality.

If only we could interview Priscilla and Aquila!
 
Last edited:
"The NT wasn’t written with a modern historian perspective or audience. It exists to convey the teachings of the Apostles. So it has things like, the same story told with different details. Does that make the truth it conveys, less reliable? "

no it actually makes it better since as any investigator will tell you no single source will agree 100% with the other ,if it does its most likely a forgery.

i never argued that he didnt went there , there is enougth evidence to say that he did , the argument is when did he go there?

then to make sense of clement and the others rigth we have to maybe look at another view like peter fouding the curch of rome in spirtual sense.

well i do agree that privisitim is not bad like you said it has its problems
since like i mentioned with transusbtination i dont know if they where being literal or not .

"The evolution of the primacy is a concern, why? "

it evolves from the first among equeals and being respected as that to bascily king of the church

and that the papacy can do things by its own authority, not needing a council or the aproval of other bishops.
now in modern times this is pratical YES it prevents a lot of problems , the problem lies in that catholics make it so that this was a very early concept that apeared in the very first years of the religion

and for some others its like a gateway as since if this concept as we know it today was did not exist and evolved over time. wich other concepts did?

“a primary source for reconstructing a culture is to investigate and interview the descendants of that culture. Why? Because they have knowledge that has been handed on, that doesn’t exist in artifacts or ancient clips of writings.”

this true now it oral tradtion has its problems and so does time range i mean cultures evolve over time and myths come around .

so the longer the time frame the more we have to be weary on what is fact and what is a later addition/ exagerations/ or other problems

to be fair some written sources also have this example wallace by blind harry and the latter adition of mariam

“If only we could interview Priscilla and Aquila!”
yeah i would aslo love to talk with polycarp or ignatuis

oh by the way thank you for a good conversation
 
Last edited:
Yet the myths and legends contain factual clues, particular to cultural symbolism. As defined in this abstract. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.anthro.27.1.329

There are books, by Catholic authors, that delve into doctrinal development, including the development of the papal office. I have no claim to expertise there. I recommend you seek out some sources that address Boettner.

In our youth, we learn certain facts, that we call into question as we mature. Developing a mature faith is a great thing and I, a complete stranger to you, am glad you are taking this on.

Peace to you, on your prayerful journey.
 
Last edited:
Do you speak spanish? If you do, I can share with you very good apologetic articles about papal authority…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top