What is the standard against which you measure your understanding of Scripture?

[michaelp]

This is untrue. And I think you know it. The fact that you failed to bring up 3 issues requiring clarification, as I requested, supports my opinion. There is nothing unclear about YES and NO, and that is how the Catechism is formatted BEFORE any lengthy discusions occur. What is the important question that you can’t answer from the Catechism

I just browed the forum and I see three disagreements before I even got down through the first page:

1. What is the nature of Purgatory. Is it fire, how long are people there, etc. Pretty important.
2. What does “Outside the Church there is no salvation means.” I don’t even need to begin to express the essentiality of this–expecially for me!!
3. What does Co-redemtrix mean? I have read many different and conflicting opinions on this.

My point is, who decides–you?

I don’t see any justification for you believing in the Bible if you don’t believe in the Church and it’s power given to it by Christ. How did you come to accept the Bible? I will not let this rest - it is your true problem. You have to come to grips with this. Exactly why do you believe that the bible you own is of any significance?

Phil

Phil, I don’t need some infallible declaration before I believe something like you. If the evidence points to something, then I am pursuaded to believe it.

Concerning Scripture:

1. God is sovereign (even natural theology tells me this).
2. Jesus Christ rose from the dead and he attested to the OT and gave the Apostles authority in the NT. I believe this to be historically accurate even before I believe it to be theologically accurate. In other words, I first rely on the NT docs as history and then read them theologically. Why, because that is what they are first, historical documents. Only when those prove to be true can we say that they are inspired.
3. The majority of the Body of Christ accepted certian Scriptures.
4. I don’ t think the sovereign God who created the world, became man, and rose from the grave is sitting on the edge of His seat in heaven saying. "Why didn’t they get those Scriptures right? He is in control. I am persuaded of His sovereignty by his intervention in history and the Old and the New testament documents and history attest to. Therefore, I believe. That is it. There is no need for someone to come and make an infallible declaration. If the Church made this declaration I believe it. No infalliblity needed.

But again, the posts that I referred you to earlier should explain why I don’t need these infallible declarations.

I believe the Bible is true, not beacuse the Church says it is or because it says it is (this would be question begging and circular). It is true because the external evidence and internal evidence and history attest to its truthfulness. I am convinced of its truthfulness based on this and my belief in a soverign God who is in control of things.

If I were to believe it is true because the institutional Church says it is true, then the Church becomes my primary authority. I have no problem with this in theory, but in reality, there is no justification for believing the institutionalized church in my mind. This has been the subject over and over again. I don’t see the justification for the RC system. The only responses that I have recieved from all the books I have read and all the conversations that I have are these:

1. The Church is true because Jesus Christ founded it and it has to be. This does not make any sense to me since this does not necessitate infallibility at all any more than saying the Church represents Christ means that there has to be times when we can discern that the Church infallibly represents Christ love, compassion, grace, judgement, etc. We all see in a mirror dimely, only then will we see face to face.
2. The Church is true because she said she is true. I don’t even have to tell you how irresponsible it would be for me to accept this.
3. The Church is true because Matt 16 and John 21 say so. I don’t need to go there again.
4. The Church must be true or there would be divisions. Well, there already are divisions and you are one of them. Plus, this is a purely pragmatic arguement. Nice, but no substantiation.
5. The Church is true because how would we be able to define the canon. I already answered this above.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

michaelp:

Lisa, you know me well enough by now. I don’t think that anyone can appeal to feelings, no matter how deep they are.

What makes you think that I don’t ask God for truth–everyday? I tell Him to give me a complete overhaul if need be, and I am VERY serious about this. Please do not assume upon what I pray for. Just take my word for it, I have prayed this prayer for over ten years now. Just because I don’t see things the way you do does not mean that I don’t pray with sincerity and you should not assume that it does.

I did go to the Coming Home Network. I did not find anything more than I have gotten here.

You must understand, Lisa and others, I really have no need to stay in the Protestant Church. Think of me as someone outside identification with any tradition looking in saying how do you know your right and the others are wrong. At that point, you just are one of many interpretations of history and Scripture. Who is to say you are right? Feelings? Sorry, I can’t go there.

It comes down to looking at all the information and then making a decision based upon the persuasiveness of the arguements. That is what I am held responsible for. I find more things persuasive with some Protestants at this point. That is why I am here, to learn more from you all.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Excellent. Pick any part of anything you’ve written here and tell me WHY you believe it. And how do you know it’s anything more than your opinion? Is it even written in the Bible? Do you need to believe it otherwise the Bible is nothing?

You know that’s not true - the justification isn’t as clear as you’d like it to be. To suggest otherwise is an insult to all the Catholics and ex-Protestants that have wrestled with this.

I think that I just resonded to this, while you were writing this question.

Michael Again, this is all wonderful. Unfortunately you have NOTHING to base it on other than wishful thinking. And for this you choose to reject the oldest, most visible Christian Church, with roots all the way to Peter, and a teaching authority that conforms most nearly to the earliest recorded witnesses of the Apostolic and post-apostolic era.

You really need to read 370, 372, 373. I am not saying that you have to agree with my conclusions, but this will show you how it is more than just “wishful thinking.” That is too allusive a concept to throw my belief system in. I agree, that it is not 100% certian, but there is nothing in life that is.

Please let me know if I’m pushing too hard…

No, I really like the tone that you are taking now. I appreciate your help very much.

 

[michaelp]

Philthy:

I would say," I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church." See how Bible isn’t in there?

Good, got it. Thanks.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

I am sorry for assuming:crying: As an observer, as well as a participant,although not very scholarly. The protestant biased seems to get in the way of understanding the Catholic Faith. Even at that you have been charitable,and kind. I am praying for you as well, because I believe you do love God very much and I also believe you are searching.You very well may still disagree, but I wouldn’t want any biased to be a block in your search for understanding whether agree or disagree. Iam thinking about starting a thread look for it,I would feel your post would add to it.With keeping with the post how do you interperate scripture?God Bless

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Philthy:

I would say," I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church." See how Bible isn’t in there?

 

[Pax]

Michael,

You have brought up the issue of certainty. I think we can appreciate the difference between moral certitude and metaphysical certitude. You’ve mentioned the latter form of certitude in pointing to mathematics. I have no problem with all of this, but there can be difficulty when appreciating these terms of certitude in the discussion of infallibility.

Papal and Magesterial infallibility are “simply” protections from teaching errors. Please note that the Church does not try to define anything and everything from A to Z. There are many areas of Christian thought and biblical interpretation that are open for several possible understandings and the Church allows this. That is because the Church will not make a pronouncement about something unless there is ample evidence from scripture and tradition to support it. When the Church makes an infallible interpretation in the areas of faith and morals it will not be in error. That does not preclude an even more complete understanding and elaboration at a later date, but it does mean that there will be no error. When the Church speaks infallibly, we can have a moral certitude that the teaching is without error.

When the Church declared the Canon of scripture it was an infallible declaration. If it were not then we would still be contending with many additional non-inspired books that contain serious errors. Recently, works like the Divinci Code have resurrected these spurious writings and elevated them to the level of scripture for the purpose of denigrating and denying Christian truths. If we did not have a Church that could infallibly declare what is and what is not the inspired word of God, then everything is up for grabs.

Why should we accept the historic church (i.e. the Catholic Church). The main reason is Jesus Christ. If we truly believe that Jesus is who He claimed to be, then we should have no trouble accepting His Church. Jesus Christ, the second person of the Blessed Trinity, declared that He would establish a Church. He said He would build it upon Peter. He gave to Peter the keys to the kingdom and the power to bind and loose. He then gave to the apostles the power to bind and loose as well. Jesus left his Church in their hands and did so with certain promises. The jaws of hell would not prevail against this church, He[Jesus] would remain with the Church until the end of time, the Holy Spirit would lead the Church unto all truth, and at the end of time the Church would be presented to the Father without spot or wrinkle. Jesus also prayed for an incredible level of unity among the apostles and all those that came to know the Lord by their word.

Now take all of that and focus on Jesus. Jesus is God. In Isaiah 55:11 God says, “… so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.”
God’s word goes out in power. Jesus word goes out in power. It accomplishes His purpose. It prospers in the thing for which He sends out His word.

This is why Catholics know that the original Church is what she claims to be. Moreover, we would expect the one true Church to recognize this and to proclaim it to the world. No other Christian Church makes the claims that the Catholic Church makes about herself. They cannot and will not attempt to make the claim. Instead, they can only claim that the Catholic Church is wrong to make the claim.

Many varied doctrines exist among Christians. Many claims to truth exist among Christians. You must choose your guide or choose yourself to be your guide. Everyone claims to use scripture guided by the Holy Spirit but they still disagree. It isn’t scripture or the Holy Spirit that’s at fault. These varying doctrines cannot all be true. Truth is immutable. Our understandings can be faulty but the truth cannot be.

The Lord did not and would not leave us in the lurch. He made promises. His word goes out in power and prospers in the thing for which He sent it. God has protected His Church, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. It is God’s system and it will continue to prevail against all of its adversaries no matter how dark the situation appears to be. Have faith in the promises of God and in His power. Having such a faith makes it possible to see His Church and to believe what she teaches because it is Jesus himself that speaks through his body the Church. If Jesus made the promises and speaks through His Church, then His Church will teach without error. To believe otherwise is to doubt the word and power of God. If it were not true it would make God a liar.

 

[michaelp]

Lisa4Catholics:

I am sorry for assuming:crying: As an observer, as well as a participant,although not very scholarly. The protestant biased seems to get in the way of understanding the Catholic Faith. Even at that you have been charitable,and kind. I am praying for you as well, because I believe you do love God very much and I also believe you are searching.You very well may still disagree, but I wouldn’t want any biased to be a block in your search for understanding whether agree or disagree. Iam thinking about starting a thread look for it,I would feel your post would add to it.With keeping with the post how do you interperate scripture?God Bless

You are certianlly forgiven Lisa. Again, I appreciate your kind and respectful attitude. After seeing all of the ignorant people who come in and blast you all without any basis or support calling you all kinds of names, I would think that all of you have reason to be causious of me. I pray that I continue to conduct myself in a worthy manner. Please forgive me when I don’t.

In Him,

Michael

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

michaelp:

You see, I am hard to interpret, even though we live in the same time and speak the same language. You have been trying to interpret me and I you. But it take time and hard work to do so. But it is possible if we stick at it. You ought to try the same thing with Scripture. It is not that hard.

HI Michael!

I agree. Intepreting scripture for onesself isn’t that hard. What is hard, dare I say impossible, is for the self-interpreter to know with any certainty that he isn’t mistaken. What I hear you saying over and over (please correct me if I’m wrong) is that it doesn’t really matter if one is mistaken in his interpretation of scripture. With that I must heartily, albeit respectfully, disagree.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

The One Holy,Catholic,Apostolic Church put the Bible in canon. You have to be careful how you answer because,the answer will be twisted around and pretty soonthe headline post will be"Catholics say that the Bible is unneeded",“see they don’t need the Bible”,Catholics here know what you mean. But with non-catholics here they will take that and run with it. God Bless

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Let your Magisterium show the signs of an Apostle or Prophet (Deut 18l 2 Cor.12:12) and adhere to orthodoxy (Deut 13) and I will believe them . . . I promise. Really and TRULY. I have no problem with this.

The Magesterium aren’t prophets as that would mean they are inspired, which they aren’t, the are infallible, meaning that they are protected from teaching error as opposed to being inspired to teach what is correct.

The are not apostles themselves but successors of them. Would this necessarily means that they would show “signs” since they aren’t apostles themselves (ones who have actually seem the Lord face to face?)

But just to claim that they speak for God and then not require any signs and claim thier authority off of Jn 21 is a leap of faith and irresponsible for me to do.

Again, the Church doesn’t claim that they speak for God based off of any scripture. The bible came from the Church, not the Church from the bible.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Originally Posted by Catholic4aReasn
Nah, we’re not alike there at all. In my mind the more important of the two jobs is not getting the words down on paper but making sure they are not misunderstood.

In YOUR mind??? Who is to say that you are right in you SUBJECTIVE mind???

Hi Michael!

You claimed that your thinking and my thinking were alike in a certain way. How can I refute that without telling you what’s on MY mind??

It’s not a problem for God and in fact a very desirable situation. If you have a fallible translation but someone who cannot err in his interpretation you’re in a far better situation that having a fallible translation with fallible interpreters.

OK, so from this, you don’t even need Scripture, right? Seriously, what is the need if you may have it wrong. Maybe alot of it has been compiled from wrong manuscripts and then translated wrongly. You do not need Scripture then.

Good question, what is the need if you may have it wrong? If there’s no way you can be certain that you’re not completely mistaken in your understanding of God’s word what’s the point? I get the distinct impression that, to you, it doesn’t matter the slightest how one understands scripture. If he’s right…great! If he’s wrong…so what? He can never know with any certainty either way so what difference does it make?

Good question!!!

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[michaelp]

You have brought up the issue of certainty. I think we can appreciate the difference between moral certitude and metaphysical certitude. You’ve mentioned the latter form of certitude in pointing to mathematics. I have no problem with all of this, but there can be difficulty when appreciating these terms of certitude in the discussion of infallibility.

But the discussion of infallibility is what you require to have absolute certiantly about truth and the Scriptures. This is exactly what I am saying. I don’t have to have this type of certianty and this type of certianty does not exist. I can look at the evidence and decide. If you say that you are only morally certian that the Church is infallible and the the Bible’s cannon is correct, then I could go there . . . maybe. At least with the canon. But the evidence does not point to the infallibility of the Church yet. This is what I have been looking for.

You see, since I do believe the Bible according to the moral certianty that I have proposed (i.e. the weight of evidence compels me to make a decision and act), I would be persuaded if the Bible taught that the Church was to be infallible through the sucession of bishops. But it is not there unless you read into the text. Matt. 16 and Jn 21 just do not do it for me.

Now I have to look other places for this certianty. In other words, I have to look for the evidence elsewhere. Where do I go?

1. The consistancy of Church history in its teachings? Not there to the degree that would compel me since there are so many conflicts and who is to say who is right?
2. The fact that God says he will speak through people but they have to show some type of authenticating sign (Deut 13, 18 and 2 Cor 12:12). I can’t find anyone who is raising the dead to authenticate themselves.
3. To the statement that the Church is the Bulwark of truth? I believe this statement, but it does not necessitate infallibility any more than the statement that the Church is His body means that the Church will infallibly act like his body.
4. Pragmatics which say that it is better for us to be unified, therefore we must have one unifying factor? This is purely pragmatic and such important decisions need more than this.

But I am not that uncomfortable with moral certianty about my interpretation of Scripture.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Pax:

Michael,
When the Church declared the Canon of scripture it was an infallible declaration. If it were not then we would still be contending with many additional non-inspired books that contain serious errors. Recently, works like the Divinci Code have resurrected these spurious writings and elevated them to the level of scripture for the purpose of denigrating and denying Christian truths. If we did not have a Church that could infallibly declare what is and what is not the inspired word of God, then everything is up for grabs.

I have no problems with saying that the canon of Scripture is not infallibly declared. The weight of evidence must be my guide.

You know as I know that the Divinci Code author did not present a valid case for his history. The weight of evidences says he is wrong and they are compelling to me. Heck, even liberals who do not believe in the inspiration of Scripture have laughed at Browns scuing of the evidence. I don’t need any infallible institution to tell me he is wrong, the evidence does. There is not one reputable scholar who has agreed with Brown on this.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Catholic4aReasn:

HI Michael!

I agree. Intepreting scripture for onesself isn’t that hard. What is hard, dare I say impossible, is for the self-interpreter to know with any certainty that he isn’t mistaken. What I hear you saying over and over (please correct me if I’m wrong) is that it doesn’t really matter if one is mistaken in his interpretation of scripture. With that I must heartily, albeit respectfully, disagree.

This is an overstatement Nancy. It is not that you cannot have “any” certianty about the interpretation of Scripture. Some are hard, some are easy. With the hard ones, you look at each positions the best you can, and then make a decision. There are different degrees of certianty that you come to depending on what passage you are trying to understand. Even Peter recognized this when he wrote his episte (to the common people, not bishop) that SOME things are hard to understand of Paul (2Pet. 3:6). Obviously, he did not think that all things were hard to understand. But if he thought that only the Magisterium or His successor should be the only ones to interpret the “hard sayings of Paul” there would never have been a better time for him to say that. In fact, if that were true, this would be a major oversight on his part.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

michaelp:

You mean, the traditions of the Apostles predate the Bible. It makes not sense at this point in the argument to say that the Body of Christ predates the Bible.

Hi Micahel!

I was referring to the teaching authority of the Church and yes, the teachings themselves. Sorry for not making that clearer.

And BTW: I agree. The traditions that the Scriptures contain predate the Bible. All Protestant agree. Most of the Bible was complete by 66 A.D. with few other writings that followed. So for the first 30 years the Church essential relied upon the Apostles testimony. After this, people relied upon their written testimony and spoken word.

They relied on much more than that. There were hundreds of manuscripts used for teaching in the early Church. No one would know for sure which ones were actually God’s inspired word for centuries.

When they died, the traditions carried on. But they were only true to the degree that they adhered to Scripture.

On what do you base this statement?

That is why it is necessary to have a written testimony, because, as we all know, written testimony is more reliable in everyday life than spoken. Why would you think it was any different then.

Do you consider all of the NT to be “testimony”? Perhaps you and I define it differently. Paul’s epistles don’t seem to be so much testimony as efforts to clear up misunderstandings of Christian teaching in the early Church.

Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church make up two sides of the same coin. Scripture is inspired whereas the Magesterium is protected from every officially teaching error. You seem to try to equate the inerrancy of scripture with the infalliblity of the Magesterium. The are two different “protections” if you will, one positive, one neagative.

Even according to you, the spoken testimony of Papias, who sat at the feet of John, is already corrupted since he was a premillennialist.

The Bible even records the fact that IN JOHN’S DAY tradition had already been corrupted AMONG THE DISCIPLES THEMSELVES.
Read this:
John 21:23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but *only, *

"If I want him to remain until I come, what *is that *to you?"24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

The apostles had not yet received the holy Spirit therefore they did not yet have the charism of infallibility.

Tradition is unreliable, that is why it needed to be written down. That is why God had it written down within 30 years, even though many of the Apostles were still alive.

Tradition is absolutely reliable because God personally makes it so.

On what do you base this statement?

That is why God had it written down within 30 years

Would I find this reason somewhere in scripture, God’s reason for His scripture writing timetable?

Paul wrote as needed. I don’t think the 30 year timetable really had anything to do with it.

The writing of the gospels are actually a LONG time after things happened, not a short time. The gospel writers certainly thought that Jesus was coming back soon, in their own lifetimes. When it became evident that he might not only then did they put pen to paper.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[michaelp]

The Magesterium aren’t prophets as that would mean they are inspired, which they aren’t, the are infallible, meaning that they are protected from teaching error as opposed to being inspired to teach what is correct.

But don’t the Magisterium speak for God on certian matters (i.e. speak infallibly about his word?). The definition of a prophet is simply one who speaks on behalf of God.

The are not apostles themselves but successors of them. Would this necessarily means that they would show “signs” since they aren’t apostles themselves (ones who have actually seem the Lord face to face?)

If they claim any infallibility, they claim to speak for God. This is why God set up the criteria for anyone who claims to speak for Him. It is to safegaurd His word. Otherwise, anyone could claim infallibility or claim to speak for Him. I could even do that if no signs are required. Even Jesus had to show authenticating signs so that people would believe.

John 20:31-32
30 “Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”

God does not want us to niavely believe anyone who claims to speak for Him. That is why I say the infallibility of the Magisterium is unjustified to me.

Am I really that far out there. Are my questions really that irrational? Can’t you see at all my stuggle for justification?

 

[michaelp]

Catholic4aReasn:

Originally Posted by Catholic4aReasn

Nah, we’re not alike there at all. In my mind the more important of the two jobs is not getting the words down on paper but making sure they are not misunderstood.

Hi Michael!

You claimed that your thinking and my thinking were alike in a certain way. How can I refute that without telling you what’s on MY mind??

Good question, what is the need if you may have it wrong? If there’s no way you can be certain that you’re not completely mistaken in your understanding of God’s word what’s the point? I get the distinct impression that, to you, it doesn’t matter the slightest how one understands scripture. If he’s right…great! If he’s wrong…so what? He can never know with any certainty either way so what difference does it make?

Good question!!!

In Christ,
Nancy
Again, I don’t need absolute certianty, and you really don’t either. (Did you read the posts on 370, 372, 373?) You didn’t did you .

I just need to look at the evidence and make a decision based on the weight of evidences. Just like I don’t have ABSOLUTE certianty that the sun will rise tomorrow. Do you? Are you justified . . . no, morally obligated to adjust your life as if it was? Of course, the weight of evidences compels you.

Well, in the same way, the weight of evidence compels me to believe that the Scritpures are inspired. I really don’t need an infallible declaration before I believe. I will be held accountable based on the evidence given.

You must understand Lisa (and I don’t want to go to far into this), this type of certianty that you long for is part of your western heritage in relation to the age of reason. . . . No I can’t go into that. But, if you ever get a chance, www.thetheologyprogram.com will help explain it to you in the Introducation to Theology course . . . and NO it is not inspired or infallible, but it does give the evidence and lets you decide . . . the same way that you have to function everyday!

Michael

Michael

 

[michaelp]

You claimed that your thinking and my thinking were alike in a certain way. How can I refute that without telling you what’s on MY mind??

You see, almost a rude statement, but the little smile face changed everything. These are great. Watch this. Lisa, I think you are ignorant . See, you thought I was serious until I put the winking face.

Anyway, I know that I am weird and that your statement was more serious than the smile face would have me think . But alas, what do you do. I appreciate you continued . . . . um . . . desire (?) to put up with me and my endless objections.

Have a great night.

 

[michaelp]

They relied on much more than that. There were hundreds of manuscripts used for teaching in the early Church. No one would know for sure which ones were actually God’s inspired word for centuries.

Short answers here. This is an overstatement. The early church was not in THAT much dissaray concerning what belonged in the NT. Sure there was some disagreement, but there was never any disagreement about the Synoptics, most of Paul’s epistles, and Acts. These all were accepted by the Church from the very beginning. There is not a time when they were doubted (except by fringe groups like Marcion’s). The majority of the others with the exception of 2 and 3 John, second Peter, Hebrews, and Revelation, had some dispute, but I would not blow that out of proportion at all. And very few in the early church would have proposed writings of the early Church fathers and the Didache.

But, the majority of the Church was in much more agreement than your statement represents.

On what do you base this statement?

The burden of proof is not on me. You see, I don’t fail to see the justification for believing Scripture is infallible, I do fail to see it for believing the Church is infallible. You seem to work off a infallible until proven fallible assumption. I work of just the opposite, fallible until justifiably proven as infallible.

Do you consider all of the NT to be “testimony”? Perhaps you and I define it differently. Paul’s epistles don’t seem to be so much testimony as efforts to clear up misunderstandings of Christian teaching in the early Church.

I’m with you.

Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church make up two sides of the same coin. Scripture is inspired whereas the Magesterium is protected from every officially teaching error. You seem to try to equate the inerrancy of scripture with the infalliblity of the Magesterium. The are two different “protections” if you will, one positive, one neagative.

Question begging. This is what we are trying to justify. You are making statements of faith that assume that your premise (the church is infallible) is true.

Even according to you, the spoken testimony of Papias, who sat at the feet of John, is already corrupted since he was a premillennialist.

Yes, but I don’t see the connection to your arguement. BTW: the testemony of the Apostle’s was already currupted by John’s day:

John 21:21 So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” 22 Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what *is that *to you? You follow Me!” 23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but *only, *“If I want him to remain until I come, what *is that *to you?”

The apostles had not yet received the holy Spirit therefore they did not yet have the charism of infallibility.

Again, question begging. Sorry . . . I know I am irritating you.

Tradition is absolutely reliable because God personally makes it so.

Question begging since it assume your conclusion to our discussion, it does not prove it. . . . Now I know I am irritating you (The face represents you . . . not me!)

Michael