Who is Your Infallibe Teacher?

[rinnie]

Well I make an effort to read the scriptures in hope of understanding. However, I get the impression that most catholics just ignore reading the bible.

How is that possible when the mass every sunday comes straight from the Bible?

 

[rinnie]

ababbidg,

If you consider the words of approval that God spoke of Moses in the Hebrew Bible to be scripture, then, yes, he was tested by scripture. Of course, they had the added advantage of actually hearing God speak the words.

Except for Peter when he denied Christ three times, and wanted to keep Jesus from being crucified when Jesus called him “satan.” The apostles were very fallible men. When they made a mistake, they were to be corrected by scripture. If that is not the case, did the Bereans do the right thing in Acts 17? The only time the apostles were infallible is when they were writing scripture, or teaching the doctrines of scripture which they had received from Christ.

Actually, that is not the case. The earliest references to the perpetual virginity are found in gnostic writings like the Odes and Psalms of Solomon. Gnosticism is the first place we find these things being taught. They do not come into orthodoxy until later.

Since when is saying that Mary was not a perpetual virgin “dissing” Mary? I thought that sexuality was a gift of God.

That is not the respect in which I believe the Catholic Church is gnostic in their beliefs. I believe they are gnostic in the sense that you need these beliefs of a select group in order to properly understand the scriptures. The gnostics did believe that, and that is a strong connection between the two that I am certainly not the first to notice.

Non Sequitor.

I already did. I said I reject the premise that the beliefs of Protestantism were non-existant in the early church. Sola Fide can be found in Clement of Rome, and several commentaries that use that particular phrase [such as Ambrosiaster], Sola Scriptura is all over the church fathers, the rejection of the apocrypha is all over the place in the patristic writers.

My point is that the Catholic Church as we know it today did not exist in the early church. No one would have recognized it. Take the council of Nicaea. Who at the Council of Nicaea believed everything you do about Mary, Papal Infallability, treasury of merit, indulgences, puragtory, confession to priests, and transubstantiation? Would you say that a church that has no clue what those things are is a Catholic Church? Of course not. These things are developments over time, that have nothing to do with the early church.

The point is that I reject your assertion that what the Catholic Church was the only church for 1500 years. That is way overly simplistic, and anyone who claims this is ignoring the complex factors that led to what is modern day Roman Catholicism. Hence, because I reject your premise, I reject your conclusion.

First of all, you just contradicted the idea of Catholic unity. Now, the many denominations of Protestantism won’t work as an argument against Sola Scriptura, because you have admitted that there are differences of opinion in your own communion.

Secondly, why are you saying that these scholars are inconsistent with the offical teaching of the church? Have they been excommunicated? Are you the magisterium such that you can judge whether or not a scholar is consistent with the official teaching of the Catholic Church? The two men I have just mentioned have served in Papal comissions. They are in good standing with Rome, and probably have their papers and writings looked at far more than the average Catholic apologist. Yet, Rome has not excommunicated them. Again, this is totally inconsistent. If you are going to claim that the magisterium is infallible, then don’t then say that they cannot tell when a scholar is inconsistent with official Catholic teaching.

What makes you think that Peter did not pass the test of scripture. Did Peter repent and do what he was told. If Peter did indeed repent and was sorry then Peter did indeed pass. Did Jesus say a man had to be perfect, or did Jesus say a man had to confess and repent his sins? Was Peter human, yes he was, did Peter sin, yes he did, did Peter repent yes he did. Then how could he have failed? And if Peter is considered a failure then its not looking good for any of us. Because did Jesus not accept Peters confession? Looks like he did because he told Peter you are still the leader of the Church. Actually he told him to feed the sheep 3 times. the same number of times Peter denied Jesus. Odd huh. Kinda like Jesus said you are forgiven Peter.

 

[rinnie]

And to say that the Blessed Mother is not a Virgin denies her the Mother of Christ. Because the bible says the Son of GOd will be born of a Virgin.

 

[Hebrew_Student]

rinnie,

What makes you think that Peter did not pass the test of scripture. Did Peter repent and do what he was told. If Peter did indeed repent and was sorry then Peter did indeed pass. Did Jesus say a man had to be perfect, or did Jesus say a man had to confess and repent his sins? Was Peter human, yes he was, did Peter sin, yes he did, did Peter repent yes he did. Then how could he have failed? And if Peter is considered a failure then its not looking good for any of us. Because did Jesus not accept Peters confession? Looks like he did because he told Peter you are still the leader of the Church. Actually he told him to feed the sheep 3 times. the same number of times Peter denied Jesus. Odd huh. Kinda like Jesus said you are forgiven Peter.

I would simply say that Peter passed the test in terms of repentance, but not in terms of denying Christ.

And to say that the Blessed Mother is not a Virgin denies her the Mother of Christ. Because the bible says the Son of GOd will be born of a Virgin.

We are not talking about the virgin birth. We are talking about the perpetual virginity. I agree that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. However, I do not believe she remained a virgin after that, and saying that she did not remain a virgin after the birth of Christ is not “dissing” Mary.

 

[ababbidg]

ababbidg,

If you consider the words of approval that God spoke of Moses in the Hebrew Bible to be scripture, then, yes, he was tested by scripture. Of course, they had the added advantage of actually hearing God speak the words.

Moses spoke to the Israelites before scripture was written. It would be impossible for him to be tested by scripture.

Except for Peter when he denied Christ three times, and wanted to keep Jesus from being crucified when Jesus called him “satan.” The apostles were very fallible men. When they made a mistake, they were to be corrected by scripture. If that is not the case, did the Bereans do the right thing in Acts 17? The only time the apostles were infallible is when they were writing scripture, or teaching the doctrines of scripture which they had received from Christ.

No one said the pope was infallible in everything. No pope would ever say he is without sin. The pope is only infallible under certain circumstances. If the apostles were infallible when teaching the doctrines of scripture, why not the successors of the apostles?

Actually, that is not the case. The earliest references to the perpetual virginity are found in gnostic writings like the Odes and Psalms of Solomon. Gnosticism is the first place we find these things being taught. They do not come into orthodoxy until later.

**Th Protoevangelism of James says Mary was a perpetual virgin and it was written in 120. Granted, it was considered apocryphal and wasn’t included in the bible. As for Church fathers about mary:

Origen:The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Hilary of Poiters: “If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate” (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

Athanasius: “Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

I could go on
**

Since when is saying that Mary was not a perpetual virgin “dissing” Mary? I thought that sexuality was a gift of God.

Protestants also say Mary was a sinner. I even had a protestant recently tell me that Mary might be in hell

That is not the respect in which I believe the Catholic Church is gnostic in their beliefs. I believe they are gnostic in the sense that you need these beliefs of a select group in order to properly understand the scriptures. The gnostics did believe that, and that is a strong connection between the two that I am certainly not the first to notice.

Non Sequitor.

I already did. I said I reject the premise that the beliefs of Protestantism were non-existant in the early church. Sola Fide can be found in Clement of Rome, and several commentaries that use that particular phrase [such as Ambrosiaster], Sola Scriptura is all over the church fathers, the rejection of the apocrypha is all over the place in the patristic writers.

**These church fathers support Tradition:
Papias: Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition" (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]).

Iraneous: “That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (ibid., 3:4:1).
and also

“With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:1–2).
**

 

[ababbidg]

continued

My point is that the Catholic Church as we know it today did not exist in the early church. No one would have recognized it. Take the council of Nicaea. Who at the Council of Nicaea believed everything you do about Mary, Papal Infallability, treasury of merit, indulgences, puragtory, confession to priests, and transubstantiation? Would you say that a church that has no clue what those things are is a Catholic Church? Of course not. These things are developments over time, that have nothing to do with the early church.

**On the Pope:
Origen: “*f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

don’t know what treasury of merit is.

Yes, the word purgatory was not used yet, but the idea was.
Tertullian: “A woman, after the death of her husband . . . prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the sacrifice” (Monogamy 10:1–2 [A.D. 216]).

Confession:"[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, ‘I said, “To the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquity”’" (Homilies on Leviticus 2:4 [A.D. 248]).

Aphraahat the Persian Sage: You [priests], then, who are disciples of our illustrious physician [Christ], you ought not deny a curative to those in need of healing. And if anyone uncovers his wound before you, give him the remedy of repentance. And he that is ashamed to make known his weakness, encourage him so that he will not hide it from you. And when he has revealed it to you, do not make it public, lest because of it the innocent might be reckoned as guilty by our enemies and by those who hate us" (Treatises 7:3 [A.D. 340]).

The word transubstatiation wasn’t used yet, but the idea of it still was.
Ignatious of Antioch: Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]). ***

 

[ababbidg]

ababbidg,

The point is that I reject your assertion that what the Catholic Church was the only church for 1500 years. That is way overly simplistic, and anyone who claims this is ignoring the complex factors that led to what is modern day Roman Catholicism. Hence, because I reject your premise, I reject your conclusion.

**I have never heard of another Church existing during the time of the early Church. Only the Catholic Church.
Ignatious of Antioch: “Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains *. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

---

First of all, you just contradicted the idea of Catholic unity. Now, the many denominations of Protestantism won’t work as an argument against Sola Scriptura, because you have admitted that there are differences of opinion in your own communion.

I don’t know anything about the writer you talked about. He probably did agree with Pope, I don’t know. And how does this take away from catholic unity? Just because one catholic may be wrong there is no unity? And there are differences of opinion, but notice catholics don’t just start their own church if they disagree.

Secondly, why are you saying that these scholars are inconsistent with the offical teaching of the church? Have they been excommunicated? Are you the magisterium such that you can judge whether or not a scholar is consistent with the official teaching of the Catholic Church? The two men I have just mentioned have served in Papal comissions. They are in good standing with Rome, and probably have their papers and writings looked at far more than the average Catholic apologist. Yet, Rome has not excommunicated them. Again, this is totally inconsistent. If you are going to claim that the magisterium is infallible, then don’t then say that they cannot tell when a scholar is inconsistent with official Catholic teaching.

Once again they probably aren’t inconsistent with church teaching. I’m just saying if you are going to talk about what the catholic church believes, I would rather hear it from a pope rather than someone I have never heard of. Those scholars are most likely right, and I am most likely wrong. Also, I didn’t know what you are talking about, I shouldn’t have commented on that part.

 

[Hebrew_Student]

ababbidg,

I have never heard of another Church existing during the time of the early Church. Only the Catholic Church.
Ignatious of Antioch: “Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains *. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]). *

And where are you getting the idea that when Ignatius talks about the “catholic church” that he is referring to the Roman Catholic Church? In fact, Michael Holmes, who put together a critical edition with notes of the Apostolic Fathers has this to say about the usage of this term:

The term catholic here occurs in Christian literature for the first time. In later use (by A.D. 200) the word catholic became a technical term designating “the Catholic Church” as opposed to heretical sects, but here the expression is used in the sense of “universal” or “general” (thus the adjective could be attached to words like “resurrection” or “salvation” as well as to “church”), or possibly “whole” (conveying the idea of organic unity or completeness); [Holmes p.191]

In other words, in the earliest usages, here in the Apostolic fathers, the term “catholic” only referred to the universal church. The term did not begin to be used for the orthodox churches in contradistinction from heretical sects until the third century. However, notice what Holmes does not say. He does not say that this term can be used to refer to the beliefs and practices that you call modern day Roman Catholicism. That usage of Catholic is far later, and to read it back into Ignatius is totally anachronistic.

I don’t know anything about the writer you talked about. He probably did agree with Pope, I don’t know. And how does this take away from catholic unity? Just because one catholic may be wrong there is no unity?

No, to say that these folks are only one is to miss the fact that these men have served on Papal commissions. There are quite a few of them out there actually. The are on the liberal end of the spectrum of Roman Catholicism.

And there are differences of opinion, but notice catholics don’t just start their own church if they disagree.

However, the point is that the differences of opinion do not in any way shape or form argue against the truth of protestantism. Worse than that, we don’t just start a new church when we disagree. I am a postmillenialist, and my pastor is an amillenialist his eschatology. Do you think I am going to break and start a new church just because we disagree? Hardly.

Once again they probably aren’t inconsistent with church teaching. I’m just saying if you are going to talk about what the catholic church believes, I would rather hear it from a pope rather than someone I have never heard of.

They actually were hired by the Pope. That is what a Papal commission is. They would probably have much better access to talk to the Pope than would an average Roman Catholic.

 

[ababbidg]

ababbidg,

And where are you getting the idea that when Ignatius talks about the “catholic church” that he is referring to the Roman Catholic Church? In fact, Michael Holmes, who put together a critical edition with notes of the Apostolic Fathers has this to say about the usage of this term:

In other words, in the earliest usages, here in the Apostolic fathers, the term “catholic” only referred to the universal church. The term did not begin to be used for the orthodox churches in contradistinction from heretical sects until the third century. However, notice what Holmes does not say. He does not say that this term can be used to refer to the beliefs and practices that you call modern day Roman Catholicism. That usage of Catholic is far later, and to read it back into Ignatius is totally anachronistic.

**Yes, and catholic still does mean universal. Notice that he also talks about bishops and priests. What Church has bishops and priests? **

No, to say that these folks are only one is to miss the fact that these men have served on Papal commissions. There are quite a few of them out there actually. The are on the liberal end of the spectrum of Roman Catholicism.

However, the point is that the differences of opinion do not in any way shape or form argue against the truth of protestantism. Worse than that, we don’t just start a new church when we disagree. I am a postmillenialist, and my pastor is an amillenialist his eschatology. Do you think I am going to break and start a new church just because we disagree? Hardly.

You may not, many others have, however.

They actually were hired by the Pope. That is what a Papal commission is. They would probably have much better access to talk to the Pope than would an average Roman Catholic.

Well thank you for teaching me that. But you can stop harping on me about that now because I already admitted my ignorance to it.

 

[rinnie]

rinnie,

I would simply say that Peter passed the test in terms of repentance, but not in terms of denying Christ.

We are not talking about the virgin birth. We are talking about the perpetual virginity. I agree that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. However, I do not believe she remained a virgin after that, and saying that she did not remain a virgin after the birth of Christ is not “dissing” Mary.

Sure it is. According to scripture Mary had one and only Child. Jesus Christ. Please show me scripture that says that the Blessed Mother had another Child but Jesus Christ. And why did Jesus Christ hand over his mother at the Foot of the Cross to John if Jesus Christ had another Brother or Sister. According to Jewish law the Son is responsible for the mother. IF Jesus Christ had a brother why would he do that at the foot of the cross. Jesus would be dissing his brother as you would say it. Would he not?

Now back to Peter, Point! Did Jesus ask Peter to feed the sheep or not. Is Jesus Christ not the great shepherd. Is the Shepherd not the leader of the flock. If so why did Jesus ask Peter to lead my sheep, feed my sheep, lead my sheep. Did Jesus say you are Peter and you get the keys. After his death did he not say feed my sheep? Yes or No?

 

[rinnie]

And as far as denying Christ. Do we not deny Christ when we give into sin and do the works of the Devil. No one ever said Peter did not deny Christ. Scripture tells us he did it three times. How many times did you do it? Did you confess and repent? Were you forgiven? How many times did Jesus say we must forgive. Its in scripture is it not --times – is it not?

You tell me. And Did Peter not die for Jesus Christ, did Peter not love Jesus Christ and did Peter not lead the flock like Jesus asked him.

Check out scripture its in there. Peter tells you who Christ has chosen to be the leader.

 

[rinnie]

continued

My point is that the Catholic Church as we know it today did not exist in the early church. No one would have recognized it. Take the council of Nicaea. Who at the Council of Nicaea believed everything you do about Mary, Papal Infallability, treasury of merit, indulgences, puragtory, confession to priests, and transubstantiation? Would you say that a church that has no clue what those things are is a Catholic Church? Of course not. These things are developments over time, that have nothing to do with the early church.

**On the Pope:
Origen: “*f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

don’t know what treasury of merit is.

Yes, the word purgatory was not used yet, but the idea was.
Tertullian: “A woman, after the death of her husband . . . prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the sacrifice” (Monogamy 10:1–2 [A.D. 216]).

Confession:"[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, ‘I said, “To the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquity”’" (Homilies on Leviticus 2:4 [A.D. 248]).

Aphraahat the Persian Sage: You [priests], then, who are disciples of our illustrious physician [Christ], you ought not deny a curative to those in need of healing. And if anyone uncovers his wound before you, give him the remedy of repentance. And he that is ashamed to make known his weakness, encourage him so that he will not hide it from you. And when he has revealed it to you, do not make it public, lest because of it the innocent might be reckoned as guilty by our enemies and by those who hate us" (Treatises 7:3 [A.D. 340]).

The word transubstatiation wasn’t used yet, but the idea of it still was.
Ignatious of Antioch: Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]). ***

First line enough for me. The Catholic CHurch did not exist today as the early church!Tell me what has changed. The RCC is constantly accused of being the same today as it was over 2000 years ago. Even protestants accuse us of that, that we never change with the times. Tell me what teaching did we have 2000 years ago that changed today? This outta be good.

 

[Hesychios]

Tell me what teaching did we have 2000 years ago that changed today? This outta be good.

Rather than that, you should ask what does the church teach that was not taught two thousand years ago.

 

[SSTeacher]

Rather than that, you should ask what does the church teach that was not taught two thousand years ago.

I suppose the teaching of papal infallibility might be fairly high on the list?

Anachronistically,
Mick

 

[rinnie]

I suppose the teaching of papal infallibility might be fairly high on the list?

Anachronistically,
Mick

How you figure that. Does the scripture you are Peter come to mind. Here let me do the work and make it quick for you.

Peter=rock=Abraham=Rock=Jesus=Rock=Father=Papa=Pope! Where did the Pope get his Power to teach from Jesus Christ. Jesus said I will give you the words and they received the Power of the Holy Sprit. Good enough?

 

[Hesychios]

I suppose the teaching of papal infallibility might be fairly high on the list?

Anachronistically,
Mick

Oh yes, very high.

But not only that, the ‘short list’ is potentially getting longer.

 

[SSTeacher]

How you figure that. Does the scripture you are Peter come to mind. Here let me do the work and make it quick for you.

Peter=rock=Abraham=Rock=Jesus=Rock=Father=Papa=Pope! Where did the Pope get his Power to teach from Jesus Christ. Jesus said I will give you the words and they received the Power of the Holy Sprit. Good enough?

Quite good. Probably a D for effort. No, that’s a bit harsh. Make it a C.

What prohibits me from awarding a higher mark is that I do not follow how I (or anybody else who approaches the text without Catholic presuppositions) can be certain that this particular interpretation of Matthew 16:18 can be directly tied to the exclusively Catholic notion of papal infallibility.

Actually, I’m going back to a D. Sorry. This is a classic example of eisegesis.

Apologetically,
Mick

 

[rinnie]

Quite good. Probably a D for effort. No, that’s a bit harsh. Make it a C.

What prohibits me from awarding a higher mark is that I do not follow how I (or anybody else who approaches the text without Catholic presuppositions) can be certain that this particular interpretation of Matthew 16:18 can be directly tied to the exclusively Catholic notion of papal infallibility.

Actually, I’m going back to a D. Sorry. This is a classic example of eisegesis.

Apologetically,
Mick

Well lets bring it up to a A. Heres how Im gonna get it.

Do you believe that Jesus Christ had the authority to teach scripture? Do you believe that he had that authority to pass down the authority to teach scripture to his apostles? Do you believe that the apostles has that authority to also pass down the way Jesus Christ said? Then how can you see it any other way then the way the Catholic Church does. Now you explain to me where the authority was taken away. The balls in your court now.

Oh by the way I want scripture, Its always demanded of me, I showed you mind, you show me where Jesus Christ said authority to teach will died with hiim?, or with the apostles. I will have a nice lunch while I am waiting!

 

[Hesychios]

Yep, very eisegetic.

 

[rinnie]

Yep, very eisegetic.

uch:You are welcome to take a stab at it then. You show me another way to see it.