Who's infallible? Who's not?

Quiddity · Dec 7, 2005

NetDoc said:
Victor,

I have no problems with "traditions", and in fact I have pointed out that no one should "pass judgement" on these kind of things.

However, one should NOT teach tradition as being a commandment of God. Or do you disagree with my Lord on this?

I guess my verses when over your head and you didn't even answer my question. There is either a contradiction OR there is 2 types of traditions:

1. "traditions of men"
2. Oral Tradition from God

NetDoc said:
As for your handling of Jesus' response to Peter's confession, I disagree with your analysis of the event. The petra (pebble) was Peter, but the ROCK was his confession: that Jesus is the Christ. Rely on the former ONLY AS it reflects the latter!

Let's certainly disagree. But since you seem to at least respect the Aramaic. How about you take a look at the Aramaic.

NetDoc said:
But in reality, the NT is filled with churches doing things wrong and for all the wrong reasons. It is also full of references to apostles screwing up as well. Only Jesus is perfect: the Apostles tell us this.

And how is this relevant to the topic? I'm not arguing perfection.

~Victor

Quiddity · Dec 7, 2005

I guess your point is that the church is built on Satan??? No, I don't think Jesus built his church on Peter. He wanted something a bit more stable, and there IS no aramaic that clears this up for anyone.

Yet Greek does just that for you..

You're killing me Larry !!!
Of course the source of truth and all the success of the Church is because of God. I have no idea why you think I'm saying otherwise.

~Victor

Scuba Pete · Dec 7, 2005

From www.dictionary.com:
in·fal·li·ble ([font=verdana, sans-serif] P [/font])
adj.

Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.
Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.
Roman Catholic Church. Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals.

per·fect ([font=verdana, sans-serif] P [/font])
adj.

Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.
Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen.
Thoroughly skilled or talented in a certain field or area; proficient.

Six of one, or a half dozen of the other. The semantic differences are mere nuances. The scriptures do not refer to either themselves or the church as being either infallible or perfect. If your church teaches that as part of their dogma, then fine. However, I am interested in just what the scripture teaches.

Speaking of not answering questions: This was a direct one that I asked you:

NetDoc said:
However, one should NOT teach tradition as being a commandment of God. Or do you disagree with my Lord on this?

Paul had this to say about "traditions" that became rules:

Colossians 2:20 Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21 "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. NIV

Victor said:
I guess my verses when over your head and you didn't even answer my question.

Please, the entire discussion has been civil without any innuendo or condescension: we don't need this kind of disparaging comment.

Scuba Pete · Dec 7, 2005

You have this in Aramaic??? I don't believe that the writers gave us anything but their Greek translations. Obviously, they understood this as two different words and translated it as such.

Uh, who is Larry?

Victor said:
Yet Greek does just that for you.. You're killing me Larry !!!

Of course the source of truth and all the success of the Church is because of God. I have no idea why you think I'm saying otherwise.

~Victor

Quiddity · Dec 7, 2005

NetDoc said:
The scriptures do not refer to either themselves or the church as being either infallible or perfect.

Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14,22 - the early Church is identified as the "Way" prophesied in Isaiah 35:8 where fools will not err therein.

Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12 - Jesus tells His apostles it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them. If the Spirit is the one speaking and leading the Church, the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail.

Matt. 16:19 - for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.

Matt. 28:20 - Jesus promises that He will be with the Church always. Jesus' presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With Jesus present, we can never be deceived.

Let's disagree.

NetDoc said:
Speaking of not answering questions: This was a direct one that I asked youaul had this to say about "traditions" that became rules:

Colossians 2:20 Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21 "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. NIV

And this is a reference to whom?

NetDoc said:
Please, the entire discussion has been civil without any innuendo or condescension: we don't need this kind of disparaging comment.

Fair enough, forgive me for the tone.

~Victor

Quiddity · Dec 7, 2005

NetDoc said:
You have this in Aramaic??? I don't believe that the writers gave us anything but their Greek translations. Obviously, they understood this as two different words and translated it as such.

Catholic Answers:
In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a mans name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

The same applies in Spanish as it does in Greek.

NetDoc said:
Uh, who is Larry?

It's a commercial in the radio...

~Victor

Scuba Pete · Dec 7, 2005

Isaiah 35: 8 And a highway will be there;
it will be called the Way of Holiness.
The unclean will not journey on it;
it will be for those who walk in that Way;
wicked fools will not go about on it. NIV

I don't get what you are making a point in this. It appears to not say what you said it did.

Matthew 10:17 "Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues. 18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. 19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, 20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. NIV

All Christians are indwelled with the Holy Spirit of God. The more we let the Spirit through in our thought and speech the better off we are. However, this does not promise that they will be without any error or that they will be sinless. Do you think these men incapable of sin?

Luke 12:11 "When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, 12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say." NIV

This is the same thing. However, notice that he does not say to "listen to the church" or "listen to Peter, he has the keys". He puts a premium on the Spirit of God teaching us as far as we submit ourselves to the teaching (by not worrying, etc). This is indeed how it is with all Christians, even today: the Spirit is our Counselor!

Victor said:
Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail.

Why? There is no inference to that at all. As in the other scriptures you gave, the SPIRIT is what gives us wisdom and understanding and not the church. Could it be, that with ALL that God has done, that he succeeds in spite of our sin and error? As Paul states "When I am weak, then I am strong."

Victor said:
Jesus' presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals.

This is promised where? Jesus was with the Apostles day in and day out, and STILL Phillip would not believe he was risen.

But as you say: we can agree to disagree on this. It is not germane to our ultimate salvation.

Quiddity · Dec 7, 2005

NetDoc said:
Isaiah 35: 8 And a highway will be there;
it will be called the Way of Holiness.
The unclean will not journey on it;
it will be for those who walk in that Way;
wicked fools will not go about on it. NIV

I don't get what you are making a point in this. It appears to not say what you said it did.

Matthew 10:17 "Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues. 18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. 19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, 20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. NIV

All Christians are indwelled with the Holy Spirit of God. The more we let the Spirit through in our thought and speech the better off we are. However, this does not promise that they will be without any error or that they will be sinless. Do you think these men incapable of sin?

Luke 12:11 "When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, 12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say." NIV

This is the same thing. However, notice that he does not say to "listen to the church" or "listen to Peter, he has the keys". He puts a premium on the Spirit of God teaching us as far as we submit ourselves to the teaching (by not worrying, etc). This is indeed how it is with all Christians, even today: the Spirit is our Counselor!

Why? There is no inference to that at all. As in the other scriptures you gave, the SPIRIT is what gives us wisdom and understanding and not the church. Could it be, that with ALL that God has done, that he succeeds in spite of our sin and error? As Paul states "When I am weak, then I am strong."

This is promised where? Jesus was with the Apostles day in and day out, and STILL Phillip would not believe he was risen.

But as you say: we can agree to disagree on this. It is not germane to our ultimate salvation.

We can go on all night with this. Perhaps picking up a book will be better for such a monolithic topic. Thanks for the chat.

Scuba Pete · Dec 7, 2005

Victor said:
Catholic Answers:
In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a mans name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

The same applies in Spanish as it does in Greek.

So the ASSUMPTION is that kepha was the word that was translated. There are many kinds of "rocks" in the Aramaic language, including but not limited to: bedrock, limerock, stone, etc, etc. But since we don't have the original Aramaic, we have to make an assumption about what was said.

So, the next logical question, and one that we may not know the answer to is: Was Peter's name exaqctly what Jesus called him, or was it a translation. If the FORMER, then Jesus went out of his way to use the word for Rock in one language, while leaving Peter's diminutive name in tact. If the latter, then why the difference in the Greek?

As for leaving this "monolithic argument" for a book: go in peace. James and I may continue (or not) without you. I, for one, have found it interesting.

Quiddity · Dec 7, 2005

NetDoc said:
So the ASSUMPTION is that kepha was the word that was translated. There are many kinds of "rocks" in the Aramaic language, including but not limited to: bedrock, limerock, stone, etc, etc. But since we don't have the original Aramaic, we have to make an assumption about what was said.

No assumptions needed. Christ spoke Aramaic, only one word for "rock" in Aramaic. What else do you want?

NetDoc said:
So, the next logical question, and one that we may not know the answer to is: Was Peter's name exaqctly what Jesus called him, or was it a translation. If the FORMER, then Jesus went out of his way to use the word for Rock in one language, while leaving Peter's diminutive name in tact. If the latter, then why the difference in the Greek?

In Spanish for example, "things" like a chair are femanine. The word for chair in Spanish is SILLA. If I wanted to call a man a "SILLA" I would change the word to something like "SILLO" to show the application to a man. If it was applied to a women, no distinction would be made because it's already in the femanine form. The same applies in the Greek with the word "Petra".

NetDoc said:
As for leaving this "monolithic argument" for a book: go in peace. James and I may continue (or not) without you. I, for one, have found it interesting

I will, thank you.

If I feel the need to clarify anything that was misunderstood or can lead to further understanding I will jump in a latter time.

Peace be with you.
``Victor

James the Persian · Dec 8, 2005

Victor said:
The above only show that the Church is subject to the See of Rome [The Pope] and not necessarily collegiality. Although there is literally hundreds of documents to show collegial authority and infallibility. This would be more of interest to Roman Catholic vs. Eastern Orthodox/Anglican dialogues. Im sure many Christians will agree that: Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:1920) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might. [Catholic Answers] And what I provided above is a small snip of how the Church understood this task.

Actually, Victor, none of those quotes show that the whole Church is subject to Rome unless you interpret them through the lens of Roman Catholic tradition. I can cheerfully show you why every single one of them is read quite differently by the Orthodox Church and always has been (even before the Schism) and even by pre-Schism Popes (look to St Gregory the Great's letters to John the Faster and exactly what he refers to as the See of Peter, for instance - it isn't Rome), but we've been through all this before and won't settle anything here. I just wanted to make clear that your interpretation is far from the only one possible.

As to whether ND follows Tradition, I would say not. He, and other sola scripturalists do follow a tradition but it is not Holy Tradition so I certainly will not capitalise it. I find it quite ironic that those who most often quote the passage about holding to 'traditions of men' are themselves almost invariably holding to a recent tradition of men themselves: sola scriptura.

James

Scuba Pete · Dec 8, 2005

I don't claim to hold to sola scriptura... that's a moniker that has been thrust on me. I do however, believe in the Spirit's power in the life of a believer and that there is a broad range of acceptable beleifs.

In other words, I abhor tradition and love it at the same time. As it helps us to follow the main two commandments: great! As they strive to usurp those same two commandments, I have a sincere problem with them.

James the Persian · Dec 8, 2005

NetDoc said:
I don't claim to hold to sola scriptura... that's a moniker that has been thrust on me. I do however, believe in the Spirit's power in the life of a believer and that there is a broad range of acceptable beleifs.

In other words, I abhor tradition and love it at the same time. As it helps us to follow the main two commandments: great! As they strive to usurp those same two commandments, I have a sincere problem with them.

Fair enough. Many of your arguments sound sola scripturalist, though, so you can't really be surprised when people think that that is indeed the tradition you follow. I will cheerfully admit, though, that your arguments are often far less sola scripturalist than many others I have come across.

I'm interested to know just what it is in Holy Tradition that you think usurps the two commandments you refer to, because I can't see any of it doing so. I'd be grateful if you can give me an example and why you interpret its effects in the way you do so that we can discuss it. It would also be interesting to see whether whatever it is you pick up on is truly Tradition or just a tradition.

James

Scuba Pete · Dec 8, 2005

James,

as I have stated, I believe that there are a LOT of acceptable beliefs. Very few traditions or Traditions violate the spirit of Christianity to "become all things to all men". However, very few traditions seem to promote them either! If God can work through a bigot (Peter), a terrorist (Paul), a murderer (David) and a meglomaniac (King Saul), then he can work through a few erroneous beliefs. All these men were not only fallible, but dysfunctional in many ways. Yet, God's Spirit moved within them and they accomplished great things in his name.

Quiddity · Dec 8, 2005

JamesThePersian said:
Actually, Victor, none of those quotes show that the whole Church is subject to Rome unless you interpret them through the lens of Roman Catholic tradition.

To be fair, it is proper to say that you hold Eastern Orthodox lens. This is a cause of our seperation.

JamesThePersian said:
I can cheerfully show you why every single one of them is read quite differently by the Orthodox Church and always has been (even before the Schism) and even by pre-Schism Popes (look to St Gregory the Great's letters to John the Faster and exactly what he refers to as the See of Peter, for instance - it isn't Rome), but we've been through all this before and won't settle anything here. I just wanted to make clear that your interpretation is far from the only one possible.

I'm trying to see it through Eastern eyes James. I pick up books by Michael Whelton for a start and read it along side James Likoudis. Both of which are converts of each others faiths. Nonetheless, I'm open to any clarification or further understanding you can assist with.

JamesThePersian said:
As to whether ND follows Tradition, I would say not. He, and other sola scripturalists do follow a tradition but it is not Holy Tradition so I certainly will not capitalise it.

I didn't say Holy Tradition, I said tradition. Or rather "traditions of men" like Sola Scriptura.

JamesThePersian said:
I find it quite ironic that those who most often quote the passage about holding to 'traditions of men' are themselves almost invariably holding to a recent tradition of men themselves: sola scriptura.

That's what I meant.

~Victor

James the Persian · Dec 9, 2005

Victor said:
To be fair, it is proper to say that you hold Eastern Orthodox lens. This is a cause of our seperation.

Absolutely, but I thought that that was clear by the fact that I said I didn't want to debate our differences here but merely point out to others that your view is merely a view, not the view on these passages. Evidently I wasn't clear enough.

I'm trying to see it through Eastern eyes James. I pick up books by Michael Whelton for a start and read it along side James Likoudis. Both of which are converts of each others faiths. Nonetheless, I'm open to any clarification or further understanding you can assist with.

Well, I suppose that's good, but personally I would try to avoid converts' books if I wanted to understand the differences between two churches. James Likoudis distorts our position, either because he never really understood it or because he wants to justify his own, and I'd hardly be surprised to find that converts in the opposite direction do similar. That would be my only suggestion for the moment, but feel free to ask if you have any questions. I'm always willing to help.

I didn't say Holy Tradition, I said tradition. Or rather "traditions of men" like Sola Scriptura.

Actually, you said 'Tradition'. My objection was to the word being capitalised because, for me at least, that means Holy Tradition. I was pretty sure that that wasn't what you meant, but it was ambiguous as written.

That's what I meant.

I thought so and I'm glad we agree. We often do (and I mean both our churches not just us as individuals) when it comes to things like this. It's just a pity we can't solve the bigger issues and heal the rift of the last 950 years.

James

angellous_evangellous · Dec 9, 2005

Fluffy said:
God could be infalliable if he wanted to. There is no reason why he would be unable to tell a lie.

From the traditional Christian point of view, God makes the rules. Why lie if you can speak a new reality into existence? Lying is a distinctly human characteristic, and the aim is to vainly change another person's perception of reality.

Quiddity · Dec 9, 2005

JamesThePersian said:
Absolutely, but I thought that that was clear by the fact that I said I didn't want to debate our differences here but merely point out to others that your view is merely a view, not the view on these passages. Evidently I wasn't clear enough.

I see what you mean and I didn't pick up on it. But that's what dialogue is all about, clarification.

JamesThePersian said:
Well, I suppose that's good, but personally I would try to avoid converts' books if I wanted to understand the differences between two churches. James Likoudis distorts our position, either because he never really understood it or because he wants to justify his own, and I'd hardly be surprised to find that converts in the opposite direction do similar. That would be my only suggestion for the moment, but feel free to ask if you have any questions. I'm always willing to help.

Have you read any of James books? I'd be really interested in reading what exactly he distorts. You have anything for me to look at? He seems pretty consistant with Micheal Whelton when they are speaking of the same issue. I'm also reading some of Vladimir Slovaks works as well. And as you know I post at OC.net but stopped posting because of the anti-Latin, anti-West, anti-Rome, demeanor. Not all were like this, but I suppose the ones that were are used to trollish behaivor by others and figured I was there to pick a fight. It was best that I just leave. Anyways, I guess I was just trying to show that I don't have tunnel vision and do try to put on Eastern glasses to the best of my ability.

JamesThePersian said:
Actually, you said 'Tradition'. My objection was to the word being capitalised because, for me at least, that means Holy Tradition. I was pretty sure that that wasn't what you meant, but it was ambiguous as written.

Your right, I meant a small "t" though.

I thought so and I'm glad we agree. We often do (and I mean both our churches not just us as individuals) when it comes to things like this. It's just a pity we can't solve the bigger issues and heal the rift of the last 950 years.

It certainly is a pity. Although I have to admit that I tend to be a bit more optimistic about the whole thing then most. I tend to stay away from conversations like New calendar and Old calendar, liturgical changes, etc. Is this important? Of course. Should it cause division. I don't think it should [assuming the validity is still there]. We can squabble day and night while still being in union with each other with such things. Yet Michael Whelton starts off his book with these type of complaints. Anyways, I think we should focus on the real disagreements.

``Victor

Mr Spinkles · Dec 9, 2005

angellous evangellous said:
From the traditional Christian point of view, God makes the rules. Why lie if you can speak a new reality into existence? Lying is a distinctly human characteristic, and the aim is to vainly change another person's perception of reality.

What, then, do you make of these passages?

Ezekiel 14:9 said:
9And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

2Th 2:11 said:
11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie

2 Chr 18:22 said:
22Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee.

I don't know if this is what you meant, but lying is not a distinctly human characteristic.
http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=1421

Do Animals Lie?

Richard Byrne and Andrew Whiten of the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, recently sent questionnaires to some 115 primatologists, asking for observations on what they call "tactical deception" among apes, monkeys, and prosimians. Their results read like a catalogue of low cunning, animals seemingly outsmarting each other in pursuit of food, sex, and power---or simply avoiding being beaten up. Incidents reported included a youngster screaming as if attacked, thereby causing his mother to chase another female which had just dug up a choice tidbit, leaving the tidbit for the screamer, and a female grooming a male until he lost interest in the food he had been eating, whereupon she rushed off with the food. The survey raises more questions than it answers, on self-awareness and how "behavioral scientists should approach phenomena that are so elusive yet critical to our understanding of the evolution of social cognition." --[From a Research News item by Roger Lewin, Science, 1987, 238, 1350-1351.]

http://www.brown.edu/Research/Primate/lpn27-2.html#news

Who's infallible? Who's not?

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin

angellous_evangellous

Guest

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

Mr Spinkles

Mr