Search results

I appreciate the humor! But I don't think there is a soul on the planet who reads it that way. Still, there are many souls on the planet who ultimately draw that inference from Matthew's account. You're right about that.

Phoneman777, I respect your opinion (although I am not sure I agree with it). And I've read a lot of scholarly writings on both sides of the debate. There are indeed some that support your opinion, and a few make quite cogent arguments. But this link you provided is absolute crap. And...

Well, that interpretation of 1 Tim. 3:2 would disqualify Paul himself. I suppose the logic would go something like this: "Timmy, don't let any unmarried men be church leaders. They need practice first ruling their wives successfully. That's essential. I myself have never done it, so I can't...

If Peter’s confession of faith is the “rock,” then why didn't Jesus say “upon this faith” or “upon your words” I will build my Church? THAT would have been clarifying it better!

I haven't read all of this yet (gotta go to work now), and I doubt I will have cogent answers for all of the questions. As I have said before, I haven't yet made up my mind on the ultimate issue, and so I am neither in @Marymog's camp nor yours on this (see Post #642 for why).

I certainly don't want to preempt @Marymog's answer, but I have one of my own of you want to hear it.

So, men who never marry are disqualified too?

My friend, you are never going to convince the Catholic bashers on this thread that the Church was ever the guardian of doctrinal purity, or that history and logic matter. Only Scripture matters to them. 1 Tim. 3:15 may refer to "the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the...

If you will allow me to propose a slight modification: Impeachment proceedings simply put out there the fact that in the opinion of those advancing impeachment proceedings this guy is NOT doing his job. If the impeachment proceedings come to naught (as the Senate will eventually prove to be...

I do not believe that the Episcopal church is where all Christians should go to settle their differences. And I do not believe that the Episcopal church is the "pillar and foundation of truth" to the exclusion of all other denominations. But I do believe it is a part of the church of the...

If I were in that crowd of 1,500 in 1914, I would have asked Rutledge: "I don't know that John was still alive in C.E. 96, much less that the Corinthian church of that year was aware of his still being alive, and where to find him. Is there any evidence of either?"

Clement's letter suggests that their bishop had been deposed, or at least that there was a movement afoot to do so. Look at Chapter 44. Indeed, that apparently was the purpose of the consultation request by some in the Corinthian congregation, which sparked Clement's letter. I'm sorry, but I...

They felt the need to CONSULT with a respected Bishop. They did not feel the need to APPEAL to a higher authority. There is no evidence of the latter. Nothing in Clement's response suggests it. Believe it if you like. I don't. Let's leave it at that. I don't know how two friends from...

The word "appeal" is a loaded one. I prefer "consult." Because "consult" is the most we can infer from the internal textual evidence of the letter. We all consult the opinions of respected people all the time, but that is a far cry from bowing to their authority over us. To answer your...

I don't read the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Church at Corinth quite the same way you do. Just because it responds to a matter on which the Corinthians had apparently consulted Rome does not prove that these Corinthians must have recognized Rome’s hegemony. Nor does it suggest to me that...

I wonder if we can agree that Christ would not have used the word "church" here as a reference to the entire Church writ large, but rather only to a local assembly.

Because I find Matthew 16:18 ambiguous. Because the play on words in the Greek -- the Greek that Jesus didn't speak to Peter -- just isn't definitive either way, if it is even possible in Aramaic. Because I doubt Paul was aware, when he wrote to the Ephesians, that Jesus spoke such words to...

Rev. 1:9 says its author, John, was on Patmos. I am pretty sure John the Baptist was not that author. He lost his head decades before that work was written.

But these Petrine flaws were pre-confession in Matt. 16. Post-flaws, who is to say how Peter (or Paul, or David) might be used by God?

First I'm hearing that John the Baptist was ever on Patmos. Are you perhaps confusing him with John the Evangelist?