[elisabeth e]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

[font="Georgia"]No, rather Tradition is affirmed by both Scripture and Magisterial doctrine. Likewise, Scripture and Magisterium are affirmed by Tradition, the Magisterium is affirmed by Scripture and Tradition, and Scripture is affirmed by Tradition and Magisterium. None can be separated from the others, as you've erroneously tried to do here.

Circular logic.... how convenient.

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by elisabeth e

Circular logic.... how convenient.

No more "circular" or "convenient" than the entirely self-referential non-Catholic sola scriptura approach. You're going to need to come up with an argument that doesn't apply equally well to yourself.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[Stuu]

Cruciform used to be a presbyterian. He converted to Catholicism for the good of his health.

But not for the good of his logic.

Stuart

[elisabeth e]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

No more "circular" or "convenient" than the entirely self-referential non-Catholic sola scriptura approach. You're going to need to come up with an argument that doesn't apply equally well to yourself.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I see. Now it's the 2 wrongs make a right fallacy.


Do you hold ANY beliefs that aren't logically invalid?



By the way, I don't go by sola scriptura.

I pay attention to things outside of the bible that don't ultimately assume the authority for their claims is granted to them FROM the bible.

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by elisabeth e

I see. Now it's the 2 wrongs make a right fallacy.

Your admission that the Protestant position is circular is noted.

By the way, I don't go by sola scriptura.

Please, then, list the other forms of doctrinal revelation that you consider to be on the same level of authority as Scripture.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[g_n_o_s_i_s]

Originally Posted by Traditio

Then why does he say at the end of the epistle that he's in Rome? You calling St. Peter a liar?

Where does he say this. I've looked over the last couple of chapters in 1 & 2 Pet and can't find it.

Thanks,

g

[EDIT: Never mind, I see you consider Babylon Rome]

[freelight]

Originally Posted by g_n_o_s_i_s

Where does he say this. I've looked over the last couple of chapters in 1 & 2 Pet and can't find it.

Thanks,

g

[EDIT: Never mind, I see you consider Babylon Rome]

Well, its a matter of speculation on if the word 'Babylon' is a code-word for 'Rome' in I Peter 5:13 -

For a review of different translations and commentary on the passage...as an appetizer....go Here. (naturally one would want to survey both pro and anti-catholic conclusions on the matter).

One alternative interpretation is that it is quite literal, for some believe some Jews were still in Babylon (its territory), which Peter would be preaching to, since he was after all called to the Jews who were dispersed. This would have to be verified by further research, yet such is complicated more if 1st and 2nd Peter are pseudographical, even if it may refer to later Petrine traditions. This still begs the question of any significance of Peter being in Rome at any time, much less if any succession of ministers can be traced from his lineage.




pj

[g_n_o_s_i_s]

Originally Posted by freelight

Well, its a matter of speculation on if the word 'Babylon' is a code-word for 'Rome' in I Peter 5:13 -

For a review of different translations and commentary on the passage...as an appetizer....go Here. (naturally one would want to survey both pro and anti-catholic conclusions on the matter).

One alternative interpretation is that it is quite literal, for some believe some Jews were still in Babylon (its territory), which Peter would be preaching to, since he was after all called to the Jews who were dispersed. This would have to be verified by further research, yet such is complicated more if 1st and 2nd Peter are pseudographical, even if it may refer to later Petrine traditions. This still begs the question of any significance of Peter being in Rome at any time, much less if any succession of ministers can be traced from his lineage.




pj

Thanks Freelight, I'll check that link out.

[OMEGA]

Why would Cruciform , who is such an intelligent person

still hold onto his Pagan Roman Religion after all the Proof

that we have given him ?

Oh well, You only have about 20 years to wait for the Right Religion Cruciform.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[elisabeth e]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Your admission that the Protestant position is circular is noted.


Please, then, list the other forms of doctrinal revelation that you consider to be on the same level of authority as Scripture.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Make sure your notes are thorough. I also "admit" that the Catholic position is circular.


But it is quite amusing how you think that only "doctrinal revelation" has the authority to verify truth.


Basically "I believe someone who had a gut feeling and then wrote it down, so it is true."

[SilenceInMotion]

Originally Posted by freelight

Well, its a matter of speculation on if the word 'Babylon' is a code-word for 'Rome' in I Peter 5:13 -

For a review of different translations and commentary on the passage...as an appetizer....go Here. (naturally one would want to survey both pro and anti-catholic conclusions on the matter).

One alternative interpretation is that it is quite literal, for some believe some Jews were still in Babylon (its territory), which Peter would be preaching to, since he was after all called to the Jews who were dispersed. This would have to be verified by further research, yet such is complicated more if 1st and 2nd Peter are pseudographical, even if it may refer to later Petrine traditions. This still begs the question of any significance of Peter being in Rome at any time, much less if any succession of ministers can be traced from his lineage.




pj

Rome being described as Babylon is not just specific to Christian Scripture. It also comes up in many texts, such the Syllabine Oracles. It was a heavy Abrahamic element, as well as in several pagan religions and cultures.

[freelight]

Originally Posted by SilenceInMotion

Rome being described as Babylon is not just specific to Christian Scripture. It also comes up in many texts, such the Syllabine Oracles. It was a heavy Abrahamic element, as well as in several pagan religions and cultures.

The term 'Babylon' may not be cryptic at all, but refer to those dispersed Jews affiliated with that territory; or be a nuance-term for those 'exiled', so may not necessarily refer to a specific location at all. Its pretty obscure and there are differences of opinion on it. (research commentaries). It may be inconsequential really. It was later in time that allusions of 'Babylon' referring to Rome such as in the Book of Revelation, Apocrypha, etc. were written decades after Peter was deceased.

Even if Peter went to Rome, there is no proof beyond tradition that he set up a bishopric or papacy-lineage (call it what you will), let alone there being scientific proof that they found his actual bones (another hot potato). I would gather Peter's doctrine would be more Jewish-oriented and less Pauline (Peter and Paul were quite at odds with each other and I dont see any evidence that their rift was ever mended), not to mention Roman Catholic doctrine morphed and syncretized its own blend of theology with all its ritual, priesthoods, etc. Its all about dogma (more or less).


pj

[SilenceInMotion]

Originally Posted by freelight

The term 'Babylon' may not be cryptic at all, but refer to those dispersed Jews affiliated with that territory; or be a nuance-term for those 'exiled', so may not necessarily refer to a specific location at all. Its pretty obscure and there are differences of opinion on it. (research commentaries). It may be inconsequential really. It was later in time that allusions of 'Babylon' referring to Rome such as in the Book of Revelation, Apocrypha, etc. were written decades after Peter was deceased.

Even if Peter went to Rome, there is no proof beyond tradition that he set up a bishopric or papacy-lineage (call it what you will), let alone there being scientific proof that they found his actual bones (another hot potato). I would gather Peter's doctrine would be more Jewish-oriented and less Pauline (Peter and Paul were quite at odds with each other and I dont see any evidence that their rift was ever mended), not to mention Roman Catholic doctrine morphed and syncretized its own blend of theology with all its ritual, priesthoods, etc. Its all about dogma (more or less).


pj

The lineage of papacy and such began with Peter, he just didn't explicitly coin it. It's not as if Peter actually chilled out at the Vatican with an infallibility hat, voted in by Cardinals. Rather, it all spiraled from him.
Eventually, there would come a time when such things would have to be established in definition and principle. And this, of course, happened in 325AD.

[freelight]

Originally Posted by SilenceInMotion

The lineage of papacy and such began with Peter, he just didn't explicitly coin it. It's not as if Peter actually chilled out at the Vatican with an infallibility hat, voted in by Cardinals. Rather, it all spiraled from him.
Eventually, there would come a time when such things would have to be established in definition and principle. And this, of course, happened in 325AD.

Thats a matter of subjective opinion biased in favor of a RCC view and dogmatic tradition, of course. Not all branches of Christianity accept Peter's assumed preeminence.

We've covered the many viewpoints of this Here


pj

[Bright Raven]

Originally Posted by g_n_o_s_i_s

Where does he say this. I've looked over the last couple of chapters in 1 & 2 Pet and can't find it.

Thanks,

g

[EDIT: Never mind, I see you consider Babylon Rome]

I can't find it either. Perhaps Traditio would like to show us.