tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post4662544201596803774..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Scott Windsor can't make up his mindJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-21365612171968270262009-11-11T12:01:05.602-05:002009-11-11T12:01:05.602-05:00Cool, I'm more than happy to leave it right he...Cool, I'm more than happy to leave it right here. Thanks!Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-614572318385764472009-11-11T11:59:21.653-05:002009-11-11T11:59:21.653-05:00Sorry to break it to you, Alan, but my bishop is p...Sorry to break it to you, Alan, but my bishop is part of the Ordinary Magisterium which is included in apostolic succession. It is not I who is losing track of the argument. Your elders are not part of the apostolic succession (thanks again for yet another opportunity to remind you and the readers of the fact you've already conceded this point) and therefore in their usurping of teaching authority outside communion with the apostolic succession - they, in effect, become a "little magisterium" of sorts - a parallel church to the One which Jesus Christ built upon the Apostles and continues with their successors. <br /><br />You've lost this round. The more you continue to try resurrect your failure - the more you fail. You quoted something off-topic which apparently you <b>thought</b> would help your cause, but context betrayed you and in the end it only helped my cause. If you wish to continue, feel free. <br /> <br />You're left with two choices:<br />1) Continue trying to save face.<br /> <br />2) Give it up, you lost.<br /> <br />In JMJ,<br />Scott<<<Scott Windsorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01961374547503296840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-83706112645710042832009-11-11T11:29:09.156-05:002009-11-11T11:29:09.156-05:00No Mr Windsor, the topic was not apostolic success...No Mr Windsor, the topic was not apostolic succession. It was whether my elders are their own little Magisterium and whether they have teaching validity since they're not part of RCC. Example #6 or so of your losing track of the argument.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-90176129492279138132009-11-11T11:25:18.856-05:002009-11-11T11:25:18.856-05:00Alan wrote:
> Um, hardly. RC dogma remains unch...Alan wrote:<br />> Um, hardly. RC dogma remains unchanged.<br /> <br />Alan, the topic was apostolic succession. The point is your elders do not have it (a point you've already conceded) and my bishop does have. <br /><br />Now you're trying to say the topic was "RC dogma remains unchanged." I would agree with that statement, but it has nothing to do with what we were talking about.<br /> <br />It seems you've mistitled this thread... it should be <b>"Rhology can't make up his mind"</b> - that is if you insist upon using pejoratives in the titles of your threads (which does seem common here).<br /> <br />In JMJ,<br />Scott<<<Scott Windsorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01961374547503296840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-30453340688267193402009-11-11T11:17:26.262-05:002009-11-11T11:17:26.262-05:00my3sons writes:
> CathApol, I have nothing agai...my3sons writes:<br />> CathApol, I have nothing against <br />> Jesus' family, but where does <br />> Scripture point us to pray in <br />> the names of Jesus, Mary, and <br />> Joseph? Scripture has us <br />> praying in the name of Jesus <br />> only.<br /> <br />Hmmmm, I wasn't aware I was praying when I signed my comments. Are these comments part of your prayer and worship? <br /> <br />When I sign, "In JMJ" (In Jesus, Mary and Joseph), it is simply a complimentary closing, as in basic friendly letter writing. Like, "Yours sincerely" or "Humbly in your service," etc. Stuff we learn in elementary school.<br /> <br />I remain, your unordained teacher, in JMJ,<br /> <br />Scott<<<Scott Windsorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01961374547503296840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-50777477554773809562009-11-11T11:16:33.457-05:002009-11-11T11:16:33.457-05:00And you're not apostolic.And you're not apostolic.Richard Froggatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931363750222373223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-78290247644668138892009-11-11T11:07:43.166-05:002009-11-11T11:07:43.166-05:00RF,
JWs aren't Christian. Hate to break the n...RF,<br />JWs aren't Christian. Hate to break the news like this.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-79407653759194510352009-11-11T11:07:06.873-05:002009-11-11T11:07:06.873-05:00So by Rhology's definition ( to be consistent ...So by Rhology's definition ( to be consistent ) it applys to Jehovah's Witnesses also.Richard Froggatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931363750222373223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-29320318801386765182009-11-11T11:00:56.926-05:002009-11-11T11:00:56.926-05:00You are also inadvertently supporting my ability t...<i>You are also inadvertently supporting my ability to "teach" - though I am not ordained clergy</i><br /><br />Um, hardly. RC dogma remains unchanged.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-13282115568766693382009-11-11T10:59:31.271-05:002009-11-11T10:59:31.271-05:00Alan writes:
> It says:
> Let him that teach...Alan writes:<br />> It says:<br />> <b>Let him that teaches, </b><br />> <b>although he be one of the </b><br />> <b>laity...</b><br />><br />> Laity = not an ordained <br />> clergyman. By your definitions, <br />> my elders are not ordained <br />> clergymen. <br /><br />sw: I don't see how this helps your case in the least. Bishops in apostolic succession would be ordained clergyman - you're helping to confirm <b>MY</b> point that your elders are not part of the Apostolic succession. You are also inadvertently supporting my ability to "teach" - though I am not ordained clergy (and that helps you too a bit), but that's not the point I made - which still stands. So the unordained can help teach - what has that got to do with validity? Those unordained would still need to be in communion with and under the guidance of a bishop - which you have already conceded your elders are not.<br /><br />Alan remarks:<br />> Thanks for playing.<br /> <br />sw: Thanks! I enjoy winning too! :-)<br /> <br />In JMJ,<br />Scott<<<Scott Windsorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01961374547503296840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-76100635917764034832009-11-11T08:15:34.919-05:002009-11-11T08:15:34.919-05:00It says:
Let him that teaches, although he be one...It says:<br /><br /><b>Let him that teaches, although he be one of the laity</b>...<br /><br />Laity = not an ordained clergyman. By your definitions, my elders are not ordained clergymen. <br /><br />Thanks for playing.<br /><br />Peace,<br />RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-16584153901555746402009-11-11T00:36:10.300-05:002009-11-11T00:36:10.300-05:00CathApol, I have nothing against Jesus' family...CathApol, I have nothing against Jesus' family, but where does Scripture point us to pray in the names of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph? Scripture has us praying in the name of Jesus only. Soli Deo Gloria!my3sonshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01128278733497402775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-12705720966173636722009-11-10T23:23:03.386-05:002009-11-10T23:23:03.386-05:00Alan,
First off, your elders were not a part of Ch...Alan,<br />First off, your elders were not a part of Christianity when that was written. <br /> <br />Second, that quote has nothing to do with elders at all, but speaks of who should be baptized, who should be rejected and who should be given more time. <br /> <br />So Alan, you have a couple choices:<br /> <br />1) Apologize for the "asinine" comment - that wasn't very good "manners."<br /> <br />2) Admit that you quoted something which truly doesn't apply to your elders. (I guess that makes my answer to you #4 - I read the context, did you?)<br /> <br />Or, you could do both.<br /> <br />In JMJ,<br />Scott<<<CathApolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17762504684024359557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-5724903897719175432009-11-10T17:13:36.593-05:002009-11-10T17:13:36.593-05:00Or #6
What has the quote got to do with Alan?Or #6<br /><br />What has the quote got to do with Alan?Richard Froggatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931363750222373223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-71357881859919976932009-11-10T17:03:00.828-05:002009-11-10T17:03:00.828-05:00Speaking of my elders...
Constitutions of the Ho...Speaking of my elders...<br /><br /><br />Constitutions of the Holy Apostles: Let him that teaches, although he be one of the laity, yet, if he be skilful in the word and grave in his manners, teach; for "they shall be all taught of God." See ANF, Vol. VII, Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book 8.32, p. 495<br /><br /><br />Now, you have a few choices here, Mr Windsor.<br />1) Drop your asinine line of argumentation. (This is the preferred option.)<br />2) Insist that I don't have the right to use early church documents since the early church was the Roman Catholic Church. <br />3) Counter-quote sthg else out of the early church.<br />4) Accuse this of being out of context. <br />5) Ignore it.<br /><br />If #3, you'd need to explain how counter-quoting helps you out of the fact that the early church just straight did not teach what you say it teaches, on a consistent basis. It gives us good reason to doubt that the early church taught consistently on quite a range of things, if it couldn't get authority right, and should push us back to that which is theopneustos. <a href="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/01/inconsistency-considered.html" rel="nofollow">See here for more on that.</a><br /><br />If #4, you'll have to do some fancy stepping. Words mean things, and these words mean something that's not easily mitigated by context.<br /><br />If #5, you'll be displaying behavior very common to RC apologists.<br /><br />Peace,<br />RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-59263765350723501312009-11-10T15:35:24.998-05:002009-11-10T15:35:24.998-05:00You have conceded that your elders have no valid a...<i>You have conceded that your elders have no valid apostolic succession, mine do. The authority of the office passed down from one generation to the next - but your Baptist elders popped up out of nowhere at some point.</i><br /><br />Goalpost-shifting is noted.<br /><br />And yes, exactly - the PROTESTING was the target. The ARGUMENT. Double standard much?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-6573148557536055282009-11-10T15:33:08.257-05:002009-11-10T15:33:08.257-05:00>> sw: The office of my local
>> bish...>> sw: The office of my local <br />>> bishop IS the local magisterial <br />>> authority over me. The bishop <br />>> is PART OF the Ordinary <br />>> Magisterium.<br />><br />> AR: Then please explain your <br />> criticism of my church's elders. <br />> That's the whole point of my <br />> post; not to critique RC dogma <br />> per se, but the inconsistency of <br />> your critique.<br /> <br />sw: My critique remains untouched. You have conceded that your elders have no valid apostolic succession, mine do. The authority of the office passed down from one generation to the next - but your Baptist elders popped up out of nowhere at some point.<br /><br />> AR: (Ah, I was wondering what <br />> "JMJ" stood for. Thanks for the <br />> clarification.)<br /> <br />sw: Well, I didn't offer initially what it stands for, but I did offer a clarification/explanation - so you're welcome.<br /><br />> Mr Windsor said:<br />>> sw: <i>Methinks thou protesteth</i><br />>> <i>too much.</i><br />><br />> AR: That sounds like a "personal <br />> attack" to me, Mr Windsor, if <br />> we're using your standard of <br />> distinguishing personal attacks.<br /> <br />sw: It was a line stolen from Shakespeare and it has to do with your protesting - not your person.<br /> <br />In JMJ,<br />Scott<<<CathApolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17762504684024359557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-74165630697723875482009-11-10T14:46:09.857-05:002009-11-10T14:46:09.857-05:00Mr Windsor said:
Methinks thou protesteth too much...Mr Windsor said:<br /><i>Methinks thou protesteth too much.</i><br /><br />That sounds like a "personal attack" to me, Mr Windsor, if we're using your standard of distinguishing personal attacks.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-54727018128281149192009-11-10T09:22:01.877-05:002009-11-10T09:22:01.877-05:00Mr Windsor,
The office of my local bishop IS the ...Mr Windsor,<br /><br /><i>The office of my local bishop IS the local magisterial authority over me. The bishop is PART OF the Ordinary Magisterium.</i><br /><br />Then please explain your criticism of my church's elders. That's the whole point of my post; not to critique RC dogma per se, but the inconsistency of your critique. <br /><br /><br />(Ah, I was wondering what "JMJ" stood for. Thanks for the clarification.)Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-2993495532474034052009-11-10T08:58:04.294-05:002009-11-10T08:58:04.294-05:00>> sw: "Jesus, Mary and Joseph are
>...>> sw: "Jesus, Mary and Joseph are <br />>> an example for all of us in how <br />>> to live."<br />><br />> And how was that, exactly? Fleeing <br />> to Egypt or losing track of your <br />> "only" child at the annual <br />> religious festival?<br /> <br />Fleeing to Egypt was in obedience to God, what your beef there? That is a GOOD example of how to live! Obeying God!<br /> <br />Willingness to yield to God's Will in their lives - both Mary and Joseph gave up a "normal" life to raise their Son. We don't know what happened to Joseph in Jesus' adult years (likely he passed on) but Mary devoted the rest of her life in devotion to her Son! And of course, I don't have to tell you (I hope) that we are to try to be like Jesus as much as we can. <br /> <br />As for the incident of finding Jesus a the Temple, they likely assumed he was with other relatives and then yes, their extreme concern for their Son is a good example for us too. <br /> <br />In JMJ,<br />Scott<<<CathApolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17762504684024359557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-66622780658376489092009-11-10T07:15:41.540-05:002009-11-10T07:15:41.540-05:00"Jesus, Mary and Joseph are an example for al...<i><b>"Jesus, Mary and Joseph are an example for all of us in how to live."</b></i><br /><br />And how was that, exactly? Fleeing to Egypt or losing track of your "only" child at the annual religious festival?EAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03649331234241764065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-58630350130498731392009-11-10T00:01:36.489-05:002009-11-10T00:01:36.489-05:00my3sons,
What have you got against the Holy Family...my3sons,<br />What have you got against the Holy Family? Jesus, Mary and Joseph are an example for all of us in how to live. Methinks thou protesteth too much.<br /> <br />In JMJ,<br />Scott<<<CathApolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17762504684024359557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-22598789350481104802009-11-09T23:21:46.042-05:002009-11-09T23:21:46.042-05:00I find it interesting that Scott always ends his w...I find it interesting that Scott always ends his writing with "In JMJ". Translation-In Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. Hmmmmm.my3sonshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01128278733497402775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-34515347527326685182009-11-09T19:10:18.292-05:002009-11-09T19:10:18.292-05:00Scott, I suppose an answer from the 'ordinary&...Scott, I suppose an answer from the 'ordinary' magesterium is as good as one from the meta-ordinary magesterium, since that one will never speak on any subject other than Mary's ever-virginity anyway. Indeed we must all agree that Mary never slept with Joseph since Joseph is only a literalization of the title Messiah ben Joseph. There was no Joseph. And Mary was John Mark's mother for Jesus denies her at Cana "what is there between me and thee, woman?" And shows why at the cross saying to John Mark "behold your mother." Was John then born of a virgin? Perhaps John Mark was the reincarnation of Mahershalalhashbaz, for contextually Isaiah 7-8 is about Mahershalalhashbaz being born of a virgin as a sign of when Ahaz' two enemy kings will be defeated by the Assyrian king and Yahweh himself declares Mahershlalhashbaz to be the fullfillment of the virgin birth prophecy in Isaiah 8. But Jesus himself tells us that he descended from heaven already having his flesh (John 6:51) and he tells us his only mother and brothers and sisters are those who do his Father's will.<br /><br />Let the infallible or falible magesterium either one explain how Hosea 11:1 and all the rest of the prophecies in Matthew's first two chapters contextually aplly to Jesus when they don't, and let them further explain how all of Jesus' own denials of his birth fit with the fictional birth stories and how John Mark's mother Mary can be Jesus' mother when he says he was not born of a woman for "of all those born of women none is greater than John". If they can explain all this logicially, then and only then will I believe they are infallible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-66351598479329271742009-11-09T18:43:37.236-05:002009-11-09T18:43:37.236-05:00Rho,
The colors seem a bit early Christmas. We ha...Rho,<br /><br />The colors seem a bit early Christmas. We haven't even had Thanksgiving yet!(:James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com