re: Milo on Jehovah’s Witness, Christian Scientists, Mormons, etc

quote:

---

I said you put the writing of Paul above those of the HOLY GOSPELS.
There are only 4 books in the Bible that are consider holy, Matthew, John, Mark, and Luke. These are the written word of Christ.

---

Jesus didn’t write the gospels. Jesus spoke far more words in his lifetime than ended up being recorded in those books. Neither the gospels nor Paul’s letters are to be put “above” the other. They are both to be put above any tradition of men.

quote:

---

Sort of. I'm saying that whatever authority was given to Peter (whether at first as an individual--as Rome argues--or as a representative of the disciples--as Protestants typically argue), that authority was also given to the other disciples/apostles and then passed to the elders/overseers after them and that authority is not unique to Peter.

---

Thanks for clarifying. That is exactly how the 4th Lateran Council explained it too; that Peter received the keys in a unique way in Matthew 16, but then the privileges associated with the keys is extended to the other Apostles corporately in Matthew 18.

The Catechism sums it up nicely:

CCC 553 (1992)

Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The "power of the keys" designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep." The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.

My previous point was simply that sharing the ministry of the keys does not equal bearing the keys.

That’s an amazing statement. Upon what authority does one base a declaration that that some scripture is Holy, but other scripture is not Holy? What’s the difference between Holy and non-Holy scripture? Is the implication that Holy scripture is more correct than non-Holy scripture?

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (ESV) 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Is Paul’s statement an error? Is only some scripture breathed out by God but not other scripture? Did God breathe out all scripture, but made a mistake Himself in some of it?

I never said Paul was not honest, but most Christians believe that the words of Jesus are Holy and that is in the 4 Gospels.

According to most Christian denominations, within the Bible, only the four canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are considered "holy" and part of the divinely inspired scripture, while other "gospels" not included in the New Testament, often called apocryphal gospels, are not considered holy due to their later authorship and potential for embellishment or inaccurate details about Jesus' life.
Key points to remember:
Canonical Gospels:
These are the four gospels recognized as part of the Christian Bible and considered to be divinely inspired.