Posted on 01/31/2008 5:45:17 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
LOL....well apologies if I was brusque. I said what I did from personal experience...having been carried away in an argument and then realizing *DOH!* what I was saying didn’t hold water. I’m learning to talk in terms of “suggests” and “indicates” rather than “proves”. :)
Take your time with what you have to do...I am falling behind in work myself.
But just to respond to Gal. 2:7-8, I don’t really think that undermines Peter in Rome. There were plenty of the circumcised in Rome at this time, as is indicated by Suetonius’s statement that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome in A.D. 49. They were being instigated “by one Chrestus”—I take that to mean there were contentions within Roman Jewry over the Christ. Perhaps Peter moved within a fairly narrow group of Roman Jewry and it took Paul to really expand the Church in Rome to Gentiles as well.
Just speculation on my part—I’ll have to dig a little deeper into the sources.
woof
;)
Which is a demonstratively FALSE doctrine, since most on FR have no problem with the tradition of Christmas. Or of Easter. (Yes, the WESTERN celebration of Easter is based on CATHOLIC tradition, that is, every Protestant denomination that celebrates Easter does so on the SAME time table as the Catholic Church)
Put another way, Protestants who claim to be sola scripturists seem to have no problem with tradition and/or historical precedent as a source of knowledge, EVEN IF IT'S NOT EXPLICITLY IN THE BIBLE, when it suits THEIR needs, THEIR wants, THEIR "church", but, lo and behold, with the traditions that blatantly show their error, SUDDENLY comes the cry "you need to SHOW that from Scripture ALONE", not JUST show it "VIOLATES Scripture" (which is what REAL sola scriptura would requre), but that one needs to "show it from Scripture, EXPLICITLY", which is NOT what sola scriptura requires. Again, that's solo scriptura.
(and by the way, the notion that Christ would install a steward, a representative for Himself on Earth, that in no way abrogates His power, does not violate Scripture either, any more than the notion of parents leaving the eldest child in charge of the house while they are away abrogates their authority over the house)
Most of you don't even know what sola scriptura means apparently, if you did, then you'd RUN to the Catholic Church after discovering the hidden HYPOCRISY thereof, because no one who claims to adhere to sola scriptura really does adhere to it; they have something more like a sola scriptura/ solo scriptura amalgam, choosing between the two when it suits them.
Wake up and smell the coffee of CONSISTENCY; then maybe we Catholics wouldn't get so exasperated with you. At the very least, a PURE sola scripturist shouldn't have any problem with the Tradition of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. I'd love to see where that VIOLATES Scripture. And please do try to remember, the "absence of evidence" in Scripture doesn't mean a "violation" thereof.
It destroys the unanimous testimony of a whole lot of people who were a lot closer to the events than you are. But to be deep into Protestantism is to ignore history, so that's just fine ... right?
hee hee...indeed!
Matthew 10 is a provisional instruction.
Evidently you missed out on Matthew 28:16, through the end of the book, where Jesus is speaking to the eleven disciples (Judas being out of the picture at that point) and he says "Go ye unto all nations". That's the operative commandment.
By the way, what makes you think there were no Jews in Rome?
You are arguing with scripture.....not me!
I'm arguing with your misuse of Scripture.
Well and truly debunked here: http://www.bib-arch.org/Shimon%20Barzillai%204d1sm.pdf
I actually don't think it is a "Protestant" position that Peter was never in Rome. I'm sure plenty of Protestants, and Orthodox for that matter, are quite comfortable with a historical Peter in Rome and yet still reject the claims of the Roman See.
The two positions are quite detachable.
Yes, it is.
Which is the only kind that could be a proper name for a man.
Unless you're proposing that Jesus should have given Peter a woman's name.
Not as considerable after 49 AD when Emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome.
Do you think that there were no Jews in Rome? On the contrary, there was a very large colony of them, and given that Rome was like New York, the metropolis of the empire, exceeding in size Alexandria by this time, why shouldn’t he have gone? Where in Scripture do you read he was never there? The tradition is that he was martyred there and that his tomb like Paul’s came to be a place for pilgrims. Speaking of, how do you know that Paul was martyred there, or do you deny this as well. I come to believe that you believe that he was never in Rome because you believe he was never in Rome. It is the tradition you follow, not the Scripture that persuades you to believe.
Oh, that's mature! Or is it manure? Consider the history. If Peter was executed as a common criminal, then he would be placed in a grave near the site. The Vatican was like Golgotha, outside the city walls. Since Christians were being executed right and left, his body would not have been taken to a more dignified tomb, as our Lord's was. And it has been almost two thousand years. But seriously, why do you think that Constantine built his basilica on Vatican Hill if it were not the reputed place of Peter's grave?
Exactly. As the excavations revealed, he had part of the hill completely leveled (a massive undertaking in an age without heavy machinery), the tops of many of the existing tombs shorn off, and other areas backfilled so that the Basilica's altar could sit precisely over one particular tomb in the necropolis. He went through a lot of engineering headaches to put that Basilica precisely where it is.
Vatican hill was well known in that day as the place where sorcerer's and seers were buried, and thus probably the place where Simon Magus and his followers were buried. Christians and Jews wouldn't be caught dead there -- :)
First time I have heard the writings of the Church Fathers being called reams of RCC propaganda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.