Posted on 09/27/2001 6:13:58 PM PDT by malakhi
No one found Peter in Rome. That's the point. Some just claim that's where he ended up. Where's the factual evidence to support the claim?
But it was NEVER necessary for gentiles to follow the Mosaic Law. I suggest you reread Galatians. The whole thrust of the epistle is that observing the Law is unnecessary; indeed, that that following the Law separates one from Jesus!
You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. (Galatians 5:4)
things kike circumcision
An unfortunate typo. ;oD
Oops didn't mean to ignore these last 2. You assume the catholic church is the only one. I don't. He's certainly protected me and others from that heresy. So I guess he's protected part of His church. You have a serious case of denial. (not the river)
You've been positing a misinterpretation of an already existing work. This process cannot have started while the writing was still in process. I'm granting you, for the moment, the assumption that John was writing midrash. If this is the case, then John must have known he was writing midrash and the literal interpretations must have come later.
To support this theory, you'll have to show some evidence that the belief in a bodily post-crucifixion Jesus was a development that was later than the writing of the account. Otherwise, you're asking us to believe John's gospel was misinterpreted from day one. Which is untenable because he would have been around to correct the misinterpretation.
With this present qualification, I can agree with you. Rabbinic Judaism is the successor of Pharisaic Judaism. Obviously, both rabbis and synagogues existed prior to the destruction of the Second Temple. (They are mentioned, after all, in the gospels). Synagogues are schools for studying Torah, and rabbis are teachers. They existed in parallel with the Temple and the priesthood. After 70 C.E. the priesthood understandably lost influence, and the practice of Judaism was preserved through the teachings of the rabbis and sages. This model worked because it was highly decentralized. However, it is clear that rabbinic Judaism is a continuation of traditional Judaism (in terms of observance and belief) that existed prior to the destruction of the Temple.
is to assume that Jesus's own message was not accurately conveyed in them.
I doubt that we can with assurance separate out Jesus's message from what his disciples wrote about him.
Given the significant differences between Jewish sects--Pharisees, Essenes, and Sadducees et al--it is reasonable to posit Jesus as an original.
There is some evidence that Jesus was in fact influenced by the Hillel School of Pharisaic Judaism. His belief in the resurrection of the dead and his moral teachings are remarkably similar to the teachings of the Hillelites.
You bet. Google, at least until such a time as John Rob improves the search function here, is the de facto official search engine of Free Republic.
If the bible is agreeably reliably interpreted in only a few of the stories presented, but they are not true stories, then we are all the silliest of fools.
According to one web site:
Originates from the word 'keikl', in Yiddish, which means 'circle', the reason being that the first Jewish immigrants in America, who were unable to sign their names, signed with a circle instead of a cross.
Don't you just love the Internet? Information at your fingertips!
Well, the Exodus sure defines Christianity.
You asked it originally in the prior thread and I told you I didn't feel I needed her for the argument. Now you call me a liar, though it is there in the thread for anyone to see. I don't need guns to take an unprotected sandbox. I asked you for proof, and instead of providing facts, you attack me for not disproving it. I reiterate that it's your claim- your burden of proof. I'm mouthed off to about anything else under the sun. Where's the facts?
Let’s see Clement of Rome writes of the martyrdom of Peter in Rome, and Ignatius of Antioch , Bishop Papias , Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Peter of Alexandria and Lactantius give us testimony of Peter in Rome, and Eusebius writes a history of the early church based on the witness of many of the early church leaders and you call it hearsay. I think not.
Clement - hmm. that name sounds familiar, as does iggy. Most of this stuff is saying 'oh he was there'. It's as if the statements are an after thought and that's all they had to say about it. It's heresay. You might try putting the dates of these writings in as well. Much of what I have seen by way of quotation doesn't even come from the first century. Tell me. How does someone from the third century know where a person from the middle first century was if there is no documented proof they were there? Why are there no documented and proven stories of all Peter's would be deeds in Rome if he was such a big deal. Again, we know of the forged stuff; but, where's the real deal? And if it exists, why did someone feel the need to forge 4 books worth of it - making it all up? You see, no answers. Silence. Silence when asked for facts. Silence when asked for explanations. Volume comes with attacks and claims but silence otherwise.
I have good reason for asking this question and it does not surprise me you can’t answer it. This claim was originally made by William Cave, chaplain to King Charles II in the early 17th century. In his book, The Lives of the Apostles, Cave asserts that in the Greek original of Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, there is no reference to Peter being bishop of Rome. The claim then resurfaced in Lorraine Boettner's, Roman Catholicism. Boettner accepts this as sufficient "proof" that the apostle was never in the capital of the empire. Had he simply bothered to look at what Eusebius actually wrote concerning Peter's whereabouts, he would have found in sections 2:25, 3:2, 5:8, and 6:14 exactly what Cave said was not there: Eusebius reports the testimony of the early Church that Peter indeed was in Rome and was martyred there in the year 65.
So Eusebius, the very person you discredit, is who Cave referenced to make this assertion in the first place. Up until that time, this was a non issue. Since Cave was discredited, it would have remained a non issue had not Lorraine Boettner raised it again in his book.
But hey, lets not let the facts get in the way of your argument. If Boettner wrote it, it must be true huh?
Uh, several things come to mind here. First this is Boettner's approach, not mine, though you are trying awful hard to hang it around my neck. Second, I haven't discredited Eusebius, he did that to himself. I'm not the one who decided to pen the fictions he has and stamp them as fact. That was his doing. And the truth has discredited his work. I and others merely point out the inconsistancies. Funny how the ones pointing out the wrong are the bad guys and the one who did wrong is coddled and heralded as a saint...
Third. How does this in anyway have thing one to do with what I asked you? Your right, it doesn't. I asked you to prove the claim. Not to give me a story about how someone else tried to disprove it, attempt to nail it to me, then give your opinion on that matter. Where's the incontravertable facts that show Peter was definitely and without question present in Rome?
Just the folks who read it all as literal truth.
SD
Look at it this way. We presently have a canonical set of Christian scriptures. And yet there is a myriad of views, just on this website, about what individual passages mean.
John supposedly wrote from the island of Patmos. Once his gospel was written and circulated, how much control would he have had over its interpretation? Someone in Lyons, for example, couldn't just pick up the phone and ask him what he really meant. Consider also how often Paul chastizes local churches over their doctrinal differences. And these were people who were evangelized by Paul himself! Never underestimate the ability of people to misunderstand things.
Havoc, you summarily dismiss anyone writing after the fact and summarily dismiss anyone with the audacity to be quoted by Catholics. Why not just admit you have an impossible standard to meet?
How could anyone 150 years later know of the existence of an earlier person? You are obviously not familiar with the process called "oral history" which many cultures used for many many years. You also are discounting the possible existence of intermediary documents.
Do you dismiss many of the Bible books? The oldest manuscripts available for some of them are even newer than third century? Without first hand contemporary proof of their accuracy, how can you accept these documents written in later centuries? Don't you see the quagmire you get into when you refuse to take human scholarship as it is and demand instead perfection?
BTW, bona fide is Latin for "on good faith." In other words, even something that is "bona fide" is accepted as true based on the good faith of another. Something to think about.
SD
Can I get an "Amen"?
SD
(I understand what you said as an argument for ecclesial authority, of course.)
SD
Didn’t figure you would. It would have to be someone after Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, or Wesley.
Matthew must have been a protestant. He said it. But I doubt he was around in the 17th century.
Matthew was not a Protestant and there is no debate on what he said. It’s the interpretation.
Yes. Because He obviously has. Duh.
So the promise of Christ to protect his church wasn’t to be in effect until after the reformation? I can’t believe that since Christ said he is the way, the truth and the life. It is inconceivable he would allow error to be taught in his church.
You assume the catholic church is the only one. I don't. He's certainly protected me and others from that heresy. So I guess he's protected part of His church.
Beginning when and what church is he protecting? If you can answer this it will provide the answer of who first interpreted Matthew the way you do.
You have a serious case of denial. (not the river)
Yes. I deny your private interpretations.
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.