The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 150

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

"I have seen in the last week much ugly use of religion for chest thumping and blaming 'ragheads' and even blaming our decadence for the events of the last week. I would rather that we continue here, respectful of our unity in citizenship, in displaying how religion can be talked about without veering off into ugliness." (SoothingDave, 9/19/01)

Threads 1-99

Thread 100	Thread 101	Thread 102	Thread 103	Thread 104	Thread 105	Thread 106	Thread 107
Thread 108	Thread 109	Thread 110	Thread 111	Thread 112	Thread 113	Thread 114	Thread 115
Thread 116	Thread 117	Thread 118	Thread 119	Thread 120	Thread 121	Thread 122	Thread 123
Thread 124	Thread 125	Thread 126	Thread 127	Thread 128	Thread 129	Thread 130	Thread 131
Thread 132	Thread 133	Thread 134	Thread 135	Thread 136	Thread 137	Thread 138	Thread 139
Thread 140	Thread 141	Thread 142	Thread 143	Thread 144	Thread 145	Thread 146	Thread 147
Thread 148

The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 149

[SoothingDave]

Yeah, that's what I meant by the "possible existence of intermediary documents"

But if one turned up in somebody's cesspool in Rome tomorrow, Havoc would still dismiss it as a Catholic plot. Even though it doesn't matter to his faith at all, we still have to be wrong.

SD

[saradippity]

Thanks for your answer. I had just about finished a response to you concerning my total inadequacies re computer retrievals and I got wiped out. This may not be much for people who know what they are doing but I am upset since the whole world of computers is very foreign to me. Please don't consider me abrupt or using avoidance but I cannot review what you suggested because I have no idea of how to find it. If you could give me step by step directions so that I might be able to find it on the computer, I would appreciate it and would enjoy discussing it.

Going back to the scripture passages on Peter, as a person who is a mother-in-law to my sons'wives,a person who had a mother-in-law for fifteen years after my husband died and as a daughtter to a mother,my experience leads me to believe that the situation at Peter's house was highly unusual if his wife was still alive.

On the other hand if I put on my feminist hat, it could well be that waiting on the men was what put the mother-in=law into her sick bed to begin with,then while she was abed Peter's wife had to serve the men and when mom-in-law recovered,Peter's wife took to the sick bed. Sounds like I may have just hit on the truth.(tongue in cheek)

[pegleg]

Where's the incontravertable facts that show Peter was definitely and without question present in Rome?

I and other Catholics have presented you with the facts. The fact that you choose to ignore the evidence is certainly your perogative. But I must tell you, your theory about Peter never being in Rome and writing his letters from Babylon would make more sense if you could tell us what Babylon that would be. That way we could trace his journey’s and see if it makes sense. We could also compare this to the historical record to validate your theory and document who said Peter was in Babylon. But since you can’t or won’t do that all you have proven is you don’t let facts affect your opinions. That's not serious scholarship but I suspect you know that.

[SoothingDave]

Sara, (what a lovely name) JHavard was referring to our trusty online Catholic Encyclopedia. Go to www.newadvent.org and you'll find all kinds of Catholic goodies. The articles from the Encyclopedia can be found by clicking on the alphabet letter along the top of the screen there. This will give the list of every article in that letter. Enjoy.

Your theory on Peter's mother-in-law is interesting, about the serving, etc. Keep in mind that Peter being married and having a wife is not an impediment to his being the first Pope. Priestly celibacy was a later development in the West.

SD

[JHavard]

Check your Private Mail, (:-)

[saradippity]

Thanks for the info and I will get to it soon. Your baby daughter's name is Sara,right? I always liked the name, it conveys a serenity and a loveliness that calms me. That of course is not my name or nature unfortunately.

I know that whether or not Peter was or was not married at the time of the Bible event is of little matter in the "big picture". Thats one of the beauties of the Catholic Church,despite what appears to an outsider as a rigidity and demand for conformity it leaves a lot of room for enlightening discussions about a plethora of things. It also clearly states those things that are foundational and must be believed because they are "what is",so to speak.

[SoothingDave]

Your baby daughter's name is Sara,right? I always liked the name, it conveys a serenity and a loveliness that calms me.

Sarah, yes, is my daughter. She just came to visit me at work. Unfortunately, she had fallen asleep on the way over and didn't want to show her beautiful eyes to anyone. Sarah is Hebrew for "princess" and I couldn't think of a more fitting name.

SD

[Havoc]

You Protestants can't make the distiction, so for you, your interptetation becomes the Word of God.

LOL. Ok ok, I'll bite. The reference from which that came was the quotation re the limitation of one wife. The verse says what it says. Whether it demands a single wife or restricts to a single wife is not at issue. This verse flatly says that pastors, bishops, etc. can be married. And there is nothing in the bible saying otherwise. Now, that's straight from the Bible (Word of God). Thus if God said it, that ends it - what anyone thinks about it is moot. My comment had nothing to do with interpretation. Try again.. LOL. Boy are you guys fishing for something to complain about now.

[SoothingDave]

This verse flatly says that pastors, bishops, etc. can be married. And there is nothing in the bible saying otherwise. Now, that's straight from the Bible (Word of God). Thus if God said it, that ends it - what anyone thinks about it is moot.

And doesn't Paul write -- again, straight from God, mind you -- that Christians should be the same, slave or free, Jew or Greek?

Well then, the Bible obviously says that slavery is OK. There's nothing in the Bible at all saying slavery is bad. God said it, I believe it, that ends it.

SD

[vmatt]

"Just the folks who read it all as literal truth."

That be me. Mamma didn't raise no fool.

[SoothingDave]

So was there really a Prodigal Son, was there really a man who had three servants and gave them all some talents, was there really a man who hired people at different points in the day and gave them all the same wage?

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

I renew my single question. Where is a single, solid uncontravertable piece of evidence that places Peter in Rome? This is a tall claim having nothing to do with our ability to be saved or not. So this is not something required to be taken on faith. The Bible doesn't put Peter in Rome. Catholicism makes the claim. ------------------------------------------------------------

Forgive me if the subject has been previously covered; but, I fail to see whether Peter was ever in Rome is germane to the validity of the Papacy. Peter could been in Rome. He could have been the first (or second) Bishop of Rome. He could have died in Rome. Any, or all, of this could be true and it still doesn't have any bearing on whether Christ actually established a Papacy. Does it?

[JHavard]

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.

pegleg, I think this is very disingenuous to throw out 10 or 11 so called proofs, and then expect the ones that you are trying to prove a point to, to look them all up and read them to find that magic phrase you claim will clear everything up.

If you are going to make the assertion that these writings will back you up, why don't you copy and paste it, and save us a lot of trouble, and it won't look as much like you are trying to stall and get away from the subject.

I believe that whenever I make a claim from an author I put it out for you to see, please show us the same respect.

[Havoc]

Aha! So that explains your fascination with trying to assert, in contravention of all the historical evidence, that Peter did not get to Rome.

What are you Aha-ing. That I made a statement that you rejected? It actually does go to the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Major, Minor or in between that is the only significance I think the immediate claim has. And what do you mean all that? LOL. Are we talking about a mythical mountain of facts yet to be produced. Don't tell me, let me guess, you guys are keeping the really good stuff to surprise us with...

You think you could overthrow the Papacy. Well, let me enlighten you. The primacy of Peter does not rest on his physical location, but on whether or not Jesus appointed him to the office.

Uh oh, conspiracy nut. The world is out to overthrow the Papacy because I asked for proof of Peter being in Rome. You're being a little over dramatic there, allend. Take a minute and put yourself back together.. LOL. And as an aside if you want to talk about Peter's primacy or that of the bishop of Rome we can address that later. Right now we're supposed to be concentrating on providing a fact that shows Peter was ever in Rome.

If Jesus did in fact do that, then Peter's location is irrevelant. If anyone could prove that Peter was not in Rome, all that would prove is the the tradition of having the Pope as Bishop of Rome started later than Peter. It would not compromise the office of Pope.

My, do you seem paranoid all of a sudden. LOL. Still waiting on that one fact. Who's Got the Fact, does Dave have it. Did it get sucked up by the magical mystery vacuum? Lose it in the sock that didn't come back out of the dryer? Please let us know when the search partys come back with it. I would hate to miss such an occasion.

[pegleg]

pegleg, I think this is very disingenuous to throw out 10 or 11 so called proofs, and then expect the ones that you are trying to prove a point to, to look them all up and read them to find that magic phrase you claim will clear everything up.

Please go back to thread 149 post 120. There you will find my links. Click on Romulus1 or ThomasMore and you will find the names with dates, references etc.

Sorry, I thought you knew that.

[malakhi]

MOVE
TO
THREAD 151!!!

At your own pace...

[malakhi]

havoc, I think OLD REGGIE's #152 is for you.

[JHavard]

Bin Laden denies terror attacks and points finger at Jews

Osama bin Laden has allegedly denied any involvement in the US terror attacks and pointed the finger at Jews.

His reasoning is that Florida's Jewish community has not forgiven President Bush for his controversial state victory in the US election, an Urdu language newspaper reports.,?I>

I thought you might enjoy finding out what really happened, this is on the Drudge Report, watch out angelo. hahaha

[malakhi]

Sadly enough, there are plenty of people willing to believe this tripe, including some on FR. They never met a conspiracy they didn't like, particularly if they can blame it all on the Jews.

What I'd like to know is how the Mossad tricked all those jihadist fanatics into doing their dirty work. Must've promised them extra virgins or something.

[SoothingDave]

Evidence has been presented. You wish to discount the scholarship and belief of all Christians, Catholic and Protestant, until recent times. You are certainly free to reject evidence which the rest of the world accepts.

I gather you rather fancy swimming upstream, shouting in the wilderness. The more points you can prove yourself right and the rest of the world wrong, the more you know you are truly one of the chosen ones, with the secret "true" knowledge.

SD