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

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

[SoothingDave]

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.

I gather they didn't use the "little old lady, oops I voted for Buchanan" Palm Beach Jews in their plot. ;-)

SD

[RobbyS]

My question is who made you the judge of what is fact? You don't accept the testimony of 2nd century writers, nor the opinion of archaelogists working at the site. You scoff at the conclusions of a non-Roman historian because he is writing in the 4th Century, at a time when he would have had access to whole libraries of materials that are now lost to us. Pardon me if I just accept the witness of Eusebius over your "Sportin'Life" scoffing. If you are going to say, "it aint necessarily so", then it is up to you to put up or shut up.

[pegleg]

Evidence has been presented.

I think the only evidence Havoc would recognize is a 2x4. Then it would need to be administered several times to take effect.

[trad_anglican]

Once his gospel was written and circulated, how much control would he have had over its interpretation?

John didn't just go off by himself, write a story and put it in a bottle and send it out to sea. The gospel was written after he had been teaching and preaching for many years. Surely he would have been aware of such a broad evolution in understanding of the very basic, the defining event in the history of his religion, and would have taken steps to ensure that his story was correctly understood.

If what you're theorizing is true, then you, sitting at your computer 2000 years removed from the event are better able to interpret it correctly than the people who were there when it was written. That's just not credible.

In the end, the dichotomy that Allend laid out is not false. If the misinterpretations were there from the time the writings were done, there were people who knew that they were being misinterpreted and said nothing. So maybe John himself wasn't a liar, but those who let others believe what they knew to be false (ie. the apostles' hand picked successors) where no better than liars and the foundational doctrines of Christianity are based on deceptions, not misunderstandings.

[RobbyS]

My. Wife and I both loved the name of Sarah, but unfortunately to use it with our family would have made her sound like she was slisping when she pronounced her own name. Anyway, please post pictures from time to time.

[Havoc]

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?

It's not an impossible standard to meet. I've watched a video recently of a man studying the system used to date Egyptian dynasties. By re-evaluation of evidence, he was able to backwardly prove the existance of Saul and identify tablets written by him and to him. If one can go back that far and find reliable proof that was misattributed for years as something else. One should be able to find such proof of Peter being in Rome. The apostles were not small figures in the first century church. And rumor still doesn't pass as fact.

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.

Oh boy. Now we're going to talk about 'oral history'. I think it's safe to say that 20 people in a room can't keep a story straight telling it one to another in whispers. It is the least reliable form of transmitting anything at all and really amounts to gossip after it's been told a few times. Yet you would have us believe that someone has been keeping oral stories going in the background for 2000 years? Or that 500 years ago someone wrote down things that had passed for 1500 years. You're a loony. Oh, no, wait. Now we really do introduce magical mystery documents too. You also are discounting the possible existence of intermediary documents. I suppose they are out there in the ether with the missing link of evolution, the lock ness monster and Bigfoot.

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?

Oh, see, I've accepted the Bible on faith. External human Shcolarship requires more than that. The two are not comparable. Extrabiblical writings are uninspired and therefore have to be put to the test of scientific method. One has to examine credibility of the document as being real, credibility of the document as regards accuracy, credibility of the writer, whether the attribution is correct, whether the writer has any knowledge of his subject or sufficient knowledge, whether he writes from authority, and whether he is just repeating gossip, rumor or heresay. ..among other things. You guys just want to wave a magic wand and make us all forget all those things about forgery, fraud, and major games played with the truth (ie. Eusebius). Books considered questionable are quoted like they are absolute truth. Sorry, that isn't scholarship. That's what you guys call 'junk history' in it's true form. If it is unproven, it isn't fact.

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.

Well, I asked for facts. I didn't ask for unproven claims and citations from sources regarded as questionable by much of the Christian world for multiple reasons - not the least of which is they are uninspired and the veracity of the texts is questionable. It's the difference between building with mudbrick and building with granite. Granite is solid and sure. Mud brick deteriorates over time. When I ask for Granite and someone brings me mudbrick instead I'm not going to build with mud brick. I want the solid and sure. I don't want to hear this stuff about 'you are asking for too high a standard' Where does that cow pie come from? A part of your religion that you want the whole world to swallow and has nothing to do with there salvation is being proffered on what - "trust me"? You guys have got to be kidding! Whether I trust any of you as people or not is beside the point. If you can't prove it, you're selling a bill of goods because you can't deliver. If you can't deliver, the bill isn't worth the paper it's written on. I don't care who you are.

[RobbyS]

One of the things I cannot accept about modern biblical research is their positing a dichotomy between what they call "The Jesus Movement" and Christianity. The first is based on a deconstructing of the New Testament. The Protestant Reformers would have been appalled by this development, but I am afraid this is a natural consequence of identifying theology and literary criticism.

[SoothingDave]

Now we're going to talk about 'oral history'. I think it's safe to say that 20 people in a room can't keep a story straight telling it one to another in whispers. It is the least reliable form of transmitting anything at all and really amounts to gossip after it's been told a few times. Yet you would have us believe that someone has been keeping oral stories going in the background for 2000 years? Or that 500 years ago someone wrote down things that had passed for 1500 years. You're a loony.

No, goofball, you asked how someone writing in the second century could know about something in the first. That's just a generation or two and oral testimony about where the apostles were is possible. I'm not talking about thousands of years, just a generation or two.

And we're not talkng about a complicated story here. Peter was martyred in Rome. Crucified. Upside down. That's all that needs to be preserved. And it surely was written down at some point.

Oh, no, wait. Now we really do introduce magical mystery documents too.

You also are discounting the possible existence of intermediary documents.

I suppose they are out there in the ether with the missing link of evolution, the lock ness monster and Bigfoot.

You really are an ass. Is it inconceivable that there are documents telling of the lives of the apostles which were written in the first or second century of which no copy exists?

Well?

This isn't Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster. We know of documents (by reference) which we have no copy of. This isn't rocket science. We have documents from the 2nd and 3rd century which mention Peter's martyrdom in Rome as common knowledge. Surely this information was written down at some time and subsequently lost in time, or else the story of Peter's death was shared orally, or both.

Good grief, we're talking about historical documents from the ancient world that are lost. There are surely more that were lost forever than there are those that we have. Thank God for Irish monks!

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

MARRIED POPES YEAR OF PAPACY NOTES
St. Peter, Apostle D.C. - 64 A.D. First married pope.
St. Felix III 483 - 492 Two children.
St. Hormidas 514 - 523 Married before ordination.
St. Silverus 536 - 537 Wife's name: Antonia.
Hadrian II 867 - 872 One daughter.
Clement IV 1265 - 1268 Two daughters.
Felix V 1439 - 1449 One son.

POPES WHO WERE SONS OF POPES AND OTHER CLERGY YEAR OF PAPACY HIS FATHER
St. Damasus I 366 - 384 St. Lorenzo, priest
St. Innocent I 401 - 417 Pope Anastasius I
Boniface 418 - 422 A priest
St. Felix 483 - 492 A priest
Anastasius II 496 - 498 A priest
St. Agapitus I 535 - 536 Gordianus, priest
St. Silverius 536 - 537 Pope St. Hormidas
Deusdedit 615 - 618 Stephen, sub-deacon
Theodore I 642 - 649 A bishop
Marinus I 882 - 884 A priest
Boniface VI 896 Bishop Hadrian
John XI 931 - 935 Pope Sergius III
John XV 989 - 996 Leo, priest

POPES WHO FATHERED CHILDREN AFTER THE CELIBACY LAW OF 1139 YEAR OF PAPACY NOTES
Innocent III 1484 - 1492 Several children.
Alexander VI 1492 - 1503 2 grandchildren were Cardinals.
Julius 1503 - 1513 Three daughters.
Paul III 1534 - 1549 One daughter, three sons.
Pius IV 1559 - 1565 Three sons.
Gregory XIII 1572 - 1585 One son.

Sources:
Kelly, J. N. D. The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. Oxford Press. 1986.
H.C. Lea. History of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church. 1957.
E. Schillebeeckx. The Church with a Human Face. Crossroad, 1985.
U. Ranke-Heinemann. Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. Doubleday, 1990.
A. L. Barstow. Married Priests and the Reforming Papacy. The Edward Mellen Press, 1982. ------------------------------------------------------------

1 Corinthians 9:

1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord?
2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3 This is my defense to those who would examine me.
4 Do we not have the right to our food and drink?
5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
------------------------------------------------------------
Luke 4:38 Luke 4 Luke 4:37-39
And he arose and left the synagogue, and entered Simon's house. Now Simon's mother-in-law was ill with a high fever, and they besought him for her.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Do you seriously believe Peter and other Popes weren't married?

Married clergy is nothing but a matter of discipline. The Church can decide that a Priest-Bishop-Pope may, or must, be married and voila! it is so.

[OLD REGGIE]

Your use of the word "supposed" is significant. It is possible to make a case for voluntary titheing but I doubt it is a scriptural prerequisite.
------------------------------------------------------------

Luke 11:42 Luke 11 Luke 11:41-43

"But woe to you Pharisees! for you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

Luke 18:12 Luke 18 Luke 18:11-13

I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.'
-----------------------------------------------------------

In my personal opinion, that "supposed" Protestant Church wouldn't be important to me.

[Havoc]

Not at all. If it agrees with him, he'll post it as fact. If it disagrees with him he'll call it false.

Another excuse instead of scholarship. I don't care if you agree with me or not. I asked you to prove something to me. One seemingly small thing. I've advised you of the fraud perpetrated by your institution as have others. I've advised you of the absence of reliability of books and documentation and why it's unreliable - as have others. Then you turn right around and want to use the self same texts that half or better of the Christians on this planet along with secular scholars denounce as dubious (untrustable). And you want to call that scholarship. You might as well tell me the donation of Constantine gives the Pope the right to rule Italy. It's much the same thing. A document that can't be trusted is not proof of anything.

I don't say things to benifit me. I'd preach eat drink and be merry if that were the case! I happen to believe God's word - The 66 books of the Bible and the Spirit of God. That's as far as my faith Goes. Regarding scripture and belief. If it checks out against the Bible, I have no problem with it. If it isn't in the Bible, you need to prove it. If you can't prove it, don't quote it to me as though it were fact and expect me to buy it. That isn't scholarship and appeals to reason aren't either. Peter in Rome may make an interesting fiction; but, until it's proven, he wasn't there. And the Bible indicates that he wasn't there. So the level of proof must equal the level of skepticism. If the Bible doesn't put Peter in Rome, you have to establish it with other than rumors and repeated hearsay.

We know that up to the time that 1 Peter was written, there is no Biblical linkage between Peter and Rome. II Timothy was written around the same time as I Peter. And Paul is dated to have died about AD 67. No firm date can be placed on the death of Peter. II Timothy, if memory serves, was dated between AD 65-67, the same time frame given for I Peter. If you take that less than accurate writer Eusebius' word for it, Peter died the same year that I Peter and II Timothy were written. Paul sent for Mark through Timothy who was in Ephesus. Paul requested that Timothy go get Mark then make a stop in another major city on the way back before entering Italy. If Peter Died after Mark left, by your own methodology in beleiveing the great fiction author Eusebius, Peter would have to have Written II Peter in a flash then made a mad dash in haste to Rome to become the Bishop of Rome - which I'd dare say is something that does not happen over night. He would have been dead before the office was pronounced upon him. The assumed date of Peter's death by most I've read is between 67-69. That would give him more time to accomplish the task; but it also gives an eternity in which he could have written letters from Rome - the which we do not have. If II Timothy And I Peter were written in the same Time period and Paul had to send for Mark outside of Italy, then Peter didn't write I Peter from Italy, much less Rome, Italy. Yet both books are dated to the same time. Hebrews is attributed to Paul, in which He makes note that he is *still* waiting on the arrival of Timothy. *Still*. It can be said Paul had the time to write another whole epistle before Timothy arrived with Mark. Which would indicate that Timothy must have had a long way to go in order to get to Mark and get back. Babylon is a Long way away from Rome - whichever of the two you pick.

Supposition, yep. But it fits the facts. And Peter did say he was writing from Babylon, not Rome. Revelation had yet to be introduced (the only linkage in the bible between Rome and Babylon). And Revelation was written based on divine revelation from God - in other words, it's author was a stenographer of the book. So the usage in Revelation is not indicative of a common usage amongst the masses. No linkage can be backwardly applied. I may posit supposition, but I posit it around what can be trusted and known from the one source that is reliable. And I don't offer my ideas about it as fact - only the parts which come from the Bible are fact- the rest is speculation and need not be believed to further anyone's faith. Your story doesn't fit the Biblical accounts let alone make any sense. That it doesn't fit the Biblical evidence is the prime reason to require proof - which has yet to materialize.

[Havoc]

For the record, your proof is to be found in Antioch & Rome by Raymond Brown and John Meier.

Really, can you not quote some of it or is it a rehash of all the same stuff you guys have been *claiming* in here? Seriously. Does it establish it in fact or is your argument a rehash of the book?

[ultimate]

Thaaaank you! That needed to be said. Couldn't do it so well or so clearly. Just have to show it again in case anyone missed it the first time (with my added inflections):

"This one of the differences between Catholics and Protestants on these threads. We may Catholics may not always interpret scripture correctly, but at least we can distinguish between scripture and our own interpretation thereof.

You Protestants can't make the distiction, so for you, your interptetation becomes the Word of God. Hence your replies like, "God says otherwise," and your equation of disagreement with your interpretation to an attack on scripture itself."
80 Posted on 09/28/2001 08:02:46 PDT by allend

[Havoc]

You still seem to think that the Church was in control of the Inquisitions. It was not. This makes the question mostly moot. But let's pretend.

That is the Catholic spin on it, sure. What is the reality? Lets consider the facts. Fact one, the office of the Pope had been fraudulently extended the right to throne and dethrone Kings. The King being Catholic could be excommunicated for not following the will of the Church. The King could also readily find himself before an inquisitional tribunal. The Pope was pretty much an emperor - having power to call up troops from France and Spain for it's Holy War against Christians, Jews and Muslims in the Crusades. Now. Who are we to believe was in control there? The Darkages were named for the effect the Church had in excercising its fraudulently gained powers over Europe. But, it's all someone else's fault according to you guys. There was a big boogie man lurking elsewhere on the grassy knoll that really did it all. The Catholic church was just duped - right... LOL. Give us a break Dave.

[Havoc]

How in the world can Havoc claim to know what documents that Eusebius had before him? In patristic writings there is reference to whole volumes of Christian/heretical writings that have not been preserved.

Did I claim to know what documents he had before him? I don't remember doing that? I merely pointed out that what he writes and what we know from history are not one in the same thing - rather far from it in some cases. Whether he was duped or a liar makes no difference. The credibility of his work goes down the drain with the debunking of his writings. It's interesting the extent to which ya'll will go to defend something found in error.

[Havoc]

But if one turned up in somebody's cesspool in Rome tomorrow, Havoc would still dismiss it as a Catholic plot.

Indeed. If one turned up in a cesspool anywhere tomorrow and it could be verified and authenticated, I'd be happy to accept it. And after nearly two threads of asking for factual evidence - even one *solid* piece of evidence, I'd need oxygen because rather than making excuses or proffering claims, you'd have actually proven the claim to me. I'll have to consider buying an oxygen bottle to be prepared. But so far I'm still waiting for proof. Is it hiding somewhere and you guys just can't find it. I would think that if you guys make so much of this seemingly insignificant issue you'd have solid proof of it somewhere...

[dadwags]

Pegleg, could you (or some other RC HTML expert) do us a favor,please? Please go to www.scripturecatholic.com, click on "Blessed virgin mary" then on "Mary ever virgin" and post a link to the scripture verses that use "until" in a particular way? Thank you .

[RobbyS]

merely pointed out that what he writes and what we know from history are not one in the same thing - rather far from it in some cases And what we know from history depends on what documents are available to US. He could be mistaken on some points and we on others. Do we discard Gibbon because he was sometimes in error?

[vmatt]

"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?"

No.

[pegleg]

Done. Link is on thread 151