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

I and other Catholics have presented you with the facts.

No, you've quoted unproven texts. Texts that have been in question for longer than you or I have been alive combined. Facts are not questionable . If they are questionable, they cease to be facts and become supposition. Truth and possible truth are not one in the same.

The fact that you choose to ignore the evidence is certainly your perogative.

I told you from the outset how I viewed the issue and why I viewed it that way. Then I asked that you meet the rhetoric with Facts. You produced what amounts to circumstantial evidence that is a) second, third or fourth hand b) not considered Credible by a good portion of the Christian world c) Partially deriving from the apocryphals which you already know beyond a doubt are rejected by the Majority of non Catholic belief systems, and were considered to be rejected by the early Church itself. Now, we'd be consdidering some of this a popularity contest if we were woefully ignorant of the reasons for which most of this stuff is not considered credible. That isn't the case and it's not about a popularity contest. It's about whether or not those books and papers can be believed, what their authority is, whether they come from who they portend to come from, whether that author is credible at all, etc, etc. This has been gone over well in advance of the question I asked last thread. And I believe I have addressed it enough that it is common knowledge among the regulars.

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.

It literally makes no difference which one it was. Quite literally no difference. If it does make a difference, I fail to see how it can possibly. The Historical record is nearly blank after the writing of I Peter. I say I Peter because there is little evidence given in II Peter about anything save the topics he writes about. The evidence is more in what isn't there than in what is.

What is absent from II Peter is glaring:

* No mention of anyone being with him at all.
* No mention of Jail, Jailors, visitors, hardships from imprisonment, etc.
* No mention of what form his death may be taking, though he states it to be near.
* No mention of where he is or any travels he may have taken lately.
* No mention of where he may be going if anywhere

Now, we do know that he's alluding to his death in this book. He's an old man at this point. It's been some 30 plus years since the Death and ressurection and he was no spring chicken back then. Paul may have sent for Mark, but we know that Paul was feeling the closeness of his impending execution when II Timothy was written by the reading of it. Someone care to point out where it is said that Mark showed up and with whom? It is assumed that he did; but, when and with whom. Again, we have to harken to the verse in Hebrews 13 in which we know Timothy has not yet arrived. Philemon is hardly worth noting for placement; but, it too was written during the imprisonment and shows the regular cast of characters - of which Peter is not one. It took a while to bring back Mark if he arrived in time for it to matter. So whether the travel of Timothy took him to Babylon in the east or to the south from Ephesus, it really doesn't matter. The travel could be made, though either one would be long.

We could also compare this to the historical record to validate your theory and document who said Peter was in Babylon.

This is a Knard. Peter himself says he's in Babylon. Now unless you can prove him a liar outright, or otherwise show beyond doubt that he's talking in code which he has no reason to do, He's in Babylon. With the number of people visiting Paul in prison at Rome at the same time as the writing of I Peter there is no reason to believe for a moment that Peter would have to hide in Rome if it were possible for him to be there. A point I have not made or seen made before; but, which is worth making and making loudly. And it is added easily to the known facts. 1) Paul sent for Timothy in Ephesus, charging him to Go get Mark. 2) Paul charged him to stop at Troas on the way back and pick up his Cloak. 3)Mark is with Peter during the Writing of I Peter placing Peter outside of Rome. 4) I Peter, having been written at the same time by given date, could not have been written from Rome if Mark is present with Peter and Not Paul. 5) If Timothy is sent for outside of Italy, And Timothy is to fetch Mark (1), Get his cloak (2) on the way back, then Peter could be anywhere in the world; but, Peter claims to be in Babylon. 6) Peter is alone at the writing of II Peter - not one mention of anyone with him - no one. It would seem that if Mark was important enough to mention the first time around and Mark is with Peter at this point, He would be important enough to mention this time - not there. Peter speaks of Paul in this epistle, but not of being with him - oops. Again, how could Peter Die in Rome before Paul, write from Rome and not mention being with or having seen Paul? He's writing to Paul's audience and he doesn't mention being with Paul. Another Glaring inconsistancy needing explanation. But, I suppose we just need to choke on it, right? Just choke it down and accept your suppositions as fact.

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.

LOL. Again, it makes no difference which city named Babylon it is. Whether I can prove it or not makes no difference, you are the one fighting the Bible, not I. And I haven't sold my suppositions regarding the matter as Gospel. You are the one doing that. I'm following the Bible and piecing together the evidence there. The evidence there points away from Rome, not to it. The things I state are possibilities of what could have been happening given the circumstances and what We know of Peter and the others. Movements of people in the different books tell as much about what's going on as the events being related. It seems someone ignored much of this in crafting a claim. Oh, and did we mention that Peter also has a home Church in Judea this time, and a wife there. Seems we always have to anchor back to this fact presented in the Bible. Why would Peter desert his own congregation and run to take care of a congregation in Rome that Paul has already been taking care of through his own aids there? Who is Peter to usurp the authority of another teacher, A teacher who would have been trained up by Paul? Paul had been in Rome for a long time Discipling people there. I'm unaware of any rifts created by such a usurpation; but, I've raised this point before and it is, I believe, still an unanswered question. I can raise even more; because I know the events and the people moving about. And I'm one of those people that people come to regularly with problems because I understand people and can offer pretty darned sound advice. So I can see the relationships as well as the people. I can see the burdens of everyday life. I can probably give you at least a dozen or more other issues easily. If I sit down and put it all together, I could write a book and give you chapters full of problems created and not answered by your claims. Messes created and not recorded - absence of issues speak as loud as those mentioned.

Again, where's your proof. Where are the FACTS.

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?

Not the point at all Reggie. It is a claim that is thrown around as fact. Seemingly inconsiquential - innocuous even to some. It goes to credibility. The claim is thrown around as fact without proof - to be accepted on its face. It is inconsequential in that it has nothing to do with our ability to be saved. Therefore, as something not mentioned in the Bible and being trumpeted as though fact, I asked for the facts to back it up. Biblical claims are not being made here, a religious claim is. Bible I can accept on faith. When people start pulling stuff out of the ether and using it as fact, there needs be some proof of it. And I have given the example that if one can take this without solid factual evidence, then one can freely believe anything that anyone on this planet says about any religion because the issue is no longer based in authority; but, in who you trust, your neighbor, the guy at the gas station. Maybe you just side to believe everyone and believe in a Roman Pantheon of gods.

The approach taken by a few Catholics here has been precisely and practically to the word "we said it and unless you can disprove it, it's true." Applying the same rule elsewhere, all your judgement crumbles because Mormanism can do the same thing and you are disarmed immediately in dealing with it. If you employ this methodology, then anyone can and everyone is 100% correct in your own judgement by your own rule. This is one of the reasons I've stuck so closely to this issue. It has shown the level of conciet of ideas. Someones crap doesn't stink and they can proclaim anything and it's truth unless someone can disprove it. I must admit, I've never seen that level of conciet before.

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?

I hope you are not now going to quote me a verse from a presumed missing history of Peter written by - who, maybe Mark? I don't discount that something may be out there. I'm saying you've no right to base a claim on something that isn't in evidence then expect me to believe your claim out of hand with no proof when the Bible points a different direction. Fact is what's needed, not heresay, not second hand gossip. Fact. If the claim can't be proven, don't go around quoting the claim as fact. Doing so makes you no different than evolutionists that Generally always speak their theories in form of factual happenstance rather than saying 'we have this theory and we're basing our belief system on something we can't prove.' I can argue that I have faith in Jesus and my faith is proven in the word of God. I do not doubt the word of God. I do doubt men who make claims that they can't prove then use those claims to construct a belief system.

Now, for sake of my argument, Peter's involvement is not at issue in your religion building. I can take issue with that seperately and have. This is chosen for reasons some of you have struggled with and others have just swatted at out of hand through anger at being contested. I contest the claim because it seems minor, and it is bandied about as fact though it isn't and has never been proven.

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.

Yep, they would have come in real handy before the forging of the books of Clement. How many writings are there that are derived from forgeries that we are unaware of. Uh oh. We didn't consider that did we? How many writings that are considered to be on shaky ground are actually worth the paper they're written on? How many aren't? How many that have been accepted are genuinely in error and the error hasn't yet been caught? You see, I too can come up with the unthought of; but, I can see far more scenarios. I can also see the possibility of Books and letters you are still using as being forged. Any good Cop can tell you a theif when caught doesn't say "oh yeah, I have been doing this stuff for ages and here's the entire list of all I've done..." No, they don't do that. They say, "Honest sir, this is the first time I ever done this and I'll never do it again (if you let me go this time)." Is it any wonder that frauds have been caught all through the History of the Church and that they are still purpetrated? (ie false miracles for example).

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.

Surely there would be a record of it somewhere. Such stories were forged in the decretals presumeably because they didn't exist anywhere else. That speaks volumes to me. How much of that fraud has been thoroughly weeded out. How much is still in use? How much fraud unrelated to the decretals is still in use that hasn't been caught. Why did the Church have to create frauds to prop up a claim that you guys say stands on it's own? And how have numerous accounts piled up in other places since the fraud when they apparently didn't exist at the time of the fraud - were they created? Or is it that they existed and weren't considered proof enough to anyone then either.

I can see many many things - many different sides to this. You all keep concentrating on one. And you offer no proof in fact of that one.

Do we discard Gibbon because he was sometimes in error?

Do we discard him, that depends on how much error we're talking about. I haven't seen you guys moving to get the errors of Eusebius corrected in all the time since they were originally exposed. And it's been a while. Which would tend to show us the truth really isn't all that important. Only the end accomplished in what is said. By you guys I don't mean here in the threads particularly, I'm pointing to Catholicism. Given that the truth has been pointed out on matters, One would think that a revised and corrected edition of his works might exist. It may significantly damage the work or reduce it to the size of a postage stamp. But, if the errors exist, they should be corrected. Yet, just as with the case when the Decretals were exposed in the 1500s. When the first thing to be corrected was in 1870 and it was not compulsory, the issue was forced at gunpoint.. The Catholic church does not correct itself. Those of us in threads on the internet, in books, in classrooms and before podiums in auditoriums and Churchs have to correct the error that Catholicism refuses to.

Think about that. How long has the actual history of Constantine been known and Eusebius' story debunked. I can go get Eusebius now and read the exact same garbage. When do you suppose we might see such things corrected? Tomorrow, Ten years from now? The next time someone like Italy gets mad and decides to force the issue at gunpoint? Truth is worth something. Falsehoods are trash. Why can't Catholicism on it's own take out the garbage? And why is it that you all expect us to buy the Catholic Clergy line when so much garbage exists and has existed? Where's the necessary level of trustworthiness on which to buy anything? Or are we to look at the clergy and say 'oh they do good deeds, they must be honest.' Where's the honesty? SD is playing word games on this very thread about how responsible Catholicism is for the inquisitions. Responsibility is denied even now. Is this Catholic intellectual honesty? I'm not saying he's a liar. I will say his statements beg reason. Have you got an honest answer to any of this that doesn't explode into a personal attack. Can any of you Catholics address yourselves to these things. They aren't hollow issues, they are genuine problems that your Church created for you all to deal with. Why not turn it around and put it on them to deal with. Hold their feet to the fire until it's corrected and we can have some level of belief in things quoted from Catholic sources without wondering, is this a lie that hasn't been caught? Is this a fraud that wasn't caught? Is this a deception that wasn't caught? Is there an alterior motive behind this teaching that has nothing to do with religion?

I say yes. If you can't trust one thing, you yank it and prove everything that can be proven, yank anything that can't, then reissue what's left in a revised edition! If you can't be that intellectually honest, don't ask anyone to believe anything you quote from those sources.

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.