Posted on 09/27/2001 6:13:58 PM PDT by malakhi
| "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) |
The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 149
In regards to Peter being in Rome he cited credible sources and it has also been verified by the writings of the Church fathers. You would have to believe all of them are liars to claim Peter was never in Rome.
It's also intertesting to note who first made this claim and when they made it. I'm hoping Havoc will answer me but he has a habit of dodging direct questions.
For one thing, it is highly questionable the ending was appended. Here is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
That edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia was published in 1917. There have been rather substantial advances in scripture scholarship since then. Furthermore, I wouldn't exactly call the Catholic Encyclopedia an unbiased source of analysis.
Whether you like it or not, the overwhelming majority of scripture scholars, even conservative, Christian scripture scholars, now accept Markan priority. The earliest preserved texts of Mark do not contain verses 9-20.
Yes it does, even without the "appended" ending. The missing body from the tomb would imply a physical resurrection.
I suppose it does if you read it into the passage. It certainly is not explicit. In Mark 16:1-8, there are no sightings or interactions with a physically resurrected Jesus.
And I gave you an answer once. Is the answer supposed to change because you repeat yourself in a quest to change the subject?
So is it your position that Eusebius is a liar?
Hey, was Eusebius with Peter in the 1st century? Thought not. Eusebius is heresay. And not very accurate heresay I might add. I've pointed out the significant discrepancies between historic fact and his version of Constantine in prior threads. How quickly we forget. So, is he somehow more accurate reporting a few hundred years after the fact when he couldn't get the facts straight about a contemporary? LOL. Try something reliable - or does that not exist?
I am on the subject, you are the one dodging questions. You also never answered my question regarding who was the first person to dispute that Peter was never in Rome. That shouldn't be hard to answer. And it also will demonstrate what a false premise you base your argument on.
Nice attempt to shift there. I asked a simple question a thread ago. You guys still can't give me a solid answer that isn't dependant upon questionable sources or other unproven claims. But you want to tell me I'm dodging questions - that's just too rich. And is there some point in our near future regarding who first disputed Peter was ever in Rome? It has zero bearing on the argument. I asked for facts, not a history lesson on who first asked the question I asked you guys. How about facts supporting your claims?
You're worse off than I thought, now you're talking to yourself.
No. Just predicting how it all comes out. I've been pretty darned accurate for two steps of it. I just haven't yet seen the final one come about where you all break down and call me a Catholic Basher and a Bigot. Or perhaps I missed that one.
For those in the Cheap seats, I asked them a thread ago to prove that Peter was ever in Rome. This is a basic issue that goes to the authority of the Bishop of Rome in the long run. I've been given suppositions, other unproven claims, quotes from books that pretty much all but Catholics view as spurious. And I've even been told that it's a reasonable claim that we can all just take their word for because no one has disproved it. There, I think that pretty well catches every one up. Anyone trolling for details need only go back a single thread for a full view.
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. So where is the proof. In 2000 years there must be something that can prove it. Where is it? I mean for crying out loud, I saw a documentary not too long ago where secular scientists said, we know Jesus was a real person. If they can say that from the evidence they have from the times, One would think there would be proof positive of one of his Apostles being in Rome - other than Paul who we know was in Rome. summoning the old woman again Where's the proof?
Actually, what you consider credible sources and what the rest of the world considers credible sources is two different things. Even Angelo is aware of the questionable nature of certain references. He made the point in this thread. Not to drag him into it, if he wants in, he's welcom; but, I think it makes the point.
And one need not call the "Church fathers" liars. It can hardly be proven that most of what you call Church fathers had first hand knowledge of Rome in the 1st century. Furthermore, the likelyhood that they were repeating heresay exists. You reference the apocryphals and want to use them for support knowing fullwell they are not proven texts where most of What we'd loosely call Christianity is concerned. I made that point at the gitgo.
It's also intertesting to note who first made this claim and when they made it. I'm hoping Havoc will answer me but he has a habit of dodging direct questions.
If you think it's so interesting and really worth saying just say it. Or do you yourself not know the answer and just want to use it to wrongly accuse me of something to take the emphasis off your own failure to produce any solid evidence. Oh do tell us how it has any bearing too.. Anticipation of the answer has us all chasing back the urge to exit the room momentarily to flatulate. My evening will just be devastated if we don't learn it immediately. LOL.
Oh - wheres the proof?
Admission would presume some amount of facts in evidence to prove the claim. If we had some, I'd be willing to admit to facts. Alas, you haven't produced anything that could be regarded as credible proof. Maybes are not facts. I came to the table prepared to admit it if you could prove it. I was also pretty certain you'd fail to do so resorting to prior arguments. Where is a fact. I've gone as far as to narrow the field to a single credible fact. Are you telling me there isn't one to be had?
For one thing, forget that "matter of faith" slam
My apologies. I did not realize that saying that you believed something on faith was a criticism.
There is no magisterial statement of the Catholic Church saying in which order the Gospels were written.
It may not have been dogmatically declared, but prior to Vatican II it was certainly the position of the Catholic Church that the gospels were written in the order of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Why would you dispute this? Isn't this the very position you are arguing?
Here is what Fr. Most says about the theory that Mark wrote first:
Oh great. Trot out ol' Fr. Most again. Sorry, but Most's remarks simply place him with you in the distinct minority of those, even among Catholic scholars, who still hold to Matthean priority.
It is worth noting what the Pontifical Bible Commission had to say about the use of modern textual criticism:
In order to put the abiding truth and authority of the Gospels in their full light, he will accurately adhere to the norms of rational and Catholic hermeneutics. He will diligently employ the new exegetical aids, above all those which the historical method, taken in its widest sense, offers to him--a method which carefully investigates sources and defines their nature and value, and makes use of such helps as textual criticism, literary criticism, and the study of languages. The interpreter will heed the advice of Pius XII of happy memory, who enjoined him "prudently… to examine what contribution the manner of expression or the literary form used by the sacred writer makes to a true and genuine interpretation. And let him be convinced that this part of his task cannot be neglected without serious detriment to Catholic exegesis."[5] By this piece of advice Pius XII of happy memory enunciated a general rule of hermeneutics, by which the books of the Old Testament as well as the New must be explained. For in composing them the sacred writers employed the way of thinking and writing which was in vogue among their contemporaries. Finally, the exegete will use all the means available to probe more deeply into the nature of Gospel testimony, into the religious life of the early churches, And into the sense and the value of apostolic tradition. - INSTRUCTION CONCERNING THE HISTORICAL TRUTH OF THE GOSPELS, 1964.
This authorization of the use of modern critical techniques was supported by the Vatican II document Dei Verbum.
Fr. Raymond Brown, perhaps the premier New Testament scholar of the 20th century, accepts Markan priority (see his An Introduction to the New Testament, published in 1997)
Either these things happened, or the witnesses were lying.
You set up a false dichotomy. There is another alternative, and I have suggested it repeatedly. The gospel authors could have been writing in a distinctively Jewish style, that of midrash. In doing so, they would be lying no more than Jesus lied about the Prodigal Son.
Interesting that you should try to equate the Apostles with a charlatan like Joseph Smith. There is no comparison. He was very clearly making the whole thing up. Miracles he claimed can be proven false to any reasonable person.
If we got Cubicleguy or Illbay on this thread, I'm sure they would vehemently disagree with your characterization. You apply to Mormon beliefs a level of skepticism that you refuse to apply to your own beliefs.
I don't think it's possible to bonefy something to your satisfaction.
The OT is type and shadows of the reality that is Christ. Christ not only fulfilled the Law, He is also the fulfillment of Scripture. All Scripture points to Christ.
I'm sure you believe this, but I disagree. This line of argumentation is meaningless to me.
why was it ok for Noah to eat of any any animal after the flood, but only after the people of Israel were chosen and freed from Egypt did certain animals become unclean?
Because it was part of the way in which God set aside his Chosen People. It separated them from the customs of the pagan tribes surrounding them. It also serves as a form of spiritual discipline, and a reminder that even the basic activities, the most ordinary moments, of life, are sanctified.
So when Christ died on the Cross he made it possible for all men to have access to the Father and become members of the family of God. The door had been opened for all to join.
Not necessary. They were all already members of the family of God. Jews do not believe that gentiles have to convert to Judaism in order to be "saved". Non-Jews who obey the Noahide laws binding upon all men are known as "righteous gentiles".
The Jews are no longer the chosen people of [God].
Then God is a liar who has broken His covenant with Israel. If He broke the covenant with us, how can you be so sure He won't break the covenant with you?
So the command to Peter was not a breaking of the Law, but a fulfilling of it through Christ.
The fulfillment of the Law is in the observance of it, not in the rejection of it.
Give me their names and where the claim can be found, and I'll see what I can find on them, I'm sure you would want to know if they had a questionable past.
It's also interesting to note who first made this claim and when they made it. I'm hoping Havoc will answer me but he has a habit of dodging direct questions.
I have been arguing your facts of history ever since I came on these threads, long before I met Havoc, and I had heard no claims from anyone other then the fact that it went against what my Bible said, and I had never heard of Clement Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr and the rest, but you kept throwing them in my face so I had to study them as much as I resisted, so don't try to blame Havoc, blame your own smugness that you never dreamed we would eventually research them our selves and put your feet to the fire over your own history.
You sound like the husband that his wife caught him cheating and he said, how could you do this to me, don't you trust me?
Because they understandably fear the admission they would have to make that their heritage was the rejection, torture and death of their very own Messiah. Imagine their reluctance to believe. I pray this hardness is not continued punishment for saying let His blood be upon us and our children.
Need I say how offensive this type of thinking is to Jews?
Question #1: who killed Jesus?
Question #2: who recorded the comments supposedly made by the Jewish crowd against Jesus?
And Peg's response:
In regards to Peter being in Rome he cited credible sources ...
Sorry Peg, couldn't help it. I had to repeat this. Eusebius pretty much does what he wants. But, you retort 'well on this issue he's credible'. LOL. Umm are there some other issues we can take your word for that he's credible on, or do we need to just go out and shred the volumes and debunk him completely? Ok, back to work. Back to work. Nothing more to see ere. LoL.
I'm also rather unaware of anything in Judaic law that is comparable to it.
There isn't anything. Lifelong celibacy is contrary to the commandment to be fruitful and multiply. The Nazirites indeed took vows to God, but only for a limited period of time (see Numbers chapter 6).
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.