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

[malakhi]

BTW did you notice that thread 148 got fixed?

Yes, I did. Wasn't really looking for a patch, but it was nice of John to do that. I was more interested to see if my theory was right that the new software was behind the problem.

[malakhi]

Hey, look who showed up!!! Basilides, old friend, I think Steven has a wager to settle with you... ;o)

When oh when are you guys gonna put yourselves out of this misery...

We're having too much fun to stop now! We're hardcore addicts who couldn't escape if we wanted to. C'mon back in, the water's fine. You know you want to. Just one little post, couldn't hurt anything, right? :o)

[Havoc]

I don't think it's possible to bonefy something to your satisfaction.

Oh, it is. I can be convinced of just about anything if there are facts to back it up. Facts, not suppositions. I studied logic. I've been through Calc and Physics. I understand the difference between Fact and theory, Fact and falacy, Fact and supposition, Fact and claims. Fact is an incontravertable truth. In this case we don't have any Facts being presented - just a claim. I've debunked it up to the time of Paul's death. I've read many positions on where Peter was and when he died. In both cases all admit there really isn't any evidence or proof. The common relent is to say, 'some say this..' and it is generally agreed he died around x date. There is no record of it. Aside from heresay, Peter pretty much ceases to exist after writing his second epistle. Yet you guys claim with certainty that he went to Rome - absent any evidence of it you're sure of it. Again, and I'm sick of hearing it at this point, a fact please.

See, I believe the Mormons would have an intriguing story if they could prove it. Unfortuneately, it disproves itself before you get very far in because the Book of Mormon debunks itself. The story of Smith alone torpedoes the entire message they present. Makes it an interesting fiction with not a single fact to back it up - only dubious assurances from men no one trusts and sources no one can verify. Sounds awful familiar - doesn't it. But that's ok, you guys get to employ an entirely different standard for yourselves than you would employ against others and expect everyone to play by your rules ie. 'We say it and unless you can disprove it, it's true.' A notion that has been proffered in pretty much those words in the prior thread. I've a few atheist debators for you to meet, they'd love you. LOL. You wouldn't stand much of a chance against them; but, they'd enjoy the laugh quite well.

I think I've made my point quite well in a thread and a half on this subject - I'm off to bed. I'll dream of an answer because I've a pretty good idea that it's the only place I'll see any facts presented on the Topic of Peter being in Rome. So do us a favor, if you can't prove it - don't make the claim and expect us to buy it.

[malakhi]

They must be liars or truth tellers, there is no grey area.

As I told allend, this is a false dichotomy. They could be writing in a style that you misinterpret. Or, they could simply be wrong. Sincerely repeating something you believe to be true, but which is in fact incorrect, is not a lie. And none of this argues against their love for God and desire to do His will as they understand it.

[malakhi]

Hi Peter, welcome aboard.

I have heard this argument before but to settle this argument ,Peter was in Rome, he died there. Also, he was the first Bishop or Cardinal at Antioch, to both Orthodox and Catholic alike and he was the third Bishop of Rome, not the first.

Are you Orthodox? I've not heard the claim that Peter was the third bishop of Rome. Who were the two before him?

[malakhi]

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.

I will say that Eusebius has a rather bad reputation for altering texts to support his theological positions.

[malakhi]

Again, I agree. Which is why I stated in my #16 that the reasons for my acceptance of Judaism and my rejection of Christianity go beyond what is recorded in scripture.

[Conservative til I die]

OK, then that's a different story.

[JHavard]

.angelo, glad to see you back. I used to keep the "Day of Atonement" Yom Kippur for a good many years, around 15 I believe. Do you still keep a full 24 hour fast from any food or water?

Funny, my children even kept it with us, and the youngest was 4 or 5 at the time. We always told them that it was up to them if they wanted to keep it, and if they didn't it was perfectly OK, but if they decided to, we expected them to follow through with it, they never failed.

[Romulus]

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

[JHavard]

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

Do you mean, that's it? Here, go buy this book and if you read the whole thing, I'm sure you will understand our point of view.

Well, I'll say this,..... it is a different approach.Lol

[Romulus]

As I said, y'all don't really want proof. We've been through all this before. You cannot produce a single recognised scholar of any tradition who finds Peter at the time of his death any place but Rome.

[saradippity]

Actually the very latest scholars are now reconsidering. A fragment was found in a museum in England I believe, that seems to support the original ordering;that is, that the earliest Gospel is quite likely Matthews. I am sure I have the documentation around here someplace and will look for it and pass it along if I can find it. It has never been a subject in which I had a particular interest so I am not too hopeful about retrieving it. Anybody else see info on the dating of the gospels in the past 9 or 10 months?

[saradippity]

Needless to say I was very disappointed in your responses to my question about the number and order of references to Peter in the New Testament. I have frequently posed questions for all non-Catholics to consider or asked for explanations of passages or writings that seem to clearly indicate different meanings than those you all attribute to them. This is especially true with respect to the big picture. Very seldom do I receive a serious answer if I receive an answer at all.

I have assumed that my writing has not been as clear as I intended,or.that you at this point in your journey cannot perceive the meaning of many passages. Because I believe that Jesus did not die on a cross so that His followers could spend their time on earth nitpicking,I have dropped the subjects.

But each time this has happened I am more firmly committed to and grateful for the Catholic Church. It seems clear that a Loving God, Who created us in His image and sent His Son to explain things to us would establish a visible Church with a visible Vicar. Because He created us to live with one another he needed to ensure that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth didn't get twisted and confused by the many, who, while loving God, often so want the Holy Spirit to conform to their desires. It is the nature of man to want to live with minimal cognitive-dissonance,consequently,man seeks to interpret God's Will as much closer to his will than it seems to be,given the givens.

Finally, and this is for J.Havard,I was widowed at 27 and had a mother-in-law for 15 more years so it seems silly to me to assume that Peter was married. Especially in light of the fact that as soon as she was healed she got up from her sick bed and started serving them. Do you think that her own daughter wss not with her sick mother? Wouldn't she have been taking care of serving? Ask enough questions and get some glimpses of probable reality. This also explains Corintians 9:5,and,have you ever thought about Jesus's Mother,He asked her to watch John and John to watch her. I think that probably none of the apostles were married. After all why did Jesus tell so many that they had to leave possessions and family to follow Him? I never read that he excepted wives,did you?

[vmatt]

Need I say how offensive this type of thinking is to Jews?

This isn't just thinking, this is biblical. To deny this is to deny the bible, which you already do. If it is innaccurate as you say, to be offended would be an over reaction to a fable.

Question #1: who killed Jesus?

Judas, whom the Jewish priests paid, I believe carried the lions share of the responsibility.

Question #2: who recorded the comments supposedly made by the Jewish crowd against Jesus?

The gospel writers, eyewitnesses and having access to eye witnesses. Not to mention foiled plots by the Jews to trap Him into blasphemy and death. Lets not forget the other deaths like Stephens stoning.

[pegleg]

And I gave you an answer once. Is the answer supposed to change because you repeat yourself in a quest to change the subject?

You’ve answered nothing. You have not produced a single credible source to back up your claim. The one time you went out on a limb and did try and cite sources you got hammered and haven’t cited a source since. You are truly pathetic.

Hey, was Eusebius with Peter in the 1st century? Thought not. Eusebius is heresay…..You guys still can't give me a solid answer that isn't dependant upon questionable sources or other unproven claims

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.

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.

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?

[pegleg]

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.

I was hopeful you would study the early church fathers and come to a better understanding of the Catholic position.

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?

Your calling me smug and then making a statement like this shows you don't know anything thing about me.

[pegleg]

I have heard this argument before but to settle this argument ,Peter was in Rome,

No argument to settle with me, I agree with you. If you can cite any other sources we have not covered it would be much appreciated.

[dadwags]

OOPS!! I missed the "move" post .Thanks for the new thread, angelo .