Posted on 09/28/2001 1:15:53 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) |
| Threads 1-50 | Threads 51-100 | Threads 101-150 |
Nice try. Matthew is the one supplying the context. You and others are the ones supplying the hoax. You can insult Luther all you like. How is that supposed to bother me? You aren't deferring to what anyone else said at that time either. It was apprx 300 years before your "fathers" realized they'd better tiddy up that scripture. Try not to be too hypocrital.
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?
Steven, for your consideration.
Has already been decided. See my link on post 105 on thread 150. The will NEVER happen.
Married clergy: Can happen. Will probably happen.
Has already happened with the exception of the Latin right. And there are exceptions to that rule for some Anglican converts. This might happen.
Just enough for relatively minor things to reinforce those who would deem it uninspired.
I did not answer this for you. I'm asking because you said this on the previous thread "You assume the catholic church is the only one. I don't. He's certainly protected me and others from that heresy. So I guess he's protected part of His church."
So I'll ask again. What church is he protecting and when did he start protecting it?
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
You're assuming that Peter wrote this letter. There was a resistance in the early church about accepting this epistle in the canon because it was not a given that Peter wrote it. There are a number of scholars who call this work a pseudonymous work because it gives the appearance of being more remote in time from 1 Peter. The principal reasons are because the author refers to the apostles and our ancestors as belonging to a previous generation now dead (3:2-4) and there is a collection of Paul's letters that exist and appear to be well known, but disputes have arisen on how to interpret them (3:14-16). There is also widespread agreement that II Peter depends on Jude and not vice versa. And finally, this epistle refers to "scoffers" who have concluded from the delay of the parousia that the Lord is not going to return. This could hardly be the case during the lifetime of Simon Peter.
So before you go hanging your hat on disproving Peter was never in Rome based on what is absent from II Peter, you may want to do a little more studying. I can't prove that Peter wrote this letter can you?
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.
This is what your position really boils down to because all you have for documentation 1 Pet. 5:13. And yes, Peter would have a darn good reason to speak in code since the Christians were being persecuted in Rome. And we also know that Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way six times in the book of Revelation and in extra-biblical works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). This link has been posted before but here it is again.
Again, where's your proof. Where are the FACTS.
Since you don't accept our documentation and I can't get anything from you other that 1 Peter 5:13 it looks like we have reached a stalemate. Unless you want to provide proof that Peter actually did write II Peter. That could prove to be interesting.
Nuns don't tell the Pope where to go; but, the Apostles sent Peter forth. Paul sternly corrected Peter in front of others, many witnesses. This would be insubbordination if Peter were his leader, it is not viewed as such. Paul took Mark away from Peter, See II Timothy. Mark was Peter and Paul sent for him. That this was honored is evidenced in the absence of Mark in the writing of II Peter. Another major flub for ya'll. Who is Paul to take away an aid to Peter to be an aid for himself by simply sending someone to make it so. There are more examples. But, I don't see nuns sending the pope anywhere, correcting his errors and taking his aids as they please.
Can you proffer an edition of the Bible that writes it in this way - an original? Rhetorical question. When you can, come talk to us. Until then it's a figment of your imagination. I've never seen a single edition of the Bible in which the differentiation is not present. Not a single edition ever written from original text that could with authority use the word Cephas in both places. You guys really want to argue it. But you have to produce it to be able to say it existed. Then you have grounds to argue that the difference exists. It doesn't.
Thanks for the production, btw, of a nonexistant example. It just buttresses a point I've been working on for two threads and beyond. Fact isn't important. You quote from an edition that doesn't exist and use that as an authority to make an argument. I couldn't make that claim credibly and really didn't, mine was a little different. You just pushed the envelope for us - through a wall as it were. Anyone else got a comment to make on this one. If it isn't Garbage or "junk" scholarship, I don't know what is.
correction:
Mark was with Peter ..
Just thought I'd fix that to save confusion lest you raise my typo to the level of a new religious truth..
The only promise of Protection offered and honored is to those that obey him. There are no blanket statements for anyone on the issue of promises. And the Church speaks to the people who are the Church, not it's clergy. Christians are protected when standing in obedience to God. That doesn't mean they can declare whatever they wish, it means that God won't lead them into error. Men can ignore God and walk into error on their own and God will not stop them. If you stand in obedience as a sheep, Satan cannot touch you, and thus, the Gates of Hell cannot prevail against you. If you are in disobedience, there is no such promise and the sting of sin is Satan's rights in your life granted by bowing to his counsel rather than sticking to God's.
The Word of God rests all promises on obedience. This is nothing new. Your clergy is not protected no matter what - even in matters of faith if they are in disobedience or speaking contrary to the word of God. Speach is not protected. You can say anything you want - even having been obedient in all else - and if it isn't from God, it isn't protected from anything. If it doesn't line up with God's word, it didn't come from God because God does not contradict himself - he is not the author of confusion. Infallibility is a perversion of these principles.
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.
I must admit when I read this on your response to OLD REGGIE I immediately thought of you.
I was referring to the Church Christ established and his promise to protect it as he promised in Matt 16:18. Your rambling sounds like philosophy to me.
So your argument now is that Peter didn't at all write II Peter? Or are you asking me to Prove it was Written By Peter based on two things you suggest as dissenting views - minor dissenting views. Yep, I've read the stuff too. I've also read the assenting views which were more pointed and won the day. The claims of the dissenters were shot down. And I can debunk them pretty quickly with modern parallels. And with parallels of the day.
Nice attempt at trying once again to shift the burden of proof.
As for the quotation once again of Revelation, Revelation was written after II Peter by dating. One cannot leap forward in time to a revelation direct from God, Grab something said to another by God, then leap back in time and apply the usage. Doesn't work that way.. ok, maybe in star trek; but, not in real life. Care to give us the actual dates of the writing of the other three works in relation to I Peter and how they'd have any bearing on Peter in AD 65 - 67? I would note, that has not been proffered. How about it?
Your, excuse me for borrowing, "Jack Chick"ish tract is duplicated here. Peg, playing cut and paste: www.lumenverum.com/apologetics/rome.htm.
Babylon in the Book of Revelation can only refer to Rome as it was the only "great city" in the time of Christ and the Apostles. Babylon proper in Mesopotamia had, by 100 AD, been reduced to insignificance.
This is the portion of the quotation just before your cut and past about revelation and the three other books. I suppose you couldn't put them into the date timeline that I have referenced a number of times because there were no dates given in the cut and paste method of scholarship?
Ok, I'll do it for you. 4 Esdras is dated to around 100 AD - After the writing of Revelation. Baruch is named for a prince dating to the Babylonian Captivity era and as such deals with actual Babylon, Not Rome in Italy - Kinda miss that in cut and pasting don't ya? Standard Baruch is aimed at Jews in Captivity in Babylon (Mesopotamia). This has no bearing on your argument (0). Now for the last reference the Sibylline Oracles:
see Pseudepigrapha.
(s´´dp´grf) (KEY) [Gr.,=things falsely ascribed], a collection of early Jewish and some Jewish-Christian writings composed between c.200 B.C. and c.A.D. 200, not found in the Bible or rabbinic writings.
How interesting, this one is spread out all over the place to the point where it's a collection of works spanning a 400 year period.. The latter end of the collection dating to 130 years after the presumed death of Peter. Cut and paste scholarship sucks doesn't it Pegleg. 3 quotations one that can't be pinned down and therefore gives no support to your argument. One that has nothing to do whatever with the supposed point, and one that was definitely written AFTER revelation, the only known Biblical reference to Rome as Babylon which itself was written not only After I peter was written, Not only after II Peter was written; but, according to opinion was written in 96 AD - 30 years after you guys say Peter died.. Tell me, Can Peter like come back from the Dead and rewrite I Peter to apply a parallel that wasn't made till after he died?
No rush, I'll let you think about it a bit. I'll be laughing in the next room for a while. Just respond any old time and we'll see what else you come up with.
What, couldn't cut and paste a response to that one Peg? Try checking my words against the Bible. I'll help you. Many of you fully agreed with my statements re obedience several threads ago. Am I now wrong because it doesn't suite your purposes? God never made a blanket promise of protection absent obedience. The definition of the Church is the people who make up the body of Christ - the Sheep. The definition of a sheep is given plainly in John 10 - those who hear and obey Jesus. Obedience. One cannot be afforded a promise without it. That includes your above quotation. If one stands in obedience the gates of hell cannot prevail. That they have against Catholicism is shown blatently in the fact that forgeries entered in, the inquisitions were held, the crusades were held, and from the 9th through 16th centuries the Catholic Church was ruled by men so debouched as to make soap operas and modern R movies look like Childs play. If that's not the Gates of hell prevailing, what is? The Devil prevailing doesn't mean he wins altogether, we already know the devil loses in the end. But he sure had his way for hundreds of years in Catholicism. So your illusion of protection is laid bare in your history. There is and never was any such protection on catholicism or any other sect. The only protection is an assurance that so long as God's sheep hear, obey and follow him, he'll give us victory and not lead us astray. That is protection. Victory is victory over the devil - victory over sin. The ability to suppress and deny our carnal nature - favoring and clinging to righteousness and holiness - hating sin and rebuking it at every turn. That is victory, that is protection. Without God, no one can do those things.. no one. It's got nothing to do with carnal desire to proclaim whatever you wish, do whatever you wish and call it blessed of God and untouchable by the devil. There is no protection of your leaders or laypeople from going astray - unless they are 100% in God's will. Doing their own thing is not God's will. If you want scripture to back it up, just ask. I'll pour it on. I've said much of this before and provided verse for it, it's no trouble to do it again for this application of the same principles.
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.