The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 151

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 1-50

Threads 51-100

Threads 101-150

[ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton]

Quick, Havoc, call Bush and tell him to target the Catholics NOT the Teliban!

[ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton]

I myself am an EX Protestant who used to think EXACTLY like you, and I can tell you, that ALL your points are FULL OF CRAP!

[Conservative til I die]

What the heck are you talking about. Jesus Christ spoke Aramaic, not Greek, Latin, middle English, or "Today's English Version" English. Are you telling me that I need to find you a modern Aramaic version for you to believe me????

Jesus Christ spoke Aramaic. "Cephas" is the equivalent of Peter in Aramaic. "Cephas" is the rock. "This Cephas" is what the Church is being built upon. Case closed.

It's you that is playing the word games, either dishonestly or ignorantly choosing to use the Greek translation rather than the original Aramaic.

John the Evangelist referred to SImon Peter as Cephas for a reason.

[Havoc]

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.

Sorry, almost missed this. Can't let you get by with mistating the facts. I did not "hang my hat" on a single verse. I hang my hat on the entire texts of the complete works of Paul - Primarily I Timothy & II Timothy, I & II Peter and the Book of Revelation. Not just content; but, where they are placed in history and their authority as accepted cannon.

I Timothy provides the groundwork needed to show where Timothy's responsibilities lay. II Timothy in dating against I Peter provides a timeframe for actions taking place. The entirety of Paul's collection is necessary for establishing the whereabouts of many others in motion. It is necessary to show that in fact, by the time of the writing of I Peter, Sylvanus hadn't been with Paul for 10 years. Much ado is made about Sylvanus being a companion of Paul. But Mark was too. And yet both were then companions of Peter at the writing of I Peter. And Paul had to send to get Mark from Peter.

Knowing the Bible gives us a lot more context than just what was taught. And it's context that you can't ignore if you want truth. But you aren't attacking my position because I based it on a single verse. You're saying I'm basing it on a single verse to detract from the weight of the argument. How about some scholarship instead of mischaracterizations and hollow citations.

[Conservative til I die]

LOL, Havoc's talking smack about the Jesuits? Methinks he's never been within 200 ft. of a Jesuit. I was educated by the Jesuits in high school. They are good folks. Very good.

[dignan3]

That came from an ex-Jesuit who knew very well what the jesuit charter was. I think his exact verbage included "The civil surveillance of society" - upon which he elaborated. It's got to be funny of it's an ex-Catholic. Must be a conspiracy because it's a disgruntled ex..

Who was this ex-Jesuit? How did you come upon this information?

Pray for John Paul II

[vmatt]

"And it's context that you can't ignore if you want truth."

My dad used to say "if" was the biggest word in the dictionary. He proves right in this case. Catholics already have thet truth and they know it. From there it's just a matter of attacking anything that deviates, and all their false prophets have armed them well.

[Havoc]

Quick, Havoc, call Bush and tell him to target the Catholics NOT the Teliban!

Sorry, China; but, a call like that - even joking - isn't even funny right now. Attacking Catholics with military force is about as correct an action as attacking Muslims with military force just for being what they are. It is wrong. I will note that at least you had the decency to say Teliban rather than Muslims, unlike others who seem to think that Killing all Muslims is the answer to the recent crisis. If Catholics what to repeat the inquisitions or the Crusades, however, i'd have no problem with this country targeting Catholic troops just as I have no problem with targeting modern terrorists of any religion.

[ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton]

Post to Everyone.

Before you quote any source, please have Havoc look it over for reliability, since he is the only one in the world smart enough to tell whether it is reliable or not.

In fact, he is smarter than the Pope, Mother Theresa, Saint Kolbe, Padre Pio, and Saints throughout history, not to mention over 1 billion Catholics worldwide combined.

The apostles in the new Testament seem pale in comparison!

NOT!

[RobbyS]

Tradition properly speaking refers not to custom but to underlying principles. The primacy of Peter doesn't mean that Peter was a "pope" like Innocent III but means that he was the person closest to Christ. Ironies abound in history. The Vatican was originally the place where Peter was crucified, and his martyrdom did more than any recognition by an emperor to authenticate his successors' in the scheme of things. The mantle of pontifex maximus, which at one time was held by Julius Caesar, came finally to rest on the shoulders of the successors to the fisherman. Paganism triumph, Harvoc would say. I say that the Good Lord has a sense of humor. Bottom rail on top.

[ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton]

What kills me about you is that you and other of your ilk think that you are being reasonable!

Of course, so to the White Supremists or the Teliban I suppose.

They have good medications for mental problems like yours, you should check it out!

[Havoc]

I myself am an EX Protestant who used to think EXACTLY like you, and I can tell you, that ALL your points are FULL OF CRAP!

You may want to try gass-ex, China. Then you might consider addressing yourself to specifics. You might also try making a point with some authority for once rather than just flatulating, it might make you appear intelligent. Are you here to offer something, or just to name call and disrupt? If you wish to name call and disrupt, please leave. If you have something to offer, offer it and we'll see who is full of crap. So far the winner of the day is Pegleg.

[Havoc]

What the heck are you talking about. Jesus Christ spoke Aramaic, not Greek, Latin, middle English, or "Today's English Version" English. Are you telling me that I need to find you a modern Aramaic version for you to believe me????

Where's the Aramaic text. If you are going to Quote from it, darn tutin you're going to present it! Don't give me this stuff from nonexistant authority and tell us it's scholarship. Boy you guys need oxygen and time out of the sun don't you!

Jesus Christ spoke Aramaic. "Cephas" is the equivalent of Peter in Aramaic. "Cephas" is the rock. "This Cephas" is what the Church is being built upon. Case closed.

Sorry, you're making a case from nonexistant evidence. You and Pegleg are two sides of the same stinkin coin today. Pegleg at least gave a citation to stuff that in no way supported his argument. You want to base an argument on evidence that doesn't even exist, that you cannot cite and draw authority from it. I'm trying very hard to find words to describe the affront that poses. No wonder truth really doesn't matter at times to you guys. You just make it up and base something on it - doesn't matter if it's true or not.

It's you that is playing the word games, either dishonestly or ignorantly choosing to use the Greek translation rather than the original Aramaic.

What original Aramaic? Where is it? Produce it that we may pour over it and read it for ourselves! When you can produce it and it can be subtantiated, you can quote from it all you wish. Making it up is not scholarship. And it isn't acceptable as evidence of anything more than your unwillingness to deal with reality.

John the Evangelist referred to SImon Peter as Cephas for a reason.

And that matters to what extent? Simon was called many things and can be called many things. Coward would be as fitting as any at one point in his life. Cephas was not documented as being used in the verse you want to play word games with. And how it would have been written in Aramaic is speculation on your part - supposition - GUESSING. Thank you very much.

Sorry, if you want to debate me with me, I've got no problem with having evidence presented. But when you start fabricating junk history, you are going to be called on it. It has no weight with me.

[Havoc]

LOL, Havoc's talking smack about the Jesuits? Methinks he's never been within 200 ft. of a Jesuit. I was educated by the Jesuits in high school. They are good folks. Very good.

I care, really. Talking smack about jesuits and quoting an ex Jesuit or paraphrasing him is not one in the same; but, you invent evidence that doesn't exist and quote it. So, I'm not to concerned with what you think on the subject.

[Conservative til I die]

For some reason Protestants, and specifically fundamentalists like a Havoc, seem hellbent on reinventing the wheel. Rehashing things that were settled 1500, 1600, 1700, and even 1800 years ago, and were agreed upon until the Reformation. Things like the Papacy, Peter being known as Cephas, Peter in fact being referred to as the Rock on whom the Church was built, the legitimacy of certain books of the Bible, faith, works, and grace, Scripture and Tradition, the sacraments, etc etc.

Of course, as we move further and further past the Reformation, we have truly odd developments, with quasiChristian cults "reinventing the wheel" once again, rehashing actual heresies such as Modalism, Arianism, Monarchianism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, and MOnophysitism.

And just as scary, there is also a move in a different direction, with gay priests, female priests, female gay priests, married priests, married female gay priests, ad nauseum, New Age-ism, enivronmentalism, approval of divorce, approval of abortion, and more. Soon we'll be seeing a mixture of married, gay, female transgendered priestesses with L.Ron Hubbardism, if things keep up the way they are going.

I decide to stay put with unchangeable truth. The Catholic Church seems to be the only one teaching this today. Not to say that non-Catholics are bad or anything, with the Copts, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, and people like Billy Graham out there.

[Conservative til I die]

Holy crap, dude! Jesus spoke Aramaic! What the heck do you want from me, to telepathically summon Jesus to your house and make him recite "See Spot Run" in Aramaic?????

I've known the man spoke Aramaic since I was in 1st grade religion class! THis is what I mean, why do you guys always have to keep Reinventing the wheel?

[OLD REGGIE]

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 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."

. . . This is one of the reasons I've stuck so closely to this issue.

I understand your point and I agree there has never been any proof that Peter was in Rome. Conversely, there is no proof that he wasn't there. I just don't think it is important to the story of the Papacy whether he was there or not.

I haven't been around throughout the entire history of this topic, but I suspect one of the reasons you have stuck so closely to this issue is because you are stubborn. Having said that, I believe your "opponents" will not be convinced by truth or logic. In the final analysis the answer will be; "This is what my Church tells me sot it must be true."

You see, I believe it is easier to prove there never was a Papacy established in the first place, consequently, who gives a damn whether Peter ever was in Rome or not.

[Uri’el-2012]

Before you quote any source, please have Havoc look it over for reliability, since he is the only
one in the world smart enough to tell whether it is reliable or not.

In fact, he is smarter than the Pope, Mother Theresa, Saint Kolbe, Padre Pio, and Saints
throughout history, not to mention over 1 billion Catholics worldwide combined.

The apostles in the new Testament seem pale in comparison!

NOT!

I thought you had bid us a not so fond farewell !

NOT !

Read and obey G-d's Word !

Not the word of some man in Rome.

Tehillim (Psalm) 119:105 Your Word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path.

XeniaSt

[the808bass]

Hows things?

Other than the obvious, pretty good.

As for Mt. 16:18, Jesus promised that he would build his church on the rock (Peter) and the gates of hell would not prevail (to have power over, overpower, prevail against ). From this the Catholics assert that Jesus promised perfect doctrine to his church. I do not see that promise, especially in this verse. I see the promise that God's people will not be overtaken by the gates of hell. I'm not sure how that translates into perfect doctrine or still more, how it only applies to the RCC.

The Kingdom of God is not the RCC, nor is it even the church. It is the rule and reign of God (scroll down to definition III). When you assert that the Kingdom of God is equal to the church, you have a fundamentally lacking view of what the Kingdom of God is. The view that the Kingdom of God is the church just does not fit with the full range (esp. of the Gospels) of statements concerning the Kingdom.

[Conservative til I die]

Sounds to me like you know I'm right. It must be nice to be you. Sitting on your cloud, not having to actually interact with any of the groups you trash.