Separated at birth?
Posted on 09/29/2001 7:49:58 PM PDT by malakhi
| Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. |
| Threads 1-50 | Threads 51-100 | Threads 101-150 |
The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 151
I would say "But only four Gospels which stand up to historical analysis and were accepted by the early Church." What sort of "historical analysis" do you suggest the four canonical gospels stand up to? It seems to me that they were deemed canonical precisely because they most closely supported the theological beliefs of those who chose the canon.
History shows that these men were very quick to condemn deviations from Apostolic doctrine.
And the "heretics" condemned the "orthodox". The winner determines what is heretical and is orthodox.
which is one reason they forged gospel accounts to support their heresies.
What is your evidence that heretics "forged" gospel accounts? Can you provide any real evidence that noncanonical gospels are any less historically reliable than are the canonical gospels? I think you are on safer ground if you simply argue that the canonical gospels were deemed canonical because they were selected by a church council which was divinely guided.
But we can demonstrate the historical continuity of the orthodox with the teachings of the Apostles and their succesors.
Only by referring to the gospels and writings that were declared canonical by those who drew their doctrine from those particular gospels and writings. This is tautological.
They cling to the fact they are Catholic, and feel spiritually safe, but know nothing about Christ the Savior, and can not discuss religion or their belief, because they have never sat down and asked themselves, what does the Bible really say.
How exactly is it that your wife, and other nominal Catholics, can go through life attending weekly Mass, and end up saying they know "nothing" about Christ?
How is this possible? A Catholic who pays a modicum of attention during Mass, who goes every week for life, should at least have a knowledge of the events and stories and teachings of Jesus. Is this not included when you say they know "nothing" about Christ? Surely the Mass is meant to relive the defining moment of time, when Jesus died for us. A Catholic who goes to Mass every week for life never put together the fact that Christ is Our Savior?
What exactly do you mean that she knew "nothing" about Christ the Savior?
Seriously, I find it interesting. Maybe you mean something different than I do.
For many years it was hidden from them by being taught in Latin,
LOL. You picture perhaps, a group of 1st graders starting CCD and the Father comes up to them and teaches the entire lesson in Latin. LOL.
Forever, the Church has taught her people, especially her children, in the language they understand. Seriously, do you think when the Church held Mass in Latin they did everything in Latin? They taught people abotu Christ in classes and such using the common tongue. Latin is the language of the Mass, but even these words were explained to the children. Heck, the Missals even have side-by-side translations of Latin and English.
To use the use of Latin as a sinister plot to keep people ignorant is just so funny. Think about it.
but then when that was stopped, they were left with an old English writing that unless you had read it since childhood, you couldn't understand what it said
Even the English texts used were too difficult for the poor dumb Catholic folks to understand. I guess if they were spoon fed the KJV from birth it would be OK. LOL
and when they bought a NAB or a Living Bible, even though it was put out with the Catholic Churches blessing, they were still told it was a Protestant influenced translation, that couldn't be trusted.
The NAB is iffy, but did receive an imprimitur and nihil obstat. There are certainly better translations, but the fear is not that they are "Protestant influenced." The worry is, as always, that people will empower themselves to create their own deviant theology.
Most Catholics have been taught from the Church that when someone tells them that the Bible states thus and such, to simply say, if it's not the Catholic Bible, you haven’t got the complete Bible, therefore your Scripture means nothing to me.
Not quite. With certain exceptions, the incomplete text of a Protestant Bible is useful for reading. Again, it's when you become assured that the Holy Spirit has revealed to you (and you alone) the true Truth, hidden from generations of other Christians, that problems begin.
Even the Devil can quote Scripture, remember?
SD
Was it that the one who claimed him first got him as their founder? Even if he knew nothing about them?
That Church that Peter was part of the foundation as were the rest of the apostles, went out all over the world, as the planting of a seed, and now it is being harvested in abundance.
Congratulations! You're the one thousandth person to bring up this passage. That you can't see the difference between the qualifications of a bishop and the absolute prohibition on women speaking at the service is beyond me. The qualifications can be altered here and there, tightened actually. But there is no wiggle room for women. No means no.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Is there wiggle room for a celibate clergy? Must a Bishop be the husband of one wife and must he have children?
"The qualifications (for a Bishop) can be altered here and there,..."
One more time:
1 Tim.3
[1] The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task.
[2] Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher,
[3] no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money.
[4] He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way;
[5] for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God's church?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
How do you alter the word MUST?
1 Timothy 2:
12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.
You ignore that this is a letter from Paul to Timothy where Paul is speaking for himself only.
What does I mean to you? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[2] Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher,
...[4] He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way;
How do you alter the word MUST?
So you are an absolute literalist then? If the man and his wife can not have kids, he can never be a bishop? If they have kids but the one acts up a bit, maybe takes the car for a joy ride, or is caught drinking underage, then man can not be a bishop?
I'll give you points for consistency.
The word "must" seems to apply to the general idea of a Bishop being a man above reproach. The rest are examples of what this means. (Having good kids, one wife, dignified, hospitable, etc.)
You ignore that this is a letter from Paul to Timothy where Paul is speaking for himself only.
You ignore everything I said in my last post.
SD
Its a sobering thought knowing that the road to the SB still goes thru Baltimore. Ravens still look like better team. Didn't notice that shannahan and bush look alike. Shannahan's nickname around here is ratface. If you watch his mouth and teeth you'd see why. lol
That of course would explain why I have yet to see you quote a scripture.
I know that you prefer to pick and choose words and sentences to attack, and ridicule and belittle, since you prefer to fight your battles with clever clichés and smart quips, and even resort to name calling, but if that is your way of doing things, help yourself, I doubt seriously if anyone on the threads consider you anymore then a Catholic Dershowitz.
Since this argument goes back to the same one you had with Becky, over how your own people perceive what your Church is teaching and what you think is being taught, as with you arguing that you do not teach the worship of Mary verses what most Catholic members are coming away with.
If 98%(not documented as fact) of Catholics come away from your Church thinking that a relationship with Mary is as, or more important then a relationship with Christ, then you are teaching that message, and sticking your head in the sand as to why they perceive it when you don't feel that it is the message you are giving.
If it walks like a duck.........
Nevermind.
SD
Consider it neverminded. :-)
Was Peter Ever in Rome?
The second avowal of the Roman hierarchy concerning Peter is that he was bishop at Rome from 42 A.D. to 67 A.D, when he was crucified under Nero. If Peter was in Rome during those years, then the New Testament cannot be relied upon.
There is not the faintest, slightest historical foundation for the fiction that Peter ever saw the city of Rome.
1. Paul was converted about 37 A.D. He says in the first chapter of Galatians (Gal. 1:13-18) that after his conversion he went into Arabia, "then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days." This takes us to 40 A.D., and Peter is still in Jerusalem.
2. Sometime during those days Peter made his missionary journey through the western part of Judea, to Lydda, to Joppa, to Caesarea, and back to Jerusalem (Acts 9, 10, 11). Then came the imprisonment under Herod Agrippa I and the miraculous deliverance by the angel of the Lord (Acts 12). Peter then "went down from Judea to Caesarea and there abode" (Acts 12:19). Herod Agrippa died not long after these events (Acts 12:20-23). Josephus says that the death of Agrippa occurred in the fourth year of the reign of Claudius. This would be about 45 A.D., and Peter is still in Palestine.
3. Paul writes in the second chapter of Galatians that fourteen years after his first visit to Jerusalem to visit Simon Peter he went again to see him. The first journey was 40 A.D.; fourteen years later brings us to 54 A.D., and Peter is still in Palestine.
4. Peter returns the visit and goes to Antioch where Paul is working. This occasioned the famous interview between the two recorded in Galatians 2:11-14. Peter is still in the Orient, not in Rome.
5. After 54 A.D., and after the Antioch visit, the Apostle Peter makes an extensive missionary journey or journeys throughout the Roman provinces of the East. On these missionary tours Peter takes his wife (I Cor. 9:5). They labor in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. So vast a work and so great a territory must have consumed several years. This would take us, therefore, to at least 60 A.D., and Peter and his wife are still not in Rome but in the East.
6. In about 58 A.D. Paul wrote a letter to the church at Rome. In the last chapter of that epistle, Paul salutes twenty-seven persons, but he never mentions Simon Peter. If Peter where "governing" the church at Rome, it is most strange that Paul should never refer to him.
Romans 1:13 shows that the church at Rome was a Gentile church. At the Jerusalem conference (Gal. 2:9), it was agreed that Peter should go to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles.
The gospel ministry of Paul was motivated by a great principle which he clearly repeats in Romans 15:20: "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation." A like avowal is made in I Corinthians 10:15,16. Where no other apostle has been, there Paul wanted to go. Having written this plainly to the people at Rome, his desire to go to the Roman city would be inexplicable if Peter were already there, or had been there for years.
7. Paul's first Roman imprisonment took place about 60 A.D. to 64 A.D. from his prison the Apostle to the Gentiles wrote four letters - Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon. In these letters he mentions many of his fellow Christians who are in the city, but he never once refers to Simon Peter.
8. Paul's second Roman imprisonment brought him martyrdom. This occurred about 67 A.D. Just before he died Paul wrote a letter to Timothy, our "II Timothy." In that final letter the apostle mentions many people but plainly says that "only Luke is with me." There is never a reference to Peter.
We have gone throughout those years of 42 A.D. to 67 A.D., the years Peter is supposed to have been the prince and bishop and ruler of the church at Rome. There is not a suggestion anywhere that such a thing was true. Rather the New Testament clearly and plainly denies the fiction.
The Bones Of Peter
by Dr. W. A. Criswell
=============================================
(I'm guessing it's not Notre Dame)
SD
Separated at birth?
Great Post Reggie. Thank you, JH
What you consider "the early Church" was one part of the early Jesus movement. My whole point is that at this stage in Christianity, there WAS no established canon. These and other gospels were used by early Christians.
Give it up angelo. Calling the Gnostic Gospels orthodox would be like my saying that "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" represents authentic Judaism.
Let me TRY to be painfully clear. What YOU call "orthodox" is the version of Christianity which emerged the victor of the battles and councils of the first few centuries C.E. Now, you can say that this victory was ordained by God, and that the doctrine that carried the day is the divinely-inspired doctrine. And I would allow you that, as something you believe as a part of your religion. But had Marcion carried the day, you would be quoting Luke and some of Paul's letters, and referring to Matthew as a noncanonical gospel.
They don't stand up to historical scrutiny the way the others do. I'm pretty sure all the scholars agree they are forgeries.
I'll note that you did not provide the evidence I asked for. Many scholars do not believe that some of Paul's letters are authentic (i.e. that they were written by someone other than Paul). Many scholars doubt the authorship of the canonical gospels as well. Pseudonymous authorship is not just an issue with noncanonical works.
Exactly what historical scrutiny do the canonical gospels measure up to? There is very little in the historical record to either confirm or refute what the gospels describe.
I told you they were recognized by the early Church long before a Church council pronounced on the matter.
They were accepted by parts of the early church. Other parts (what you would call "heretical") did not accept all of these writings as canonical.
No, by looking at the non-canonical historical documentation left by the early Church.
Here is the way I see it:
1. There were many gospels circulating.
2. Some early church leaders accepted Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Some accepted one of them and rejected others. Some accepted what were later declared "noncanonical gospels" as authentic.
3. Church councils met to settle the issue. The party which favored Matthew, Mark, Luke and John prevailed (although, as I understand it, John was almost left out).
4. The church leaders that accepted the authenticity of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John prior to the canonizing of the Christian scriptures are referred to by you and your church as "church fathers". Those who disagreed are referred to as "heretics".
5. You look back and see the (later declared) canonical gospels, then church leaders who accepted them, then a church council which made them canonical, and you call this "orthodox" Christianity. Anything outside this tradition is called "heretical". Then you use the noncanonical historical documentation of the church leaders whose theology you favor, and use this to support your notions of orthodoxy.
This is why I think your argument is circular. It is self-referential. Again, I think you are on surer ground if you assert that God guided the church through the process of defining orthodox doctrine and establishing the canon of scripture. Others might disagree with this statement, but it is not a circular argument.
When I read this I was reminded of the article I had just recently read from the Catholic Encylopedia under
"Peter, the Tomb" Whats wrong with this picture?
When the Church was once more at peace under Constantine, Christians were able at last to provide themselves with edifices suitable for the celebration of Divine Service, and the places so long hallowed as the resting places of the relics of the Apostles were naturally among the first to be selected as the sites of great basilicas. The emperor himself not only supplied the funds for these buildings, in his desire to honour the memories of the two Apostles, but actually assisted in the work of building with his own hands. At St. Paul's, where the tomb had remained in its original condition of a simple vault, no difficulty presented itself, and the high altar was erected over the vault. The inscription, dating from this period, "Paulo Apostolo Martyri", may still be seen in its place under the altar.
They had no problem finding and reestablishing Paul's grave, but what do you suppose happened when they tried to move Peters bones? Something very strange, the Romans didn't want it removed because it had sentemental values reminding them of the age of persecution. What a Crock.
Only, the actual vault itself in which the body lies is no longer accessible and has not been so since the ninth century.
Read on,
At St. Peter's, however, the matter was complicated by the fact that Pope St. Anacletus, in the first century, had built an upper chamber or memoria above the vault. This upper chamber had become endeared to the Romans during the ages of persecution, and they were unwilling that it should be destroyed. In order to preserve it a singular and unique feature was given to the basilica in the raised platform of the apse and the Chapel of the Confession underneath. The extreme reverence in which the place has always been held has resulted in these arrangements remaining almost unchanged even to the present time, in spite of the rebuilding of the church. Only, the actual vault itself in which the body lies is no longer accessible and has not been so since the ninth century. There are those, however, who think that it would not be impossible to find the entrance and to reopen it once more. A unanimous request that this should be done was made to Leo XIII by the International Archaeological Congress in 1900, but, so far, without result.
ARTHUR S. BARNES
Transcribed by Judy Levandoski
Isn't this so tipical of anything that tries to put Peter in Rome, there is always a "YEH BUT"
Here's where the CathEn is outdated. Recently they did indeed uncover the tomb and sure enough there were bones in it. And there were ancient inscriptions in Latin identifying it as Peter's remains.
At St. Peter's, however, the matter was complicated by the fact that Pope St. Anacletus, in the first century, had built an upper chamber or memoria above the vault. This upper chamber had become endeared to the Romans during the ages of persecution, and they were unwilling that it should be destroyed.
This is Catholic-speak for "we know that it's not really a tomb, so we are making up a reason for not digging up the body."
That is, until we actually found a body and an inscription. But we all know that the Catholics threw any old body in there, named it "Peter" and waited 1100 years to show it off. That way they would accuse us of not having an actual tomb, then we would, after 11 centuries or so, surprise everyone.
SD
First error. Peter was married and that has been biblically documented in these threads - recently I might add.
Only Mark does not seem to vest in Peter this authority
Actually, no one seems to vest in Peter this authority - no one. If Jesus had entrusted anything so major to Peter, there is an incredible amount of evidence that no one honored it. Nobody. So either every other Apostle is in sin, or Peter wasn't anything greater than an Apostle. And I woulnd't even call him first among equals. If such a title applies to any of the Apostles, it would more properly belong to Paul.
Peter knew that the first must be last or in other words humble,
Humility does not require the allowance of what would be insubordination by Paul and the others when Peter was jerked back in line by Paul. If Peter had any authority at that point, it was his obligation to excercise it - not his right, his obligation. Yet no excercise of such authority can be shown.
but his humility prevented him talking about it.
Again, evidently it prevented everyone from talking about it or honoring it.
Jesus told him to feed his sheep,fish for men,gave him the keys
All are charged to feed the sheep - nothing greater than any other there. Fish for men, God made all his Apostles fishers of men.. Nothing special there. And the keys are given to all the Apostles - and then offered to all mankind. Every true Christian has the keys. They are two, salvation and obedience.
Jesus also rebuked him and that was to let him know that ..
He was rebuked because he was out of the will of God and TEMPTING God.
It was only after all of that that Christ again confirmed that Peter was to feed Christ's flock
Feeding the sheep is teaching. That is the job of every Apostle, every pastor and so on. It is not a divine office given to one man and one alone, nor to one man to pass on to only one man. It was given as direction for all. It wasn't Just Peter's responsibility.
the Gospels clearly point to the Primacy of Peter and the Papacy as instituted by Christ for a reason
There is no Primacy proffered in the Gospels or elsewhere in the NT - nor is it supported in the actions of Either Peter or any of the others. This is shown in example after example of the other Apostles pretty much telling Peter what to do, when he's wrong and excercising authority over him in other ways. It would be more accurate to say that no authority was given the others that was not also given to Peter. The only Apostle that really seems to have taken the bull fully by the horns was Paul. The only one that looks or acts like a leader, if one could say any existed was Paul. But there aren't verses to misquote or take out of context to raise Paul up on a Pedestal in some carnal praise misplaced in a man.
Peter was an Apostle - no more - no less. Pretty words don't lend any more credance to the absence of evidence. They might make one smile; but, they have little bearing on the truth.
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.